|
Post by Admin on Jan 1, 2020 2:08:33 GMT
The latest film adaptation of Little Women has been savaged for failing to check the required inclusivity boxes, but critics slamming the “too white” film for its egregious displays of “privilege” have missed the point of cinema. Little Women has both liberals and conservatives seething over filmmaker Greta Gerwig’s choice to avoid overtly shoehorning contemporary politics, race relations, and more of the critical catnip that reviewers have come to demand into Louisa May Alcott’s saga of an impoverished Civil War-era family of girls coming of age in 19th-century America. By whining that the film’s struggling (but white!) characters are “too privileged,” these critics - knuckles white from fervent pearl-clutching - have merely put their own insatiable privilege on display. Once upon a time, reviews were consulted to determine the quality of a film; now they merely provide an overview of its social justice bona fides - and the writers want you to know that there’s nothing you can do about it. Uber-woke Teen Vogue puts Little Women up against the wall as a stand-in for all adaptations of classics which have the gall to retain the original characters, instead of replacing as many as possible with oppressed minorities. Sure, the “women” in Little Women are almost all members of the same family, so replacing just one of the sisters with a black actress would look a little strange. But because Gerwig neglected to flesh out one male character’s backstory from the novel onscreen, she should have given up any attempts at remaining faithful to the period, critic Natalie de Vera Obedos insists. It worked for Lin-Manuel Miranda with Hamilton! “A Little Women film that completely suspends disbelief and racebends every character seems entirely possible, and would have been major in terms of on-screen presentation,” she gushes.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 1, 2020 18:52:30 GMT
Eleven-year-old Emelia Foster is a “featured extra” in Greta Gerwig’s critically-acclaimed screen adaptation of Louis May Alcott’s beloved coming-of-age novel “Little Women,” which opened Christmas day.
Emelia plays Alcott’s alter ego Jo as a child in the final scene of the film, which stars Saoirse Ronan and Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame, among others.
The Parker Middle School sixth grader said she could see a lot of herself in Jo, who is a writer and the most independent and free-spirited of the four March sisters.
“I’m a Tomboy. I don’t like dresses. When I read the book, I realized she was a leader, and I try to be the leader of my friend groups,” said Emelia, just before she and her family and 15 or 20 friends headed over to Regal Cinemas in the Silver City Galleria for a viewing party Monday afternoon.
“A lot of my friends are crazy, including me, but I try to be mature,” Emelia said with a laugh.
Emelia said when she grows up she either wants to be an actress or a veterinarian. A veterinarian because she loves helping animals. And an actress because she enjoyed the “Little Women” experience so much – making new friends, getting dressed up in a costume, making believe she’s part of a different place and time.
Emelia’s mother Erin Foster said Emelia had never acted professionally before. But Erin happened to be looking at Facebook one day and saw a casting call for the movie, which was shot in and around Boston and historic Concord, where the novel is set.
The filmmakers were looking for people to play everyone from “infants to ragged old men,” Erin said. She sent in Emelia’s picture and one thing led to another.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2020 1:39:04 GMT
Who’s afraid of Little Women? Men, supposedly. They’re little. They’re women. And they’re terrorizing grown men everywhere, apparently. According to Washington Post columnist Monica Hesse, men are avoiding the latest adaptation of Little Women because they’re terrified they’ll be the only dude in the movie theatre. In a recent op-ed, Hesse notes that she’s received numerous emails from men who are nervous about seeing the movie, particularly without a female chaperone. You know, because people would think there was something deeply strange about a man choosing to see a film about women. Hesse is far from the only writer to have talked about Little Women’s supposed man problem. Vanity Fair has noted that the first public screenings of the film were largely composed of women – a factor they believe contributed to it only scooping two nominations for the Golden Globes and none for the Screen Actor Guild Awards. Similarly, New York Times critic Janet Maslin recently opined that “the Little Women problem with men is very real.” Maslin tweeted: “I don’t say that lightly and am very alarmed. In the past day have been told by 3 male friends who usually trust me that they either refuse to see it or probably won’t have time.” As we all know, when two male friends tell a cultural critic something, it’s a coincidence, but when three of them say it’s a Very Real Trend. So is all this true? Are men really avoiding Little Women because they’re worried it threatens their manhood or because they think a female-centered story is irrelevant to their lives? To test this hypothesis in a scientific way I polled three of my own male friends. One had never heard of the book or film, the other two were keen to see it and raved about the cast. Maybe my friends are just more into period drama than Maslin’s? Or maybe making sweeping statements based on a limited amount of anecdata is unwise? Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2020 0:33:11 GMT
“Little Women” holds a special place in the hearts of many. For some, it’s thanks to the nostalgia over a childhood book; for others, it’s because of the story — four sisters, all very different, coming together in a time of need. Many relate to Jo March, the rambunctious feminist writer who refuses to put her dreams on hold for a life that has been planned out for her. http://instagram.com/p/By5UL_iph49 The book has been adapted into film numerous times, with the 1994 version starring Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder garnering accolades from the Academy, including a nod to best costume design. http://instagram.com/p/B61iEldJXt4 But it’s hard to ignore the hype surrounding Greta Gerwig’s forthcoming adaptation. From award nominations to wild praise over costume design, it seems like this version of “Little Women” will also find its way into fans’ hearts — and closets. http://instagram.com/p/B6mNbBGpOei While the trend of dressing in 19th-century fashion isn’t necessarily new, it’ll likely be reborn ― or at least refreshed ― thanks to this year’s “Little Women.” Steeped in thoughtful costume design, the movie shows how various characters take on femininity.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 7, 2020 1:35:24 GMT
Not again, I thought. How did Greta Gerwig get herself mixed up in this? I was at a movie theater, realizing that the trailer unspooling before me was for yet another adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women. I loved the book as a child, but as an adult I’ve always found it cloying. Movie versions have tended to be even worse. The thought of doing the stations of the cross one more time—the cutting of the hair; the burning of the manuscript; the catching of the scarlet fever—was out of the question. http://instagram.com/p/B6_gnf_p7p9 But could that many critics be wrong? I bought a ticket to see the movie, settled down for a long winter’s nap—and from the opening scene was in its thrall. Gerwig laid the story flat, cut it apart, and rearranged it; she added new sections and then turned the whole thing into a paper lantern—beautiful, unexpected, and glowing. She recognized what few filmmakers do when they approach a widely known story: Fans won’t countenance cutting major episodes, but they will happily see the story expanded in new directions. She understood that the wide familiarity with the story wasn’t a challenge but a fantastic opportunity. She’s given us Once Upon a Time ...in Concord, Massachusetts. The novel had an ending all of us hated, and she created one that changes everything. http://instagram.com/p/B685rdRJ9oo When a movie is this much of a triumph, there are bound to be complaints. “Little Women Has a Little Man Problem,” Vanity Fair; “Men Are Dismissing ‘Little Women.’ What a Surprise,” The New York Times; “Dear Men Who Are Afraid to See ‘Little Women’: You Can Do This,” The Washington Post. The male gaze is back! Only now we want it. Try to keep up. http://instagram.com/p/B6_qVXrpKrI It seems to me that the real feminist problem of this new Little Women is not that so many men don’t want to see the movie; it’s that so many women do. The movie has some explicitly feminist passages, dealing with the nature of marriage in the 19th century, and they are very good. The heart of the movie, though, is the private lives of the March girls, who are making a home together and following their natural talents in writing and acting in plays and painting and taking care of small children. Their STEM dreams are not being thwarted. Jo is not up in the attic making a rocket ship that the stupid patriarchy will ignore. If, as Christopher Lasch claimed, second-wave feminism represented the incursion of capitalist individualism into the life of the home, Little Women reveals that there was, and is, something powerful about domestic life, and that women (see the makeup of the audience) are particularly attracted to it.
|
|