I am so excited to say my book is now available for purchase! You can check it out on Amazon or barnesandnoble.com by searching my name and the book title Word Bath. If you’re looking for some light poetry, please give it a read. You can see more details on the menu of my blog here, check out the page labeled WORD BATH (easy peasy).
(featured image in this post is by Nick Fewings via Unsplash)
I listened to the Penguin Classics audiobook version of Far From the Maddening Crowd narrated by Olivia Vinall after sampling a few different narrators on iBooks. Narrators really make or break audiobooks. I highly recommend it. I did this a little backward and watched the 2015 version film version of this story before reading the book and enough time had passed that by the time I read the book I’d forgotten some major plot points. So, it all worked out.
Definitely forgot how cringy Boldwood is. YIKES. Bathsheba remains an amazingly complex and flawed heroine and I’m continually surprised how Hardy manages to write women during a time when they were largely presented in one of two tropes. Angel virgin or fallen woman. You’ll be frustrated and at the same time hoping she figures out what the hell she wants in life. If you prefer more perfect heroines, maybe read something else. You might be yelling at the book, but it’s never boring.
Life has been so busy lately with doing a cross-country move, but I have still managed to keep my reading up with audiobooks. Still living in my comfort zone of Victorian literature for the moment so I want to take this time to blast some of my reviews out. If you don’t follow me on Goodreads that’s where I post them first. Long reviews test my patience so I tend to keep them brief and to the point.
Also, people of the internet… please, stop summarizing the book in your reviews. We all learned this in middle school essay writing. That is all.
I dove back into my comfort zone this past month: English literature. As you may see from my Goodreads feed in the corner of this blog, I listened to the 2009 Blackstone Audio recording of Howard’s End by E.M. Forster narrated by Nadia May and available on iBooks. I sifted though a few samples before landing on her as my narrator of choice (narrators can make or break an audiobook). This, of course, was after I’d watched the 2017 BBC series based on the novel starring Hayley Atwell and Matthew Macfayden. However, before I decided to compare it with the 1992 feature length film version starring Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins.
I love watching adaptations. I love getting more of something I already love or seeing how ~maybe~ the movie could make it better *cough cough* The Horse Whisperer *cough *cough* or present it exactly the way I’d imagined and more! Books and their movie counterparts can be equally enjoyable, change my mind. I will say, I was a tad surprised that I found the 1992 adaptation lacking. I was bored stiff, and by amazing actors and performances. But I don’t think it was the running length. Obviously the 2017 miniseries had more time to explore the details of the novel – it was the 1992 versions’ screenplay.
The script followed the outline of the novel well enough, but it was devoid of any of those cinematic moments that truly make you feel for the characters you’re watching. And this is coming from a person who has watched the 2005 Pride & Prejudice FAR more than I ever have the beloved 90s miniseries. The film hit all the right plot points, but I wasn’t torn when Margaret was forced to choose between her sister and her husband upon accepting Mr. Wilcox’s proposal nor was I very worried when Helen suddenly broke contact for mysterious reasons. Those small moments that get us close and intimate with a character I think were lost in the film’s attempt to be a faithful adaptation to the text beat by beat.
I guess I just can’t say enough good things about Macfayden’s nuanced performance as Mr. Wilcox either. He’s an amazing actor to watch. You hate him one moment and love him the next, Hopkins seems far too detached to be likable even in the end when the audience is meant to come around to his character. All the characters seem more fully realized in the 2017 miniseries. Except Leonard Bast… I’m still trying to figure out what Joseph Quinn was doing looking mildly constipated the entire time.
So, here’s the order in which I consumed my media:
2017 BBC miniseries
1910 Novel
1992 Film
I recommend all for comparison, but the novel doesn’t exactly need my endorsement. It’s a classic.
(featured image is Hayley Atwell as Margaret Schlegel in the 2017 adaptation available on STARZ)
Color me wrong. The best kind of wrong.
There were many happy surprises throughout a film that I was prepped not to like, but found myself charmed instead. It reminded me a bit of the book > film adaptation Mansfield Park (1999) which fills out the heroine’s personality (Fanny Price) with characteristics of the story’s author (Jane Austen). A huge deviation from the book, but something that works for one of Austen’s most criticized heroines.
There’s flecks of Louisa May Alcott’s actual life peppered into Jo’s story in the film (her meetings with her publisher) which rely less on the source text of Little Women and more on the actual journey of Alcott as an author. Not a bad choice considering I think the book, overall, is a bit more saccharine than Alcott seemed to be herself.
A friend tipped me off that the story was told in a non-linear fashion, events unfold out of sequence and the movie does a great deal of timeline hopping. This actually reminded me of my initial reading of the novel when I was in high school. I was given the SECOND installment of Little Women, published under the title Good Wives in 1869, as a gift and read it without knowing it was the first half of Alcott’s now famous tale of the March sisters. Much as this reading experience didn’t affect my appreciation of the story – neither did the this choice for the film. A technique of which I am usually skeptical, but Gerwig uses it effectively. One example is with Professor Bhaer.
He’s the first man we meet in the film as it works it’s way back to him again. This gives the audience more familiarity with him than in the book where he can seem like a tacked-on love interest after Jo’s rejection of Laurie. That’s my take on it anyway. If you’re looking for a more in-depth reason as to why Prof. Bhaer is so dreamy in this version I think The Cut covers that pretty well here. And I agree with Gerwig’s choice.
I think the 90s version still has my, overall, favorite casting choices. I won’t harp too much on comparing one film version to another as this is a novel > film comparison, ultimately. I think each adaptation brings it’s own strengths/weaknesses to the table. HOWEVER, if you want a good laugh that will leave you wondering if some critics ever bother to read the source material you can always click here to see why one man thinks what I consider an OK adaptation is OMFG THE BEST EVER. He pretty much hates everything Greta did with a vehement passion and offers no justification tying it back to the actual novel. He says Gerwig “settles for sentimentality.” Classic. Um, have you even *read* Little Women, bro? It’s sentimental AF. Why is that a bad thing? ROTFL. #endrant
Other than that, the reviews I found online were mostly favorable. Mine being one of them. I could go on about casting choices (surprised how much I enjoyed Emma Watson as Meg in this, Gerwig really seemed to bring out her acting chops and not just rely on her Emma Watson-ing), but I think I was pleased with most of them. The actors played well off each other and the sister-dynamic that is so crucial to the telling of Little Women was present and accounted for. Amy was much more grounded in this, but I attribute that to a slight rewriting of her character and less on Florence Pugh’s performance. Another change I didn’t mind.
I think if an audience member comes into this film with no expectations and fresh eyes it can be an amazing experience. I didn’t think a new version of this story was needed. Now, I’m glad we have this one in the canon. I think Gerwig made it just different enough to introduce a new generation to the March sisters and renew an interest in Alcott and her legacy. I just wish the previews didn’t make it seem like such a feminist manifesto, save for a few bolder scenes (Amy’s speech about marriage to Laurie), the film is much more nuanced than that (Jo’s speech to her mother about being independent, but also lonely <— REAL LIFE).
I recommend Little Women (2019) right up there with my other favorite version(s) of the film. Oh yeah, the book is pretty great too.
Today I was asking a friend of mine whether or not she’d ever read Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women or seen any of the film adaptations. She had not! A very exciting prospect to consider, coming to such a well-known text with no prior impressions. What a treat!
She then said she always prefers film adaptations which stick closest to the book.
Slightly disagree. I can’t say I entirely agree. There are too many differences in the way a story is told to justify the idea that “the book is always better than the film.” As previously explored in my post about The Art of Adaptation there’s many reasons why major changes to a source text can result in a successful film. So long as the heart and characters of the story remain intact, I’m happy.
Of the 3.5 versions of Little Women I have seen, the 1990s adaptation with Winona Ryder us my favorite. I didn’t even finish the most recent, gritty, BBC series… 30 min. in and it just didn’t feel like Little Women. As for the most recent theatrical release in the U.S., I have avoided it. From what I can tell, feminist anachronisms abound and I am not about that. The Alcott’s were mold breakers in their own time and I prefer to keep their attitudes in context. But hey, I’ll give it a go today and see if it surpasses my expectations.
I’m trying to think of something I’ve read recently since it seems to have been so much time since I published a post. I read a lot so it’s not like I’ve not read anything it’s just a matter of choosing something. I thought of one… a book I hated reading: The Martian by Andy Weir. My friend Thomas and I were trying to work our way through some bestsellers and this was the first one we decided to try. He ripped through it like a pro. I started off strong and hobbled through it for a month… or two… or was it three?
I have a hard time reading a book I don’t like. Even when I’m determined to finish it. I mean, it was even made into a movie so it has to be good, right? Wrong. I didn’t even mind all of the crazy theoretical science. I think had Weir weaved it expertly into the narrative (a la Jules Verne) I could have followed the story more easily, but it wasn’t even the science that bothered me, it was: Mark Watney. One of the most annoying characters I’ve read to-date. He reminded me of that guy at a party who’s trying to be funny, but no one is laughing at his jokes. Maybe it was just me, but I did not find myself laughing at any of his many “wise-cracks.” He says, “Yippeee” way to many times and all I see is a teenage boy on a gamer message board.
Maybe one could argue, well, he’s that adult science-nerd type of guy who fits the character-type. But even what other characters said about him didn’t make sense. One even said he was chosen for the Mars mission because he’s “that kind of guy everyone likes” or something to that effect. I didn’t buy it. I do want to see the film because I think Matt Damon would make me like this guy. Almost like when you read a script and you can’t wait to see how an actor adds depth to a flat person on the page. Watney had no depth. There’s was no reason I wanted to see him get off of Mars. And, hey, I’m not rooting for the main character if I don’t like him. None of the others characters drew me out either, they seemed more like caricatures from a 90s sitcom or some of them were so bland they just blended into each other. Bring on the movie, I’m done with the book.
Ever wonder what two women with degrees think about some of the popular adaptations of great works of literature? Now is your chance to find out by listening to the It’s Not That Terrible podcast where me and my pal Camilla tear apart and analyze literary classics and their film adaptations. This episode features commentary on Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice (everyone’s favorite) and its 2005 film adaptation (not everyone’s favorite) directed by Joe Wright and starring Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen .
Click Here to download the first episode. Special thanks to Ace Garcia for our music.
Up next: The ever popular and currently over-blown The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Too Lit to Quit 