Royale With Cheese

I do not know if I would go as far as saying that Beth is scolding Jo in the attic from the 1949 “Little Women.” It was an odd scene, Beth is very ghostly and seems to float toward Jo. I guess that goes along with the fact that she was dying, but she climbed up to the attic while she was in such a terrible condition. You also cannot see Jo’s face during the entire scene which was also odd. But coming back to the message Beth was trying to give Jo, she spoke to her silent sister about what was happening and told Jo not to tell their parents that Beth knew that she was going to die. I just did not see this remark as a command. I feel she was talking to her sister in a new way, an unrestrained way; people can do some crazy things right before they die.

To go to the idea of what I think is good and what I like, I’ll have to say that both the 1933 & 1994 (which, again, are the only ones I have seen) were good movies, but I did not like them very much. If I had liked the movies I would not had have such a hard time sitting through them. I just found them incredibly boring, I feel similarly about the novel, and I wanted to just turn them off at times. For some reason, I had a hard time getting through all of it. Someone in class noted the idea of a Coping Mechanism where viewers would latch onto a character they like so they can get through the film. With the 1994 version I latched onto Laurie, mainly because it was Christian Bale and he’s awesome (I recommend everyone go see “The Prestige”). He was the only thing helping me through the movie.

The movies were good though, they held fairly true to the novel and had decent acting with great portrayals of the characters. There are other factors that play a part in why they are good as well, we have discussed them in class. They are just not movies that I would want to watch again and again, or ever again for that matter. It’s kind of like when I watched Scorsese’s “Casino,” I saw the whole thing, uncut, once, and I do not really care to do it again any time soon. Great movie, but not one that I want to watch over and over again.

For the March 12 class.

I definitely try to look at the silent characters on the screen while anyone else is talking. I also try to observe the character’s surroundings for anything that might play a role in the movie as a whole. It is hard sometimes to do, because it is a habit to look at the person who is speaking. You can see inaudible people making certain faces or body movements in reaction to the speaker. I feel that when these silent people continue to act out what they think or feel from the situation, it makes the movie much more enjoyable. Everyone is separated into individual beings who can walk and talk on their own, without waiting their turn.

My favorite television show right now is LOST. Everything in the show connects with everything else, it’s awesome. There will be something in the background where the people are, and there will be a word or a picture that holds some relevance to the overall show. These sort of things are really cool and I like it when I am able to catch them. Well in last nights episode (3-15-07) one of the characters, Claire, was trying to set up a trap made of netting so she could catch some birds. She’s speaking to a Korean family who were also stranded on the island. (It would be way to hard to explain the show to anyone unless they have seen it. You can go to the iTunes Music Store and they have a FREE video called “The Lost Survival Guide” that will tell you everything that has happened up until now in the show. If anyone is interested.) The Korean husband, Jin, cannot fully understand everything Claire is saying, but she asks for his fishing netting. He does not move right away, because she continues talking. Then he understands what she is trying to do and turns to leave, but as he does so he lifts up his hand and shakily points it, as if he was making the statement “Oh, I got you.” Just little things like that make me feel really good for some reason. I don’t even know why or how to explain it. It’s like that happened and I said “That’s why this show is great.”

I can remember this happening in one scene from the 1994 “Little Women.” It is when Mr. Bhaer and Meg are walking toward the March house, and Laurie and Jo are walking behind them. Those followers never say a word to break the conversation, but I saw Laurie (Christian Bale is the man by the way) making facial expressions to show his curiosity in his teacher’s talk. It also happens with Beth’s eyes while Marmee was reading the first letter from father. She looks away in the distance, probably thinking and imagining her father at war.

I guess I just love sweating the small stuff.

The fact that Mickey Mousing is used during LeRoy’s adaptation of “Little Women” leaves me asking: Why?  The novel became a monumental work of literature that still lives on today, but I feel like LeRoy takes away from that stature when he presents the film with music that follows the characters’ movements.  I’ve been told this adaptation is not very good, and I have not seen enough of the film yet to make that distinction for myself.  But we saw a little of the movie in class and observed Jo jumping over the fence twice with the music following her every move, random shots that last too long and also just regular shots in general that last too long.  I guess in the end, even though I have not seen much of the film, I feel that LeRoy’s adaptation is not up to par with the novel.

I found it incredibly strange that in the 1933 adaptation of “Little Women” began with soldiers walking into town.  I know the way the camera was position and the direction of the walking soldiers in a way pulled viewers into the movie, but why is that the first scene you see after the opening credits?  The problem here is that the only time the soldiers are ever mentioned in the book and the rest of the movie is when the girls speak of their father.  Perhaps Cukor was trying to simply let the viewers know that there is a war going on.  Either way, I must say that the whole sequence was very out of place and confused me a little when I first saw the film.

Is an egalitarian marriage possible?

Maybe.  A relationship based in the idea of equality.  It can happen, but a few other things must happen as well.  For instance, the person who “wears the pants” in the relationship must take those pants off.  Figuratively speaking of course.  It is the way of human life, to dominate less prosperous beings.  The Egyptians did it to Jewish people, Whites did it to Blacks, the Nazis did it to Jewish people, and men have always done it to women, at least in the U.S. which is where this book takes place anyway.  Breaking down that socially constructed barrier restricting women from being just as prosperous and equal to men must happen in order for this form of marriage to occur.  This idea may seem far-fetched, but I believe Louisa May Alcott is attempting to show the possibilities of this event.  Amy and Laurie rowing the boat together, sit right next (equal) to each other in order to keep the boat (relationship) from tipping over.  Maybe Alcott is trying to say that for a marriage to be great and long-lasting there must first be equality between the husband and wife.

I’m basically going to talk about a few points that were brought up during class on Monday, and give my views on them.

First, it was said numerously that Beth should just die, she’s a tool, and even that she doesn’t bring anything to the table. The fact is, Beth IS the table itself. She is the perfect “little woman” of the book. She is the girl that the other girls want to be like. Selfless, generous, caring, loving, bearing gifts without any thought of getting something in return. She never truly cared about material things. There was her music, but she loved to play FOR people, as well as for herself. Beth is the Utopian March girl. Let me point out that, when they receive their first letter (that we see at least) from their father, every girl except Beth says something that they will not do anymore because they want to be what their father calls “little women.” Beth starts to say something, but then stops. Could that be because she doesn’t have any flaws? Maybe, but who really knows for sure other than Alcott? I’ll also say that I find it incredibly interesting that Beth, the ideal little woman, actually dies and takes that way of life with her. The other March sisters were nothing like her, and the world around Beth was more corrupt than she could handle. Beth could not exist in that world, so of course Alcott rubbed her out. Now I’ll ask a question. By snuffing out Beth, is Alcott making an argument that a completely domestic way of life, the life of a so-called “little woman,” is completely immoral and unjust?

I also want to note that I don’t believe Meg gave in to the domestic lifestyle, simply because that is what was expected of her. Yes, she did become a stay-at-home housewife, but she chose to do so. She did not marry the kind of man that everyone expected her to. She married a poorer man, because she loved him, and that is the best reason to marry someone. So by going against Mrs. March’s advice and marrying Mr. Brooke she is not giving in to anything. Her marriage to Mr. Brooke did not cause her to become a domestic housewife. They were generally poor, so she had to work around the home to keep things running smoothly.

I also just watch Cukor’s “Little Women” earlier today, and I must say it was a bit “Wizard of Oz-ish.” I don’t know why, but I keep thinking that the entire time. When I first saw Laurie and he is waving out of his window yelling “Hello! Hello! Hello! Hello!,” over and over again, I thought he looked a little odd, and sounded goofy. I almost stared laughing. It was just the way he was doing it. I also enjoyed how the phrase “Christopher Columbus” kept getting tossed around. It’s such an odd expression, and Amy told Jo to not say such things.

I couldn’t really get into the novel “Little Women” for some reason. Maybe it was the writing style, or how the book was brought together. I just don’t know. There were times while reading where I would somewhat enjoy it, but then that feeling would often cease. I feel like I’m being left out though, because so many people say this book is phenomenal and it changed their lives, and that includes the people of today as well, and I’m just not getting that feeling. Every chapter was like a different short story about life as a woman. The only thing that each chapter had in common was that the same characters were in them. Louisa May Alcott seems to have written many little stories and pasted them together into one big book. I’m not trashing the novel at all, I want to make that clear. But I personally didn’t care for it. I can’t even express how depressing that actually makes me feel though. It’s just a shame.