#rob bhaer

[joandfriedrich]

Jo, holding up Rob: Behold, my boy child!

[cypanache]

Look it’s late and I just have to say this. The fact I live in a time where Daniel Bruhl exists and there have been two new versions of Little Women filmed in the last decade and neither of them cast him as Professor Bhaer is just proof there’s something deeply wrong with the world.

(Robbed. We were robbed I say!)

[el-huddpudd]

"I wanted to do the romance. I wanted [Jo] to get Bhaer. I didn't want to rob us of that. And then I also wanted to ask, 'Why do we want this? Why do we need her to have that?'

There's fiction and then there's the writer of the fiction."

— 2019 Featurette, Women Making Art

Jo feels the intense pleasure and pain of being seen by someone, of knowing that they know you.

Greta Gerwig, why are you doing this to me

[warrenwaskilledbyadeer]

Has anyone on this website even read Little Men and am I the only one who actually likes it more than Little Women

[amycurtismarchlaurence]

Jo, holding Rob for the first time: He’s so beautiful.

Doctor: We’re going to have to give him some shots.

Jo: Oh hell yeah pour it up it’s his fucking birthday.

[the-other-art-blog]

My thoughts on Little Men Part 1: Jo and Frizt

I started this book with a bit of discouragement because I knew Amy wasn’t going to be in it. May had asked her sister not to write about her because of all the mail that distracted her. I’m sure she had her fans, but also there must have been tons of stupid people blaming her splitting Jo and Laurie. So, I was sad about it. However, I was pleasantly surprised by this sequel. I loved it!

I won’t go chapter by chapter, but by theme/characters this time.

The Bhaers

The image of Jo walking while reading, with little Ted following her is so sweet. And Fritz is also very affectionate to his kids. And I love how Jo treats Franz and Emil as her own.

Also, I’m developing this in another post, but I just have to say that I like Jo this time much more. She’s grown!

And it’s great that she had sons. Poor Demi, without Ted, Rob, Franz and Emil, he would have been the only boy. So I guess that is a big thanks to Friedrich.

She also knows that liberty is not doing whatever you want not minding others. Liberty is an act of responsibility and Dan needs to learn that. I love how she identifies herself to Dan and Nan and decides to help them.

She’s really in her element here. Her dream is actually coming true. She has a school full of boys, which she always felt more comfortable with. She has a chance to educate them as best as she can. Plus, she built a beautiful family with Friedrich.

The marriage is a very happy one and I just love this quote for when Jo wanted to bring Nan to the school:

Now, if you make fun of my plan I'll give you bad coffee for a week, and then where are you, sir?" cried Mrs. Jo, tweaking him by the ear just as if he was one of the boys.

He was very sweet in getting the girls kites to make up for Daisy’s ball.

Also, I think it was great that even though Ted and Rob are their kids, they are treated with the equal firmness. And that makes them great parents. When Rob didn’t pick up the nuts in time, Fritz didn’t let him skip school. Ted is still very little, but Rob was made accountable for his laziness.

Little Ted killed with his cuteness so many times:

My Danny's tummin' soon.

Clapping his hands at the end, he made another double salutation, and then ran to hide his head in his mother's lap, quite overcome by the success of his "piece," for the applause was tremendous.

Plumfield

That school is amazing! We already knew the Marches reproved corporal punishment when Amy gets whipped by her teacher. In fact, Jo tells a story about how one day she ran away and Marmee whipped her. Her mother felt absolutely ashamed and never did it again.

She never whipped me but once, and then she begged my pardon, or I don't think I ever should have forgiven her, it hurt my feelings so much.

Why did she beg your pardon?–my father don't.

Because, when she had done it, I turned round and said, 'Well, you are mad yourself, and ought to be whipped as much as me.' She looked at me a minute, then her anger all died out, and she said, as if ashamed, 'You are right, Jo, I am angry; and why should I punish you for being in a passion when I set you such a bad example? Forgive me, dear, and let us try to help one another in a better way.'

Knowing this, it is understandable why she preferred to talk to Amy rather than doing something more drastic when she burned the book. She made Amy understand her wrong and tried to make peace between the sisters:

My dear, don’t let the sun go down upon your anger. Forgive each other, help each other, and begin again tomorrow.’

But back to this book, Plumfield is quite unique. The boys are there to learn about philosophy, math, science, literature, etc. All the things a regular school would teach. But Jo and Fritz go beyond that. The kids live there, so they are also responsible of teaching them about life. They have a garden, pets (one of which is called Christopher Columbus!!!!) and thanks to Laurie, a museum. Plus they can go into business! Which teaches them responsibility for their own money rightfully earned.

They’re firm but fair.

I absolutely love the idea of a weekly pillow-fight. The Bhaers invest a lot of time making sure moral lessons stick as much as the intellectual ones. And they have learned that kids should be kids and therefore they can’t just order them around. Part of educating a child is also letting them learn the limits and make decisions for themselves. 

The school must have a good reputation in town. Although the school accepts poor kids, they also have wealthy ones. Laurie and Amy already plan in sending Bess there too. I wonder if it transcended to other parts of Massachusetts, maybe Boston??? Nan’s father certainly liked it enough to sent her there, even though it only had a girl in it. The nineteenth century was opening to the idea of mixed schools, but it still something new and not everyone liked it. In 1862, Amy’s school was exclusive for girls. Boys need to learn to be kind to girls. And they all help each other be better people. More on the girls in another post.

They let each child develop its personality and help them transform their hobbies into things that can be useful for everyone.

[funkymbtifiction]

What version of Little Women do you prefer? Do you have different favorites for each role?

I like most adaptations, but of the two recent ones, I like the new one best for Jo and Laurie (he looks the right age, and she is 100% Flawless and Perfection) and its feminist /asexual slant, but I like the 1994 one best for its Jo / Professor Bhaer, costume design (immaculate) and gorgeous score. I also like that the story plays out in a linear fashion and thus, doesn’t rob you of its emotional beats (like Beth’s death) as much as the new one does. I like Florence as the adult Amy the best, but you just can’t beat Kirsten Dunst’s “brat” Amy for the younger one. She was Fierce.

- ENFP Mod

[claudia1829things]

“LITTLE WOMEN” (2019) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (2019) Review Ever since its release in movie theaters back December 2019, many moviegoers have been in rapture over "LITTLE WOMEN", filmmaker Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 novel. The movie did acquire several acclaims, including Oscar nominations for two of the film’s actresses, Best Adapted Screenplay and an actual Oscar for costume design. I never got the chance to see it in theaters. I finally managed to see it on the HULU streaming service.

Anyone familiar with Alcott’s novel knows that it conveyed the tale of four sisters from a Massachusetts family and their development from adolescence and childhood to adulthood during the 1860s. The first half of Alcott’s tale covered the March sisters’ experiences during the U.S. Civil War. In fact, Alcott had based the March family on herself and her three sisters. Unlike previous adaptations, Gerwig incorporated a nonlinear timeline for this version of "LITTLE WOMEN". There were aspects of "LITTLE WOMEN" I truly admired. I did enjoy most of the performances. Or some of them. I thought Saoirse Ronan gave an excellent performance as the movie’s leading character Josephine "Jo" March. I thought she did a pretty good job of recapturing Jo’s extroverted personality and artistic ambitions. I do wish that Gerwig had allowed Jo to convey some of the less pleasant sides to her personality. Do I believe she deserved her Oscar nomination? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Although I thought she gave an excellent performance, I do not know if I would have considered her for an acting nomination. But I was more than impressed by Eliza Scanlen, who portrayed third sister Elizabeth "Beth" March. Although her story more or less played out in a series of vignettes that switched back and forth between the period in which she first caught the scarlet fever and her death a few years later; Scanlen did a superb job in recapturing the pathos and barely submerged emotions of Beth’s fate. It seemed a pity that she had failed to acquire any acting nominations. One last performance that really impressed me came from Meryl Streep. I have always regarded the temperamental Aunt March as a difficult role for any actress. And although I do not regard Streep’s interpretation of the aging matriarch as the best I have seen, I must admit that for me, she gave one of the best performances in the film. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Emma Watson, Laura Dern, Chris Cooper, Tracy Letts, James Norton, Louis Garrel, Bob Odenkirk and Florence Pugh, who also received an Oscar nomination for her performance as the youngest March sister, Amy. About the latter . . . I really admired her portrayal of the older Amy March. But I found her performance as the younger Amy rather exaggerated. And a part of me cannot help but wonder why she had received an Oscar nomination in the first place. Jacqueline Durran won the film's only Academy Award – namely for Best Costume Design. Did she deserve it? I honestly do not believe she did. I did enjoy some of her designs, especially for the older Amy March, as shown below:

I found the costumes worn by Pugh, Streep and many extras in the Paris sequences very attractive and an elegant expression of fashion from the late 1860s. Otherwise, I found Durran’s costumes for this film rather questionable. I realize both she and Gerwig were attempting to portray the March family as some kind of 19th century version of "hippies". But even non-traditional types like the Marches would not wear their clothing in such a slap-dash manner with petticoat hems hanging below the skirts, along with bloomers showing, cuts and styles in clothing that almost seemed anachronistic, and wearing no corsets. The latter would be the equivalent of not wearing bras underneath one’s clothing in the 20th and 21st centuries. Someone had pointed out that many of today’s costume designers try to put a "modern twist" to their work in period dramas in order to appeal to modern moviegoers and television viewers. I really wish they would not. The attempt tends to come off as lazy costuming in my eyes. And this tactic usually draws a good deal of criticism from fans of period dramas. So . . . how on earth did Durran win an Oscar for her work in the first place? I understand that "LITTLE WOMEN" was filmed in various locations around Massachusetts, including Boston and Cambridge. A part of me felt a sense of satisfaction by this news, considering the story’s setting of Concord, Massachusetts. I was surprised to learn that even the Paris sequences were filmed in Ipswich, Massachusetts. However, I must admit that I was not particularly blown away by Yorick Le Saux's cinematography. Then again, I can say that for just about every adaptation of Alcott’s novel I have ever seen. There were scenes from "LITTLE WOMEN" that I found memorable. Those include Jo March’s initial meeting with her publisher Mr. Dashwood; Amy March’s conflict with Theodore "Laurie" Laurence over his behavior in Paris; Jo’s rejection of Laurie’s marriage proposal, and especially the montage featuring Beth March’s bout with scarlet fever and its consequences. However . . . I had some problems with Gerwig’s screenplay. As I have stated earlier, "LITTLE WOMEN" is not the first movie I have seen that utilized the non-linear plot technique. I have seen at least two adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, "Jane Eyre". Two more famous examples of this plot device were the 1995 film, "12 MONKEYS" and two of Christopher Nolan’s movies – 2000’s "MEMENTO" and 2017’s "DUNKIRK". How can I put this? I feel that Greta Gerwig’s use of non-linear writing had failed the film’s narrative. It simply did not work for me. Except for the brilliant montage featuring Beth’s fate, it seemed as if Gerwig’s writing had scattered all over the place without any real semblance of following Alcott’s plot. If I had not been already familiar with Alcott’s story, I would have found “LITTLE WOMEN” totally confusing. I also feel that because of Gerwig’s use of the non-linear technique, she managed to inflict a little damage on Alcott’s plot. Despite the excellent scene featuring Laurie’s marriage proposal, I felt that Gerwig had robbed the development of his relationship with Jo. I also believe that Gerwig had diminished Jo’s relationship with Professor Bhaer. In the film, Bhaer had expressed harsh criticism of Jo’s earlier writing . . . without explaining his opinion. But he never added that Jo had the potential to write better stories than her usual melodrama crap. Why did Gerwig deleted this aspect of Professor Bhaer’s criticism? In order to make him look bad? To set up the idea of Jo ending the story as a single woman, because that was Alcott’s original intent? Did Gerwig consider the original version of this scene a detriment to feminist empowerment? I am also confused as to why Gerwig allowed the March family to push her into considering Professor Bhaer as a potential mate for Jo? This never happened in the novel. Jo had come to her decision to marry the professor on her own prerogative. She did not have to be pushed into this decision. Come to think of it, how exactly did Jo’s fate end in the movie? I am confused. Did she marry Bhaer after rushing to the train station in order to stop him from leaving for California? Or did she remain single? Whatever. And why on earth did she position Amy and Laurie’s first meeting after the former’s hand had been caned by her school teacher? Gerwig had transformed an incident that had taught Amy a lesson about self-respect and generated the Marches’ righteous anger against a schoolteacher’s abuse to one of comic relief and a cute rom.com meet for Amy and Laurie. What the hell? Someone had once complained that Gerwig may have assumed that everyone was familiar with Alcott’s story when she wrote this screenplay. And I agree with that person. Earlier I had questioned the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ decision to award the Best Costume Design statuette to Jacqueline Durran and nominate Florence Pugh for Best Supporting Actress. But I also have to question the organization’s decision to nominate Gerwig’s writing for Best Adapted Screenplay. I honestly believe she did not deserve it. There were aspects of "LITTLE WOMEN" that I found admirable. I was certainly impressed by some of the film’s dramatic moments. And there were a handful of performances from the likes of Saoirse Ronan, Eliza Scanlen and Meryl Streep that truly impressed me. But I cannot deny that the other members of the cast gave either first-rate or solid performances. In the end, I did not like the movie. I believe "LITTLE WOMEN" should have never been nominated for Best Picture. Greta Gerwig’s use of the nonlinear technique did not serve Louisa May Alcott’s plot very well. If I had not been familiar with the novel’s plot, I would have found this movie confusing. Aside from Ronan’s Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, I feel that the other nominations and Best Costume Design win were undeserved. And a part of me feels a sense of relief that Gerwig had never received a nomination for Best Director.

[esther-dot]

I never felt robbed of a Jo/Laurie romance because Laurie may have been the romantic ideal for the readers, but I never felt like he was Alcott’s.

Alcott attributed bookishness/intelligence to many of the love interests for her heroines, but unlike the (relatively) staid men she marries secondary characters to (Mr Brooke in Little Women, Sydney in An Old Fashioned Girl, Archie in Rose in Bloom), Alcott takes care that the primary love interests are not boring, and she idealizes a specific combination of intellectual worthiness, emotional maturity, and a certain virility.

How does she denote this? Well, it isn’t enough to be good or well educated or successful, to somehow earn the affection of the heroine, no, the suitor has to be two things to be worthy in Alcott’s books: nerdy and hairy. There’s Tom (An Old Fashioned Girl), Dan (Jo’s Boys), Professor Bhaer (Little Women), Mac (Rose in Bloom), the romance for all coinciding with a disproportionate consideration of books, beards and hair.

Untamed hair follicles may be a silly thing to focus on, but it pops up with startling consistency in Alcott’s novels as the nature of a preexisting relationship is about to change or as the means to denote the love interest for her heroine. While Mac, Tom, and Dan eventually get beards, Professor Bhaer is introduced with one; he’s eligible for marriage from day one. My point is, Jo isn’t shortchanged by her love interest. Alcott made Professor Bhaer the most intellectual and the hairiest of them all.

I’m not entirely serious about this idea, but I’m not entirely joking either!

And we won’t talk about the fact that Mac cuts his hair off because Rose says he looks like her father figure (yet mistakes him for the same man later) which makes all of this make a certain kind of sense. I know. I’m the worst. You’re welcome. 

[theresnobackstage]

Okay I saw Little Women (2019) last night and I am of two minds...

1. As someone who knows and loves (and sometimes hates) this story, the lack of linear story telling allowed me to look at specific characters' journeys in new, clearer ways. I didn't feel betrayed by Laurie and Amy at the end because the spotlight was so clearly on their relationship and, I would argue, less on Jo and Laurie's. And I could be more okay with their marriage ESPECIALLY because it didnt lead to Mr. Bhaer being thrown in as a last minute option for Jo. In fact, this adaptation did something that no other before it did, which was LET JO BE UNMARRIED. I certainly missed this while watching the movie, but after long discussions and reading reviews, it became clear that the real ending of Jo's story was her getting her book published (mostly) under her own circumstances. The scene at the train station with Bhaer and the one where everyone is happy at the newly opened school... those are the endings for Jo's heroine. Not Jo. She stuck to her wish to not get married, just as Louisa May Alcott did, and it was beautiful.

2. While I am ultimately grateful for what the non-linear timeline did for this movie, I do think it was made for those of us who already know the story, and that it robs newcomers of the suspense that an unfolding story can bring. How can you even have a chance to root for Jo and Laurie if you start the movie off knowing she rejects him and seeing his relationship with Amy bloom? How can you be shocked by Beth's death when its clear from the beginning that she is sick and was sick before? I would really love to talk to someone who had no prior knowledge of Little Women going in to this film, because I imagine it would be a wildly different experience than that of reading the book for the first time and watching everything unfold in order.

[protectwoc]

thots on little women (2019)

or, y’all are giving greta gerwig too much credit (part two)

The character arc that was changed the least from the source material, but that still manages to personally offend me the most, is, of course, Amy’s. It’s no secret that Gerwig is an Amy stan, or at least more of a fan of her than most people. I am as well, which is why I am so disappointed with this particular arc.

It’s honestly more disappointing because Gerwig handled parts of Amy’s arc extremely well, namely, her relationship with Laurie. Gerwig did an excellent job of making Amy and Laurie’s relationship feel less like a consolation prize since Laurie did not end up marrying Jo and more like a fully realized and reciprocal relationship, arguably more so than Alcott herself. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the Amy/Laurie relationship is not the only important part of Amy’s characterization in the novel, and unfortunately, it is in the movie.

Amy starts out the novel as a selfish twelve year old girl, which is evidenced in no other but the infamous book-burning scene. However, throughout the novel, she grows out of that selfishness and into a more selfless, self aware woman. (Again, whatever your thoughts on “learning to be selfless” as a trope in women’s narratives are not necessarily relevant.)

For example, in the first half of the novel, one of Amy’s most notable chapters deals with pickled limes. For anyone who only watched the movie or doesn’t quite remember the book, a short summary:

Amy, the only one of the March girls who attends school, is upset because the girls in her school have been trading pickled limes. The limes are seen as a status symbol, which can be traded for little trinkets, bestowed upon favorites, or indulged in in front of your enemies. The pickled limes trend has become so popular that the teacher, Mr. Davis, has banned them in the classroom, which has done nothing to curb their popularity. Amy, who is relatively popular among her classmates regardless of her relatively lower class status, has been gifted several limes but had no way to return them, is greatly “in debt.” When Meg gives Amy enough money to buy a whopping twenty-five pickled limes, she flaunts and preens her way around the classroom until a girl she snubbed tattles to the teacher and gets all twenty five limes taken away.

This scene is a good example of the beginning of Amy’s arc of overcoming her one major personality flaw. It shows how her selfish nature is really just immature behavior, and as she ages, she matures out of that childishness. Another good example of this arc happens when Beth contracts scarlet fever. At first, she complains, saying that she would rather contract the deadly disease than to go to her Aunt’s house, but as she remains there, we see her mature and even grow fond of Aunt March. Her personal arc independent of Laurie was a big part of Amy’s plotline, and it was unfortunately left out of the movie.

The most glaring example of this is the omission of one of the most important scenes of Amy’s arc in the book: the occurrences at the fair. Again, indulge me in a brief summary for those who won’t know exactly what I am talking about:

The mother of one of Amy’s friends, Mrs. Chester, holds a three day fair for all of the girls in Amy’s social circle. As Amy is the most talented and most well-liked of the girls, she has the best table at the fair, at the very front, where she is to sell her beautiful artistic creations. However, her friend, May Chester, is jealous of her, and seeing this, Ms. Chester takes the table from Amy and gives it to May, relegating Amy to the back corner to sell flowers. At first, Amy is incredibly upset, and takes all of her art back to the table with her, however, after talking with her family, who are properly indignant on her behalf, she resolves to be gracious and humble and gives her own drawings to May to sell. Seeing this, Jo tells Laurie to take all of his handsome, college-aged bachelor friends to Amy’s table, which he does, and they spend the entire next day of the fair flirting with her and buying every one of the flowers from Amy. On the final day of the fair Amy, who has entirely overcome her own selfish wishes, tells Laurie and his friends to go do the same to May. This string of selfless acts is seen by Aunt March and Aunt Carrol (who in the novel has half of Aunt March’s role in the movie) and is the premier reason behind Aunt Carrol deciding to take Amy to Europe instead of Jo.

Leaving this scene out of Amy’s narrative in the movie is, I think, unforgivable. The inclusion of this scene would have exponentially improved Amy’s arc, for three major reasons:

This scene is the culmination of Amy’s “selfish to selfless arc”. Again, regardless of your opinions on whether this is a good lesson for her to learn, it is an arc, and as the movie stands currently, she simply doesn’t have one. The occurrences at the fair show her finally growing out of her childhood vices into the mature woman we see in Europe, and to exclude this scene does her a disservice.

Prior to her trip to Europe, this is one of the only scenes in the novel where Laurie and Amy have any sort of interaction. If Gerwig wanted to more fully develop the Amy/Laurie romance I cannot imagine the logic behind leaving this scene out. It would make the romance seem less rushed, which has been a common critique of their love story since the book came out, and would even  provide context for Amy’s “Not when I have spent my entire life loving you” line which Gerwig added to the narrative.

As previously mentioned, this scene is one of the main reasons behind Amy being allowed to travel to Europe with Aunt March/Aunt Carrol. Within the movie, this reasoning is less obvious, especially given the fact that Aunt March had already told Jo she would take her to Europe, and the inclusion of this scene would have made the trip feel more earned for Amy.

Greta Gerwig has made no secret of the fact that she both a feminist and a fan of Amy March. I am both of those things as well, which is why I cannot understand her logic behind robbing Amy of a complete arc. In the movie, the most important parts of Amy’s arc are all tied to a man. Even that arc is not as fully developed as it could be. Gerwig did a magnificent job with Amy’s overall likability, but that is not the same thing as writing a fully realized arc for her.

But even though Amy is my personal favorite character, and I am more personally invested in her arc, Gerwig’s mishandling of Amy is not the most egregious sin committed in this movie. That honor is reserved for Jo’s arc.

Part Two: Jo

A Buzzfeed article entitled “The New ‘Little Women’ Makes Space for Jo’s Queerness” claims that “Gerwig’s adaptation, without being too explicit about it, does gorgeous justice to that [queer] reading.” An Advocate magazine article called “Greta Gerwig Brings Out the Inherent Queerness of Little Women” makes the bold claim that the 2019 Little Women “offers the queerest and most feminist reading yet.” An even bolder declaration by them magazine says that “The New Little Women Basically Proves Jo is Queer”. Gerwig has been lauded both by critics and by her own actors for creating an explicitly queer narrative for Jo March. 

As previously mentioned, I do not generally read Alcott’s Jo as queer. However, upon my first encounter with this headcanon, I could immediately see why so many people did see her this way, and why this interpretation is so beloved. Jo has a lot of non-stereotypically straight traits that have made her something of a queer icon in many progressive literary circles. Both the way she bemoans being “born a woman” and her intense desire not to marry spoke to a lot of queer or non-cis readers, many of whom were excited to see her portrayed this way on the silver screen. And though I am not particularly attached to this headcanon, as a bi woman, I too was excited to see her that way.

And then… I didn’t.

Look, I hate to burst y’alls bubble, but there is literally not a single second in the movie where Jo is anything resembling queer. At best, she could be read as aromantic/asexual, but that’s about it. (Note: Obviously I don’t intend to imply that being aro/ace is somehow “lesser than” being L G B or T, but obviously the form of queerness people were expecting is one in which Jo is explicitly attracted to women.) There are no subtle looks in the direction of another woman, no scenes in which Jo expresses any negative emotion towards the idea of marrying a man specifically. She doesn’t even have a single female friend outside of her sisters.

One of the reasons the 2019 Jo (and by extension, Laurie), have been hailed as queer icons is their relative gender fluidity. Jo and Laurie exchange clothes throughout the movie, which was intended to display their “gender fluidity”. I knew about this particular facet of the movie before going to watch it in theaters, so I was looking for these occasions specifically, and I still couldn’t tell that they were supposed to be gender neutral. Maybe that’s just me, because I don’t know a lot about civil war era clothing, but whatever.

The other reason that Jo is considered queer in the movie is her rejection of traditional Civil War era femininity. She doesn’t want to get married, and she has no interest in “girly” things like dresses or parties. But neither of those things are specifically queer. Being “not like other girls” as your premier personality trait is not queer, it’s just garden-variety misogyny.

Even Jo’s big scene where she laments her competing desire to stay unmarried and her intense loneliness, has nothing marking it as explicitly queer. “I’m so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for,” she bursts out. Love. Not love for a man. Not even marriage. She is decrying the entire concept of love.

“But Rae,” I can hear you asking, “what about the ending, where it’s implied she doesn’t marry Professor Bhaer and gets to publish her novel?” To that, there are two important things to consider. One: the ending is intentionally portrayed as optional. Even though it is heavily implied that Jo did not go off and get heterosexual married at the end, it is possible to ignore that ending or do some light mental gymnastics to make the two versions of Jo’s ending coincide. And I’m not just saying this as a worst-case-scenario, I actually have seen people do this, in fandom and my own life.

Secondly, even if you take the ending as completely factual, we still have all the scenes involving Bhaer previous to the ending to give some hint of Jo’s sexuality. We never see her even look at another woman, but she flirts with Bhaer and blushes when he looks at her and asks for his opinion on her work. Even ignoring the straight-as-default setting of most casual viewers, canonically, Jo has only ever shown interest in men. One man specifically, but still.

“But she could still be bi/pansexual, or suffering from compulsory heterosexuality,” I hear. And this is basically the crux of my argument. In fandom, you don’t have to assume straight as the default, and it's probably better not to. Bi/pan headcanons for “straight” characters are a good, positive way of adding to a fandom culture. However, when it comes to canonical representation, the opposite is true. Representation is not representation if it is not explicit.

I’m not saying that queer viewers cannot feel represented by Jo in this movie. I personally  feel represented by Hermoine Granger as a black woman, due to her “wild, bushy hair” and her penchant for social activism (SPEW). However, I cannot give JK Rowling credit for that representation because she had nothing to do with it. She did not do any of the hard work to actually make Hermoine a black woman. In the same way, we cannot credit Gerwig with adding queer representation to Little Women, because she didn’t.

Conclusion: The Response

I know reading this essay probably makes me seem like a Greta Gerwig-hater or like I disliked the movie. Both of those things are untrue. As previously mentioned, I loved the movie. I’ve watched the Amy/Laurie scenes of the movie like a hundred times already. I also don’t hate Greta Gerwig. This is the only movie of hers that I’ve seen, but I heard all about Lady Bird and its popularity, and I think the directing of Little Women was excellent. The fact that Greta Gerwig is a very talented filmmaker is not necessarily an arguable point.

I don’t believe that Gerwig had to fully develop any of the sisters. I don’t even think that Gerwig is required to add queer representation (or racial diversity for that matter) to her movies. Greta Gerwig decided to adapt an extremely white, cishet Civil War era book into an extremely white, cishet Civil War era movie. Hot take time: she is entirely in her rights to do that.

BUT. The thing that bugs me the most about the movie, and is basically the impetus behind me writing this essay, is the response to the movie. For whatever reason, Gerwig’s Little Women adaptation has been deemed more “woke” than it actually is. Little Women (2019) has been lauded for its strong female presence (even though there are only white, cis, straight women), for it’s development of the other, non-Jo sisters (even though it doesn’t), and for giving its lead space to be queer (even though she isn’t).

Greta Gerwig made an excellent film, but she did not do anything that has never been done before. I liked the movie, but I’m not about to go campaign for Greta Gerwig or the movie to win an Oscar. In general, we need to be less willing to acclaim those who do the bare minimum.

Again, I’m not good at writing conclusions. At a certain point I’m going to just start repeating myself, so I’m going to go ahead and cut myself off now. Again, if anybody has any opinions on this, agree or disagree, please come talk to me about it! I’d love to hear any other thoughts.

[joandfriedrich]

Do you have any headcanons of their sons and nephews?

I have a few for the Modern AU, I don't know if that is what you wanted but I wanted to share them.

Felix (Franz) and Ezra (Emil)

Felix and Ezra had been wards to Friedrich ever since they were babies, Ezra being born only a week and Felix when he was shy of turning two. Their parents die a week between each other, and they had no memories of their parents, and even had mistakenly called Friedrich “dad”, while Friedrich does everything he can to keep the memory of their parents alive in any way he can.

Celebrating Father’s day and Mother’s day the same way, with Friedrich sharing stories, pictures and even home videos of their parents and going to their graves to pay respect. But, both Felix and Ezra make sure to let Friedrich know how much they love and appreciate him as a surrogate father and Friedrich is always touched.

Felix is more quiet and nerdy compared to the goofy and outgoing Ezra, but they are both bright and mature boys, always ready to help their cousins, Kitty and Minnie, and they look up to Friedrich thinking he is one of the best men they have ever known. 

They call him Uncle Fritz, a nickname that only Minna had called him, and he was happy to hear them call him that, as if it was like hearing his sister again. He also taught them German in order to remain close to their roots, and it was always helpful whenever they wanted to talk in front of people without anyone knowing. 

He never tries to force the boys into anything they are not interested and allowed them to play with “girl” toys and dresses. Felix and Ezra played with baby dolls but only Ezra wore the dresses, which prompted many parents go up to Friedrich to say what he was doing is wrong. He’s always quip back that kids should be allowed to wear and play with whatever makes them happy.

Ezra had been questioning himself, feeling uncertain what he feels about his identity/sexuality, and feeling pressure from others to either conform or to figure what he is. Felix and Friedrich are his biggest supporters, to the point where Felix even got into a fight with another kid who was bullying him, and Friedrich, who’s not really confrontational, defended his nephew with all his might, which was the only time the boys had ever seen him be angry, but they were also incredibly impressed.

Once Jo came around, Felix is 15, shy of 16, and Ezra is 14, and they know instantly that something is happening between them, and they do what they can to help them along, suggesting they go to this play, or check out this café. No one is more happy to hear them getting engaged and have no problem calling her Aunt Jo.

The boys found a stray puppy, a German Shepherd, and took him home to try and clean him up. When Jo and Friedrich come home, they are surprised and uncertain if they wanted to add a puppy to their family, but the boys were so insistent and the puppy was too cute, they couldn’t resist. He was named Teddy, after her friend and due to his teddy bear looks, and was the best pet they ever had.

Robert and William (Theodore)

In my modern au, their youngest son is called William because the name was sort of ruined for me when I read a fanfic of Jo calling him Theodore because Laurie was the real father, and Friedrich kind of knowing and being sad but happy? It was weird, sad and totally out of character for everyone. That fic haunts me to this day and I wish I could have unread it.

Rob gets his name from his maternal grandfather, Robert March, and Will is named after his paternal grandfather, Wilhelm, who died when Friedrich was a boy. Details of Wilhelm can be found in the post “Modern Friedrich Timeline”. Which knowing their personalities, it makes total sense.

Rob is more like his father and Aunt Beth, gentle and thoughtful, but has a mischievous streak. Will gets his father’s sunny temperament and his mother’s lively spirit, laughing out loud at three months old, often compared to a young Jo. There are times that Jo looks at them together and thinks how they remind her of Beth and she when they were young.

Friedrich had experience with raising boys, and knows the ins and outs, while Jo, who had only been around girls, was worried she’d have a harder time, but with time, she felt herself becoming at ease with being surrounded by boys. People ask her if she ever regretted not having a girl or would try again for one, but Jo is more than happy with her pair and never regrets being the lone girl among boys.

Just as he did with his nephews, Friedrich would teach his sons to speak German, and Will would really cause mischief by saying some naughty things in front of people, making his family blush and suppress a laugh, with a talking afterwards alone, only to be caught by someone who knows German and his face would get so red you’d think he’d turn into a tomato.

Felix and Ezra are so hands on with the boys that Rob and Will see them as their older brothers and were very disappointed when they found out they were cousins. Even though they live in New York City, the boys always react seeing their cousins who still live in Concord as if they were meeting lifelong friends. 

Will came up with the nickname of “Professor Rob” due to him being practically a mini version of their father, which trickled down to everyone else in the family. “Wild Will” was given to him by pretty much everyone since he has such a wild energy about him, but everyone agrees that though he is wild, he uses his energy for good.

Rob is that kid who read like 150 books during one school year and gets an award for it, while Will is that kid who dominates sports, and continues on through earning scholarships. Rob would grow up to either being a professor, like his father, or a journalist. Will would enter the sports world, I imagine him doing well in hockey and even getting into the NHL. But no matter how different they are, they are each others best friend.

Hope these were something you wanted or at least somewhat. This was fun and I am sorry it took me a long time to get to this, but personal stuff got in the way and I just want to say thank you for your patience.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Little Women 2019, leaked vs. final script comparison, part 8 (last)

1) Christmas scene is pretty much the same. Original transitions from the family gathered at the table on Christmas day to the family gathered at Beth’s funeral. Final transitions to Jo running downstairs and then to the funeral. In the original Jo runs to the woods, in the final she stands by Beth’s burial place. 

2) Original script has a transition of the war ending and Lincoln’s assassination. Then to Meg’s wedding day. First scene omitted in final. Scene between Jo and Meg pretty much the same. Original hasn’t a montage of the wedding party, or the scene between Meg and Aunt March, Just the scene of Amy telling that she’s going to Europe with Aunt March. Both scripts cut to Meg and John at Dovecot.

3) Original script transitions to Amy on the deck of a ship, and then to Jo desperately trying to write, while Beth tries to comfort her saying that she’s glad she’s staying. Original script transitions to Jo and Marmee’s conversation in the attic after Beth’s death, final to Laurie’s proposal to Jo in the past. Both scenes are pretty much the same. In the original Jo holds Laurie after the proposal, he asks again and then leaves when she denies.

4) Both scripts transitions to Amy in Rome (original) Paris (final) mourning and waiting for Laurie. Scene goes the same. Instead of Laurie studying Amy and kissing her to stop her talking, we get this: “AMY(rush of words): It was not for you it was for myself. You are under no obligation to say anything or do anything, it was because I didn’t love him as I should. You don’t have to say anything, we never need to -- LAURIE: I love you. AMY (CONT'D) -- we don’t have to ever talk about. LAURIE: Amy, I love you. AMY (hearing for the first time): You do? LAURIE: More than anything or anyone in this world. AMY: But... LAURIE: You are first in everything. You do not have to accept me, but I love you, Amy March.Amy cries even harder. He kisses her. AMY: I love you, Laurie. LAURIE: I love you, Amy March.”. We were robbed, kids.

5) Both scripts then transition to Jo writing the letter to Laurie, and then the original to Jo boarding her train to New York, with her family there to bid her goodbye. Then to her walking through the streets of NY. Final omits the former scene. Both transition to Jo being awakened by Laurie in the present.

6) Both scripts follow exactly the same: Jo sees Amy, goes out, throws away the letter (with the weird half flashback to Jo and Laurie as children in the final), finds Mr. Laurence, burns her writings, starts writing her novel, sends some chapters to Mr. Dashwood, then Jo, Meg and Amy at Plumfield, then Mr. Dashwood’s answer, then Bhaer’s arrival, then flashback to Jo arriving to Mrs. Kirke, then back to the present...

7) Scene goes pretty much the same at the beginning, but... Laurie tells Bhaer that Amy is his wife, Bhaer gets some intelligence from it (How, if we never saw them talk about their families, I don’t know). Instead of the “I’m going West” joke, Mr. March says: “This country was built on immigrants, and they should all be heartily embraced.”. Final transitions to Mr. Dashwood’s house, original to the carriage scene.

8) Final script has the back and forth between Mr. Dashwood’s office and the scene at the train station, and then the book binding scene (which I really liked). Original has a longer scene with more dialogue between Amy, Jo and Meg, and then between Bhaer and Jo. Then it cuts to Mr. Dashwoods apartment. Then a transition of time, we see Jo and Bhaer at Plumfield with the students on a sunny day, then the family gathered in the garden. We get to know that Laurie and Amy’s child is named after Beth. We get a flashback of the girls playing as children. Then Demi comes running with a package. It’s Jo’s novel and we get to see her joy in having accomplished that.

[i-just-tardis-blue-myself]

Friedrich Bhaer didn't appear in the little women trailer and I feel robbed because Lou Garrel is playing the role and fuck thank you god and thank you greta Gerwig for that casting choice

[flaxeloquent]

Jo Didn't Start the Fire

When one is lucky enough to see song parodist Randy Rainbow and an excellent adaptation of Little Women in the same weekend, one writes a song parody. 

Little Women

Sisters four

Concord, Mass

Civil War

Beth’s bit—

I’ll admit

I about sobbed

Scorched dress

Sold hair

Who asked you, Professor Bhaer?

Pickled limes

Trying times

Greta was robbed.

Jo didn’t start the fire.

It was Amy’s rages

that destroyed the pages.

Jo didn’t start the fire.

No, she didn’t light it.

She just tried to write it.

*with apologies to Billy Joel

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2TCMypp via IFTTT

[halfwayinlight]

I just finished re-watching Little Men, the tv series from the late 90′s. and yet again I feel epically robbed that it ended with only two short season (13 episodes each). it’s so pure. I want to cry.

and be Jo Bhaer and write and open a boarding school for children which I would be amazing at helping kids and dreadful at running a business