I’ve heard a lot of talk recently from scholars that gender is a socially constructed entity.  Society expects women to be soft and submissive and pleasing to the eye.  On the other hand, men are supposed to be strong, rugged and take charge kind of people.  These constructions are extremes and as such are subject to criticism and gender blending.  However, what bugs me is that somehow, even we claim to be a country that is open-minded and accepting of all types of people, we still expect women to be Barbies.  By that I mean, we’re expected to have perfect bodies, perfect jobs and perfect children.  I see why the Stepford Wives was so scary.  As a woman, I can honestly say that I do not have any of the aforementioned perfects.  I like things that are typically ascribed to men.  I like scary movies, violent movies and beer and chili.  I will argue football all day long.  I don’t see why everyone has to be pigeon-holed into rigid gender constructions.  I feel like Armstrong is pointing this out in her LW adaptation.  The feminist message comes through loud and clear.  Jo goes with Bhaer to the Think Tank meeting and says that men have the right to vote because they are human beings and that women should have the right for the same reason.  Marmee’s speech with Meg, Laurie and Mr. Brooke has a real weight to it.  She wants more for her girls than just to get their M.R.S. degrees (Thomas Neuhauser).  Gender in Armstrong’s version is very fluid in its dialogue as well as its scene selections.  I don’t if Armstrong is a feminist or just wants to highlight the ridiculousness of societal gender constructions. 

Was there any circularity in this adaptation?  I’m not sure.  There was definitely a strong emphasis on feminism and independence.  There was plenty of juxtaposition/binary opposition with Jo cutting her hair.  With long hair, Jo retains more of a feminine quality.  She is naive and innocent and interested more in playing with Laurie than in becoming a young lady.  However, when she cuts her hair to raise money for Marmee’s trip to Washington, she loses a bit of her innocence.  By this I mean she realizes the power of  money as a tool.  Her hair becomes a commodity and she the bearer of this tool which has the power to regenerate itself.  Her hair keeps growing and she can keep selling it.  It is odd that men lose power when they cut their hair and women gain it when they do the same.   

Ok, so I used Spring Break to catch up on LW adaptations.  I’m glad it’s over because I just can’t stand to see or hear any more about the March girls.  In any event, here are my thoughts.   

1933 

TheCukor version was dull and static and had very little to offer in the way of entertainment or thought provoking fodder.  Katharine Hepburn was a major snooze fest.  She appeared to be just going through the motions with her line recitations.  It sounded like she was reading them right off her cue cards!  With all due respect to an actress that garnered much respect from critics, peers and fans, she brought the film down with her stilted, dull performance.  She was just too mannish for the role.  The lighting in this version was very dark.  There was too many shadows.  Marmee was weird and Laurie had some serious gender-identity issues going on. 

1949 

However, the LeRoy version was a pleasant surprise.  June Allyson nailed the part of Jo as she seemed to embody her very essence.  The score in LeRoy’s versionreminded me so much of the music from the “Wizard of Oz” that at times I actually felt like I was watching “Oz.”  To go along with that, I felt like Allyson was acting in a very Judy Garland-like way.  Their voices sounded similar; as didsome of their mannerisms.  She played Jo the way she was meant to be played; lively and effervescent, yeat somber and serious when need be.  All in all, a great acting job!  I did notice that Prof. Bhaer started looking and sounding a little more Italian in this version.  I thought I detected an Italian accent.  Also, he was way easier on the eyes.  On a final note, the colorization technique contributed to the “Oz” feeling of the film.   This was the best adaptation. 

1994   

What can I say about this version?  I wanted to like Armstrong more than LeRoy so bad.  However, there were some things that Armstrong did that I liked more.  For one thing, the dialogue emphasized a decidely feminist stance.  I’m not sure why this came through but it did.  Marmee (what an awful name) encouraged her girls to seek happiness in themselves.  I even noticed Susan Sarandon giving Laurie and Brooke looks that said, “Don’t even think we’re giving into that chauvinistic, poor, pathetic woman thing.”  She made a speech to Brooke and Laurie when she and Meg were outside that really shocked poor Meg.  I don’t remember what was being said but it had something to do with women looking after themselves and not waiting for a man to do it for them.  I also enjoyed the scene in NY when Rider and Byrne attended the meeting where womens rights were being discussed and Rider said that women should have the right to vote because they were human beings.  That was the best line in the film.  Armstrong bumped up Marmee’s role and made a strong, feminist force to be reckoned with.  She was firm but not preachy and really created a strong role for herself in her daughters’ lives.  I thought Sarandon did an outstanding job.  Like Hepburn, Wynona Rider was just so dull that I couldn’t stand it.  How did she ever get cast in the role?  I have never known Rider to be a strong force or play strong characters.  Whoever was in charge of casting (Armstrong?)  for this one really missed the mark.  Juliet Lewis (provided she would have taken the role) would have made a much better Jo.  Oh well.  As for Prof. Bhaer, well, he keeps getting better and better all the time.  He lost most of his accent and dressed better.  Gabriel Byrne was not such a Nancy-boy like the actor in LeRoy’s version.  In favor of the Armstrong version, the scene selection was better.  Armstrong was wise to include the scene where Amy was painting cups.  It gave us a chance to see that Laurie was jealous of Freddie Vaughan.  Went a long way toward character development. 

So, those are my thoughts on “Little Women” adaptations.  I. never want to see this movie again.  No offense to you Dr. C.  You were right to include this on the syllabus.  It does a great job of highlighting the gender theme.  However, I just don’t have any interest in the women, their time or what they endured.  As a final matter, I am giving you my Armstrong copy.  Think of it as a donation to UMW, c/o “The Little Women”” Learning Foundation.”  Thank you.    

I saw “Zodiac” last night.  Now, I want to complain about it.  First of all, it’s a 2 1/2 hour movie.  That’s a long time for someone with undiagnosed ADD to sit still.  Things started hurting and cramping.  At times I found my leg shaking uncontrollably.  That disturbed my date greatly who politely asked if everything was okay.  That’s okay because she bought me a large Diet Coke (R in the circle thing).  The second distraction centered around the actual physical sound of the movie being played.  I’m sure there is a name for it but I just call it a monumental aural distraction.  I tried to focus my attention on the movie but kept coming back to the sound of the projector whirring.  In this day and age can’t the projector be made to operate silently?  So by now you can guess that I was sitting at the back of the theater.  Well, the back of theater is a haven for all kinds of activities.  First of all there was a couple sitting in front of us who really needed to get a room.  They kept snuggling and exchanging sloppy, slurpy, smacking kisses.  They prefaced every interface (pun intended) with a long, lingering “I love you look.”  These people were not young either.  They had to be on at least their 10th serious relationship.  The guy had an enormous head and he didn’t even have the decency to slouch down in his seat.  I have a big head and I always observe this unwritten rule of etiquette.  It’s just what you’re supposed to do.  Behind us was a young, not-even-college-age-yet couple.  They were involved in sharing and transmitting numerous socially prevelant viral concoctions.  The girl kept jamming her feet and knees into the back of my seat.  I let it happen twice.  Had she done it a third time I was going to say something.  However, my movie companion has a lot more manners and tact than I do and exercised her influence over me.  I felt sorry for the gentleman in the very last row.  He had a disability and was forced to sit in the back.  He must have been in Hell.  Finally, I have two more things to say.  The girl three seats down from me kept checking her cell phone every ten minutes and laughing at something.  She at least had the common decency to turn it off but why was she at the movies if she had to be so attentive to it?  This blows my mind.  The attendant walking down the aisle with a red light saber thingey didn’t bother me to much.  The most disturbing aspect of the whole movie-going experience was the scene where the Zodiac gave a ride to a young mother and her infant.  He told her “Before I kill you, I’m going to throw your baby out the window.”  I was mortified, repulsed, scared, empathetic and sick to my stomach all at the same time.  I have a four year old boy and felt an acute sense of panic during the entire tense scene.  It was awful.  I alternated between closing my eyes and sneaking a peek at the screen.  I kept waiting for the music to signal that the horrible deed had taken place.  Somehow I got through the scene without tossing the six mini-cheeseburgers and huge plate of fries I had ingested an hour earlier.  The mother and the baby lived.  For that I was most relieved.  I left the theater, drove home, went into my son’s room where he was sleeping and kissed his sweet, little face.     

There I’ve said it in the title so I don’t actually have to come out and say it in my post.  If you’ve ever been privy to two close girlfriends talking about their paramours, then you know what I mean.  This girl talk makes boys locker room discourse sound like Sesame Street.  After reading the Williams essay, I have to say that agree with the salient points of her argument.  To some degree, women enjoy being objectified and used as commodities for sadomasochistic purposes.  They enjoy being both the dominatrix and the dominated.  Of course, there are Feminists who will argue otherwise, but they are not being truthful.  If they were, then they would tell you the same thing I’m telling you.  In fact, horror movies seem to be the perfect vehicle for illustrating this concept.  In the horror movie, as Williams explains it, you have a young woman about to become sexually active, either in the virginal sense or right before the very act, who dies as a result of her libido.  This is an entirely male portrayal of an entirely male fantasy.  The female version of the fantasy would be to engage in the amorous encounter and then kill the dude; kind of like the praying mantis does with her mates afterwards.  That is to say, she would eat him.  Women also like war films like “Full Metal Jacket.”  In fact, it’s one of my favorites because aside from the violence, I find it to be strangely haunting and touching.  Anyway, I take a lot of heat because I can’t be counted on to watch the chick-flick with my girlfriends.  I’m a girl and I’m supposed to like them.  I would prefer to watch a scary movie with my Raisinets and Diet Coke (Both are registered trademarks and should be denoted as such with the R in the circle symbol.  TM just means someone is using the mark prior to federal registration, which confers an abundance of legal protections.  But, I digress) and settle in for a night of blood guts.  Both of which are somehow erotic.  Okay now the fun begins.   

Before I jump into my topic, I just want to say that Marycarolyn’s group did an excellent job with their presentation.  I learned a lot I think because they were fellow students giving me the information.  This format was conducive to learning.  Great job everyone!

As for voice overs and narratives, they’re a great way of delivering a lot of information quickly and effectively.  Otherwise, this information may be overlooked by the audience completely, or misinerpreted at the very least.  I see them as a way of ensuring fidelity as well as communicating the intention of the adaptor in making the film.  For the novice film-goer they provide a means to connect to the film.  More sophisticated viewers need to learn patience.  Dr. Campbell said that narratives and voice overs as a cinematic device are very much debated.  This surprised me because I strongly connected with the concept.  I imagine that the other side of the issue lies in the film purists who see this as “cheapening” the film; maybe even cheating.   Purists should not hold this view because narratives and voice overs maintain the fluidity of the film.  It is more important to get at what the adaptor is trying to convery, rather than worrying about how it is said.    

Hi Jim, 

Just wondering if you’ve been able to figure out my blogging issues.  Thanks.

Carmen

As I’m sitting here in my kitchen trying to figure out what more to say about “Little Women,” it struck me that there really is nothing more to say about it.  But, I guess I’ll say that Beth did not die.  She gets reincarnated as Amy’s daughter who is sick just like her aunt was.   Where does the circle of life end and a new one begin?  Alcott is tapping into the resevoir of human experience that makes us see ourselves in successive generations.  This reflection of humanity proposes to stave off the inevitable act of dying.  Postponing death reaffirms living.  Maybe Alcott keeps Beth around because she calculates it ensures her immortality.   

Oops, I didn’t meant to click on the publish button just yet.  I just wanted to say a few more words about what type of love I see in “LW.”  Meg definitely wants a companion.  She wants to be a “little woman” and play house, so she settles for the first guy that comes along.  As you can see, the romance is already fading with the birth of the twins.  Jo ostensibly marries for “love” and looks like she be with Bhaer forever.  However, I can’t help but think she won’t look around at Meg and Amy and say, “Maybe I should have married a younger, cuter guy.”  I’m not sure that Amy even knew what she was doing when she married Laurie.  This totally goes against the girl code of not getting involved with a guy that belonged to another girl (could be a friend, but especially not a sister).  Jo totally pimped him out.  Laurie should feel like a commodity.  In any event, the love I see as being real (and I use the term loosely) is Meg’s relationship with John.  I only say this because she had relationship that would have been expected of her at the time.

I googled “companionate love” and found out that it means:  a love that lasts forever; a soul-mate type love; and finally, a love that loves well.  I see no reason why romantic love can’t also be companionate love.  Terming it “companionate” makes me think of a companion.  Who wants that?  Afterall, I can get a dog or cat if I want a companion.  When two people fall in love, the romance should always be there.  It may not jump out when the rent is late or when the toilet backs up, but it should always be there.  Love is love and should always include romance.  When the romance is gone it’s time to get out of the relationship.