Please leave comments telling me why I’m wrong! I did think it was weird that Laurie decided to go after Jo’s little sister after being rejected by her. I definitely overlooked it because Timothée Chalamet played Laurie. Laurie wanted to be a March so bad.
Im not gonna tell you wrong but i wanna recommend something to read while it rains ryuuma no gagou and it truly embodies the term you die twice once when you body dies and the other when everybody who knows you forgets your name
I agree with Amy and Laurie being a better romantic match than Jo and Laurie, however the way they went about it was completely wrong and the timing was horrible and Laurie jumping from one sister to the other is nastyyyyy
You are not wrong. But it is clear that you have only seen Gerwigs version. She makes it clear that these are the right matches by showing Amy and Laurie first. This is not clear in any other version.
Can I just say how much I love Florence's performance in this film? Amy is so distinctly different in Paris, she's grown up and that transition is do so masterfully.
It's clever how we see Amy in a new light because the movie deliberately makes an effort to force us to do so. By first meeting an adult, we see someone whose petulance has given away to even-tempered stoicism, whose pettiness has sharpened into ambition, and whose childhood stubbornness has become the sort of steeliness that one admires. Allowing us to see the type of woman that Amy becomes and, more importantly, spending time with that woman allows us to more easily see her faults for what they were - childhood flaws and foibles that one grows out of - and forgive her for them. It gives Amy the sort of treatment she probably should’ve had the whole time - the same treatment the narrative and all its adaptations have afforded to Jo.
@@jazzstew3108 that you can have your own future that you genuinely want for yourself; to be confident and strong enough to live by your own beliefs. she told us from the beginning that she does not want to marry anybody, that she doesnt see herself getting married. she has this burning passion and she really wants her dream to become a writer happen. yes, she had thought about going back to laurie but these are the times where she felt lonely and has this void. it made her feel even emptier when she stopped writing. she wrote that letter to him not that she loves him in a romantic way, but to fill her emptiness.
I know I am replying many months later but I personally believe its not up to you to say whether he understood the core message or not. Movies are all about personal interpretation and I share the same opinion as him but someone else might not and that doesn't make any of us right or wrong.
if im honest with myself i perfectly know that i only wanted jo and laurie to end up toghether because im jo, im lonely and i want to be loved. i understand her point of view perfectly, but i rationally know that laurie and amy are a great couple, and jo didint know how to love him properly
jo wants to run back to laurie towards the end of the movie because he's familiar, even if she doesn't realize it. laurie represents childhood and all the good memories jo holds with him and her sisters. jo even admits it: she's lonely! beth has just died, and how could we blame her for longing for the past, longing for simpler and joyful times when she didn't have to worry about making money, feeling lonely, or beth's sickness? i'll admit, the first time i watched this movie, i was upset that they didn't end up together, but after i digested it and watched it another time, it is so clear that they would have crashed and burned as a couple. they would have held each other back. amy & laurie and jo & friedrich supremacy luv xo
Amy is so misunderstood as a character. She has such a good character development and arc- she is always been my favourite of all the sisters. And the romance with Laurie...I love it!! I found it very convincing- to be honest they were perfect for each other.
Can u help explain I pissed my girlfriend off this morning because I’m not understanding her character and honestly dislike her as a character. We watch the movie it’s one of her favorites. It was my first time viewing it. I definitely enjoyed it nine out of 10 style but I do dislike Amy.
The thing is I feel like in the book it makes sense. Yes, she did reject him, but in the book, she is constantly saying how she feels and saying she thinks Laurie should be with Beth or with Meg. She realizes early on in the book that she doesn't want to be with Laurie and that she loves him as a friends. Also, in the ending of the film in the part when Laurie is saying how she loves Amy in a way he could never love Jo, Jo completely agrees with him. I think the book represents Jo's feelings a lot better and makes the decision to have Amy and Laurie end up together make so much sense.
I was a kid when i read the book (or a version of it) and always rooted for Laurie. It felt like he "lost" when he didn't end up with Jo, and that bothered me as a kid 😂 looking back with what I know now, it makes better sense he ended up with Amy. No one lost. Edit: typos.
I think the writers are Jo+Laurie shippers bc the book is very clear in the part that Jo doesn’t love him and that she’s just lonely and wants to be loved when she writes the letter. It’s very clear she doesn’t love him, while the movie makes her seem in love with him, or at least more so. And I don’t believe she really was supposed to love Fredrick, but the sexist editors and publishers and the societal standards caused them to make the author have her get married
Yeah, I think the book shows Jo's feelings better. To be honest, I totally shipped Jo and Laurie in the first book, but in the second part, you can perfectly understand why she doesn't love Laurie that way. Also, I don't know why in the movie they made it seem as if she regrets rejecting Laurie and she going with Fritz like a consolation prize when it wasn't like that in the book at all. Anyway, for me, it would have been a more satisfying ending if she had stayed single but Alcott was forced to marry Jo.
High school me was devastated that Jo and Laurie didn't end up together. I believed that their sameness is why they were soulmates. When in reality that thought process was just because I was naive and lacked romantic history. As an adult, I understand why Laurie ended up with Amy. Jo and Laurie's sameness would cause them to burn each other up. Their romantic relationship wouldn't help either of them grow into better versions of themselves like good romantic relationships should. Jo encouraged Laurie's childish and selfish behavior, while Amy pushed him into becoming a more mature version of himself. Laurie needs Amy's pragmatism. Amy also enjoys Laurie's way of life. A way of life that Jo would have resented and wilted under.
I agree that they might have burned each other up, but Jo was always correcting Laurie. She was constantly telling him not to play billiards, that the joke that he played on John and Meg was nasty, that he should be grateful for his opportunity to go to college. Amy just fit in better with his world because she likes high society, as you said.
@@dynesteefields4396 correcting people and effectively pushing them into better versions of themselves is not quite the same thing. Amy's temperament could manage it with Laurie, Jo's could not
Jo's conversation with Marmee was really similar to my conversation with my mom about love. I said I wanted to find someone who loves me more than I do but my mom said I was wrong. When my mom was young, she was going through the Vietnam War, so in a sense marriage is an economic proposition for her. But the way my mom spun it, she believes love is about sacrifice and compromise, which means you have to accept each other's flaws and support them with either your economic wealth or your emotional support. I guess that's what "to be there in sickness and in health" means.
The reason why every woman in Little Women ended up with someone was because Louisa Alcott was pressured by her publishers to have all her female characters married by the end. Which is why Jo’s storyline focused a lot on sexist publishers telling her how she has to write with the intention of encouraging women to get married. So even with critics stating Laurie and Amy’s relationship makes no sense or has no thematic relevance. Keep in mind the times and how the author herself probably wasn’t too happy about it either. Considering being a “sPiNsTeR” was treated like a swear and deemed a crutch on society for women to refuse marriage and children. You can criticize it but honestly it’s pointless to do so, disregards the context, and invalidates the importance of her work. She encouraged a whole generation of Women to live there lives for themselves. We would probably be set back decades if it weren’t for her trailblazing. Show some respect.
How does critique invalidate the significance of a work? Nothing is perfect and trying to put something on a pedestal just because it was ahead of its time is dumb. Hell trying to put anything on a pedestal is dumb.
Corksucker Fair enough, I grasp her novel isn’t perfect but criticizing aspects of it that were out of the authors control isn’t right to me. Criticism isn’t wrong in fact people offering different perspective’s on fiction should be welcomed. We shouldn’t ignore when certain good pieces of work have problematic elements, no more or less than should we ignore objectivity with fiction that helped in positive social change. This is coming from someone whose an aspiring author and a feminist.
Corksucker Bottom line, one can think Amy and Laurie not being romantically involved would have been objectively better for the story. However keep in mind it was out of Louisa’s control and said uncontrollable minor flaws shouldn’t be ammunition to diminish her work.
In the book Amy and Laurie’s love makes complete sense, you actually see the connection and subtle hints long before they end up together towards the end of the story.
i honestly find their relationship very sweet. i’ve known of people who ended up dating/ marrying their older siblings best friend after they had a crush on them when they were younger. tbh i don’t even think laurie and jo were really actually in love, i think they were just close and thought that they should be
If Jo would have been what Alcott truly wanted, she would have been a spinster or with a woman. Jo and Laurie would have been a terrible match. Some people make fantastic friends, but horrible couples. More often than not with couples like this, the coupling ruins the great friendship. Amy and Laurie are actually an amazing couple. They both push each other in the right ways and both are better people for it. Little Women definitely is a love story though, just not the one we are used to. It's a love story between sisters and their simpler youth. Gretta also made it a love story about a woman and her books. Which is the greatest love story of all lol
Completely agree! Personally I like to see Jo as gay, but understand that some people may not. But she was never going to marry a man had Louisa been able to publish the story she wanted. Jo and Laurie are platonic soulmates, but romantically, they would have been miserable! Amy and Laurie suit eachother and romantically get along so well, which allows Jo to have Laurie as part of her family too.
@@connie6738 as a spinster, I definitely see a lot of myself in Jo, but I can also see why the gay community sees a lot of themselves in Jo as well. While of course I would prefer a spinster because we all look for characters that represent us the best, I take no issue with Jo possibly being a lesbian. All that matters is that Jo is happy. Alcott does not go into it enough to fully know if this is the case, but I feel like Jo would also be very intrigued, if not a part of, the non-binary movement going on now and days. Because the book is from the 1800s, obviously Alcott does not go into this, but Jo at least it's very upset at being a woman. Whether that's just because of the time she lives in or maybe something else, we'll never know.
I don't agree, it was ultimately Alcott's decision and it was more in response to her fans' feedback than any pressure from publishers. She actually had a really good relationship with her publisher by all historical accounts. Alcott herself expressed a similar loneliness to Jo in her journal entries and Bhaer has a lot of characteristics of men in her life that she expressed admiration for. I love Jo and Friedrich together, it's think it's beautiful that Jo was eventually able to see the value in marriage and found someone who complimented her personality perfectly and made her a better writer and person.
I think what some people miss is how selfish Jo is in regards to Laurie and how possessive. I love Jo's character and also because it is flawed. She wants Laurie to love her and not to return that love and for that to be enough for him. Yes I know what it is like to be lonely but to push your loneliness on someone else is not a good thing. Also Laurie being unavailable is what frees Jo from the idea and sets her off to pursue her career instead of giving in to her selfish desires after Beth's death. I know exactly what it's like to be in Jo's position. And Laurie did the best thing for her in moving on.
I understand all of them completely. For Laurie, Jo was his teenage crush. He loved her cuz she was kinda the first girl who entered in his life, and was his alter ego. I don't think he really loved her as a "woman". However, Amy grew up so beautifully and with elegance. Laurie also matured and would see Amy as more desirable wifely figure than Jo. Besides I can see Laurie wanting Amy in a more sensual way than he did with Jo.
Jo embodied the free spirit Laurie wanted to embody when he was young. She inspired him and made his stiff rich kid life less boring. So he was drawn to her like a moth to flame and in his naivete believed that meant he was in love with her.
@@arunima8138 Well this was set in the 1800s when gender roles were firmly established, what do you expect? Amy needed to find a wealthy husband who could provide for her and her family, and Laurie needed to find an elegant and charming woman who could mind his big house and fortune and be the perfect wife. We may not like it now, but it was perfectly natural then.
I agree too! Amy and Laurie are meant for each other. Like Laurie said in the movie, the love he felt for Jo is different. For him, Jo was a crush, but once he fell in love he realized that his love for Jo wasn't romantic, while his love for Amy is!
I largely agree with your analysis regarding this adaptation in isolation- it's not a shock to say that film adaptations of novels struggle to portray the story with same emotional depth, since they lack the time to detail such depth organically. However, I think you noticed/touched on many subtle intricacies used by the actors to reinforce certain ideas. You mention the difference between romantic and platonic love, which is certainly a running theme or juxtaposition presented in the film, but I do think that the film undercuts/does not complete the core question regarding what 'love truly is' in comparison to the book... and that's largely due to the limited and somewhat inauthentic characterization of Beth. For those of you who haven't read the book but plan to, spoilers ahead, but the novel certainly does make Amy and Laurie's romance feel honest, organic and logical... although Alcott achieves this in a way that's complex and not completely wholesome, like a Hollywood love-story often is. What you first need to know for any of this to make sense is that, within the novel, Alcott cements the notion that there is a person, a soul-mate, for everybody and that soul-mates fill in the blank spaces and inadequacies the other person. As children, Amy and Laurie envy one another for completely different reasons, and this envy becomes fascination in time. The adaptation definitely touches on this, but the wealth and refinery afforded to Laurie is enchanting to her- unlike her sisters, she attends a school where most of the girls in her grade are upper-class, or upper-middle class... and as her own family is only struggling more by the day, her urge/obsession to attain wealth grows at a similar rate. When Laurie becomes their neighbor and shows an impressionable Amy, who is only 12, the refinery of upper-class life not through her own experience but through Meg and Jo's (the theater, fancy parties), her imagined ideal of not who Laurie is, but what he represents, is reinforced. A key theme within the book is the imaginative landscape of girlhood, especially in an era in which a woman might not have the opportunity to do or achieve whatever she likes, but she can take solace in imagination and fantasy. What Laurie represents to a 12 year-old Amy is respect, acceptance and refinery- due to her low self-esteem brought on by being ridiculed at school (wearing old, second-hand clothes, not having the finest pens), she equates wealth to self-acceptance. The blank space within her is a lack of self-respect... regardless of the fact that wealth should not fix a person's self-esteem issues, Laurie is able to fill this blank space and complete her. In Laurie's case, although wealthy he is overwhelmingly lonely- in the same way that Amy is fascinated by and envies his social standing, he envies the effortless love and warmth of family that the sisters are able to enjoy. Once he is essentially accepted as an honorary family-member, the fear of losing this strong sense of love and kinship after years of isolation overcomes him. To guarantee being part of this family forever, he must marry into it- in the novel, he first claims that Meg is the most beautiful girl he's even seen and he does lust over her... he's obviously infatuated with Jo as their sibling-like love develops, he makes a special effort to ask over Beth, listen to her intently when she's often interrupted by others and listens to her play the piano for hours on end... he's very affectionate and protective of Amy. With Meg being married, Jo's denial when he does propose and Beth's untimely death... only Amy can fill his blank space and make him feel whole- in Alcott's mind this is what a soulmate, or your 'person', truly is- they complete you. Amy and Laurie do complete each other in these ways, although they both seem to not be fully conscious of why that is. Like the adaptation, the novel details love and its many forms, but what it fails to show us is the very bleak reality surrounding Jo and her soul-mate. In the book, Jo acknowledges that the profession is a good man, but he is not her person. She acknowledges that Laurie will always be a brother to her, but is not her person either- neither candidate completes her. Her person, the only one who completed her, was Beth. Perhaps they didn't include certain lines/neglected to characterize Beth authentically because it's far too bleak, but Jo and Beth mirror and complete each other, as soul-mates so. Jo is confident, she speaks her mind, she's stubborn, somewhat self-important, and ultimately feels like being great, like a talented writer or a war-hero or an influential academic, is most important, 'be great or die'- in the book she says she'd prefer death over being ordinary, and ordinary people are always forgotten to history. Beth mirrors her, like soul-mates do. Out of the four sisters, she's the only one who doesn't have strong ambitions or lofty dreams- she is timid and often won't speak her mind, or at all, because she prefers to listen. In the novel, she says to Jo that 'I was never like the rest of you, making plans about the great things that I would do... I never saw myself as anything much, not a talented writer like you'. Unlike Jo who equates importance to greatness, Beth makes her realise that a person can be relatively ordinary and lack talent, but despite this, her inherent selflessness and purity of heart renders her just as important as any iconic, talented figure remembered forever. Beth completes Jo because she offers her this new understanding, that living a kind and giving life is 'great' in of itself... she's also Jo's main confidant, offering her a rational and empathetic perspective when Jo's frustrated or angry- in the novel, Jo laments that Beth was the only person she felt she could be truly honest with, and accepted by. Jo completes Beth by always noticing her, being attentive, asking her to elaborate on her feelings or why she feels afraid about certain situations- because Beth is not inclined to talk about herself or her feelings naturally, so as to not be burdensome, Jo prompting it completes her... it allows her to vent without feeling selfish for doing so. In conversations where all four sisters are talking over one another, Jo will tell everyone to stop talking so Beth can chime in. Jo helps Beth to find her 'voice'- she says 'she feels stronger' when Jo is with her. It's a sad conclusion, but Jo (or Louisa's, as the story is essentially a memoir) realises that Beth, despite her purity and selflessness, would be forgotten to history. The adaptation changes these two moments, but in the novel, Beth is the one that pushes the family to give their Christmas feast up to the starving family, and later, she sneaks out to help them alone in secret, without being told to. These two moments exemplify Beth's 'greatness' and why the Beths of the world ought to be remembered. One of my favourite paragraphs of the novel is as follows, and it illustrates this whole argument: “There are many Beths in the world, shy and quiet, sitting in corners till needed, and living for others so cheerfully that no one sees the sacrifices till the little cricket on the hearth stops chirping, and the sweet, sunshiny presence vanishes, leaving only silence and shadow behind.” Love has many forms beyond romantic love in Little Women, and although Jo lost 'her person', 'her soul-mate', she was able to immortalize Beth forever. In Louisa's private journal, she explains that she didn't like writing realism over fantasy but she was driven to write Little Women to immortalize her little sister Elizabeth, whose pet-name was Lizzy instead of Beth in real life, and she succeeded in that. Showing the importance of Beth, her legacy, that's true love to me.
This was amazing to read I believe every last word of it. There are so many different loves, especially in this story. This was an incredible analysis of this 🙂
This is such a HUGE thing that a lot of Jo stans dont seems to understand. Jo does not have a monopoly on Jo. Amy didnt STEAL Laurie from Jo when Jo stated multiple times she didnt love Laurie (until she got desperate and lonely) and Laurie grew up and out of the boyhood crush he had on Jo. Amy just happened to be the sister of his first crush. That is IT. Amy and Laurie are a romantic couple and partners in life while Jo and Laurie are platonic soulmates. These are FACTS that Jo stans just dont want to admit.
Jenna Wallace and even if you don’t like the Amy and Laurie pairing, that doesn’t mean that Amy stole Laurie, he’s a person (character) capable of making his own decisions.
It's not that Jo owns Laurie, it's just that the first book specifically builds their relationship. Jo introduces Laurie to the March family. Jo is best friends with Laurie. Meanwhile, Amy comes off as shallow in the first book. By the time that it's over, it's almost inconceivable that suddenly it would by Amy and Laurie. The writing was extremely in depth for the first pairing.
@@dynesteefields4396 if i am not wrong, Louisa May Alcott, based the book on herself and her sisters and she wrote herself as Jo. it's from her point of view and majorly set in their childhoods where admittedly she was friends wih Laurie first and introduced him to her family and they hung out together all the time. but time spent together doesn't equal love. Amy and Laurie, they fit better because they want similar things from life and better each other by being together.
Saw this movie with my sister and the way it ended made sense amy and laurie thrive on what is expected Jo ended up with Friedrich they can challenge each other and complement each other she can make the German professor more at ease and and he is a tether to earth.that the rebellious March sister doesnt mind having
I genuinely appreciated that you as a man saw value in this movie and it’s themes when so many other men only saw it as another chick flick solely because it focuses on 4 sisters. It’s validating so see a man look at this movie and see it’s values and themes that extend beyond the gender narrative and expectations of society. Themes and values that can be appreciated by everyone no matter who they are. I appreciated especially that the focus of your video was given towards to a romantic development and dynamic in the movie. Something that a lot of people would deem to be only fit for exploration by women since men couldn’t possibly be interested. Also I agree with you wholeheartedly on your perspective and I thought you explained it perfectly and concisely. This video was an absolute delight from beginning to end
In the script, after Jo and the Professor first meet, he says "No one gets ink stains like yours just out of a desire of money." It reads 'Jo feels the intense pain and pleasure of being seen by someone, of knowing that they know you.'
when i first saw the movie in theaters, my opinion strictly was that jo and laurie should have been together. but the more and more i watched the movie and read the book, i realized, amy and lauries ending was perfect. it made so much more sense that they ended together than say jo and laurie. so i 100% agree with you.
When Jo writes her love letter to Laurie she says “My dear teddy, I miss you more than I can express. I used to think that the worst fate was to be a wife, I was young and stupid. But now I have changed. The worst fate is to live my life without you in it.” I think Jo finds it hard to express her feelings without going against her believes/ideas about what women should and shouldn’t be in the world. Like when Jo tells her sister Meg that she doesn’t need to get married to John and that she will get bored after 2 years. Later on Jo telling her mum that she is sick of women having their only purpose of to love. Jo realised that women are more than that. To all the people saying Jo felt ‘lonely’ and needed to fill a void that’s why she confesses to Laurie her love that was not the reason. When Jo left to go to New York she left her sisters behind. And when her sister Beth got sick she came back in a heart beat. Stopping everything that she was doing her dreams and ambition for her sister. When her sister Amy burned her papers Jo got angry at Amy and even said she will never ever forgive her and then when her sister nearly drowned she went back to talking to her in a heart beat realising that her sister was more important. Similarly as soon as she rejects Laurie she kept writing to him but he was the one that was not answering to her letters. Jo truly did care for him. She just didn’t have herself figured out yet. Jo thought a women cannot marry and pursue her dreams at the same time in the end she realises she can when she marries the professor. She realises this before however and wanted to tell Laurie by confessing to him through the letter but it was to late. Jo wanted it to be Laurie that she marries. Jo even admitted to her mum that when she gets angry her anger can blind her. Like when she rejected Laurie because of her anger blinding her to thinking women should be independent and never married, but she doesn’t realise women can be both. Jo is a strong willed character who refuses to back down but then she does on all of these occasions she does it for the people that she loves. She did that when she rejected Laurie. She was angry because she had dreams she wanted to pursue and marriage was not on her radar back then. However after loosing her sister for good this time she realises the mistake she made rejecting Laurie. She realises death is her worse enemy and it can come in the way of things even when she thinks she is in control. She steers the wheel of her life, she is independent, unmarried, in New York writing doing everything she ever wanted but death still has a way of ruining things. When she comes to this realisation she cannot bear to loose Laurie in the same way without telling him how she truly feels. Because Jo finally realises that the love she holds for him is greater than whatever it is she wanted to do as a single women.
Boudourou Bou boo we don’t need a full explanation of the movie we saw it. Just because jo was lonely does not mean she was in love with Laurie in that way. She was just lonely she expressed that many times and she missed her friend. She felt like she needed to except Lauries proposal because of society’s shame to unmarried women.
This point is illustrated in her SECOND BOOK "Little Men" which chronicles the story if Jo and the professor running a school in Aunt March's big house. It continues all their stories, plus those of the kids in the school, but it just beautifully shows how well they are paired, and the blossoming role of best friends that Laurie continues to play. Not gonna lie, I actually prefer "little men" to "little women" but they are both made better by the stories in the other.
Jo and Laurie is the MOST unrealistic and irrational pair (if they were ever paired) I don't understand the literary dunces who ship them! Laurie and Amy on the other hand go as smooth as soft butter on crusted bread.. It just goes so well, you don't even need to doubt. Both compliment each other so well!
I again i was actually shocked to hear that people were upset that Jo didn't end up with Laurie. Jo was always honest with her thoughts of settle down and playing the wife role she wanted to write and spend her life with her sisters. While Laurie was always trying to avoid life. Like the narrator said Jo wasn't concern about Laurie's potential she liked him because he loved to break the rules like she did. I love Jo and Laurie's relationship, but i was happy the way the story ended especially knowing that the publisher pressured her into finding love in the end. It was refreshing especially because i couldn't understand why with a lot of tv couples especially i got annoyed with a lot of them after they got married the main reason was because of the unnecessarily drama made just to play with the audiences emotions some storylines were reasonable but the unnecessary affairs and love triangles.... I am SOOOO tired of love triangles! I so am defiantly Jo know marriage is not for me. I'm not against people that go that route but for me that is something i rather die without. That doesn't mean i don't want to have relationships or fall in love, but having a legal contract with someone finically tell divorce or death is not for me especially because am going Jo's route and looking for my owe success not marry into success like Amy. No shade to her i love her character growth, but I'm a Jo and it's nice for us Jo's to get a story about get our dreams come true without a love interests overshadowing our success.
@@lstarsabb Its not all too shocking when you consider the time period that this came out. Things were very simple then. Girl meets boy. Girl has significant interactions with boy, girl marries boy. The readers of Alcott's time just could not fathom Jo having such an important and close friendship with a boy if she wasn't romantically connected to him. The only way readers could have understood was if another suitor was courting Jo, but at the time of Laurie's marriage proposal, Jo hadn't even met her actual love interest yet. Its like growing up your whole life being told Peanut butter had to ALWAYS be served with jelly, no question, and then after growing up this way and finally going to a restaurant only to be served a peanut butter sandwich with no jelly in sight. Its not that it CAN'T happen, its just that for you its NEVER happened.
This video was what I needed to see. I am currently in the works for creating a video essay for my film theory class and the topic of "gaze" was discussed too. I was trying to find out what angle to take my video since I chose to compare 1954 vs 2019 versions of Little Women, and your discussion of "gaze"/"look" helped, thank you!
I like your analysis. I believe Laurie fell for Amy after the whole, "Marriage is an economic proposition" conversation. He was used to seeing the childish Amy but after that moment he saw her in a different light. He realised that it was not Jo whom he loved romantically but Amy. After all, if Laurie and Jo were to be married, they would prove to be incompatible to each other. Also, I think Jo didn't get together with the professor at the end, she only wrote it that way because of the publisher. Jo never wanted to marry someone, all she wanted was to be with her family. I think the slight romantic looks given by Jo were added to the story on the demand of the publisher.
I finally got to this movie on my "to watch" list last night and spent the whole second half of the movie in tears. It was beautiful- and like you I went into this movie blind as I had not seen any other films or read the original novel. I loved what you pointed out about how love and good partners should be honest and push you to be better- this is so true. The scene where the professor reads Jo's work and comments on it was so powerful to me- as he said "has no one taken you seriously before?" because that is so true. To take someone seriously is to be honest with them and point out any flaws you may see in their work, not to just say "oh it's lovely!" and keep any criticism or comments to yourself xo
I really love the last part where you clarify the true importance of the story, and the warm parts of childhood versus the cold separation of adulthood, because it brings words to the reason why I love this story so much as someone who grew up with two sisters (albeit with not such a rosy childhood, but we were together all the same), and all still trying to figure out and pursue our ambitions in our 20s and 30s, separately and somewhat alone.
I have never loved a comment section more than this one seeing how everyone has literal paragraphs about this book and movies and how everyone is just in love with Amy and Laurie which is so true. Jo and Laurie were something else but in a different way. Amy called each one of Laurie's bullshit even after being in love with him she didnt hesistate in pointing it out fearing that she might lose him. Now thats the kind of love a relationship needs. THIS WOMAN MADE HIM A MAN. #amyandlaurieforever
And also Flo's performance in this movie. HOLY SHIT. That scene where laurie confessed oml her acting there and in this movie is MARVELOUS. no wonder she got an oscar nomination. She is going to RULE the world here i predict future now
She is. Louisa may alcott was said to be queer and she never married and jo was based on herself. Jo only gets together with the professor in the end bc the original publishers refused to end the story with Jo being a spinster with no love interest
How cool would it have been if LMA had only referred to The Professor as such or just as Bhaer, no pronouns and no first name, and Bhaer’s gender could have been left up to interpretation? The publisher would probably have just assumed Bhaer was a man (as would most of the readers of the time) and published it without a second thought, but it would never actually be canon. Dang, now I want an adaption where Bhaer is a woman, especially if she was portrayed as ultra feminine so that when she’s introduced as Bhaer, people are really thrown.🤷🏻♀️
wow... i was definitely one of those people that HATED that amy and laurie ended up together (i think lowks just cuz i love timmy and saoirse together lol) :”)) after watching your video i definitely agree with the fact that amy and laurie were right to end up together, but yes, jo and laurie are definitely platonic soulmates
I loved Amy and Laurie together in the book as well as in the movie. I first read “Little Woman” when I was in my sophomore year of high school and I related a lot to Josephine March. We both liked writing and didn’t really focus on marriage. Like Jo I had a friend who I could be myself around. We thought of each other as protectors. We wanted the best for one another but we didn’t need nor want each other, if that makes sense. I think that’s why I understood Jo’s and Lauries relationship. Amy and Laurie I also understood. I wanted to be able to love someone as she did. I wanted to be able to see some ones potential and help them reach it. I called her the supporter of dreams. I think her and Laurie needed the extra push that can only come froM a gentle push in the right direction. And the gentle push is so hard to get right, it literally takes the right people. As to Jo and professor Bear, I understand why some would say it doesn’t make sense but for me, that was the only logical choice. Sometimes we have a talent so rare and beautiful that when we know it’s good, it’s hard to see the flaws. I also believe that when people care about us and pay attention they can see when we are not being true to ourselves. Jo never needed nor wanted a romantic marriage. I think she needed something honest and helpful. Since she didn’t want to be alone I think being with Bear was an option that offered her a companionship that wouldn’t result in Juvenile behavior. It was simply more her speed. I believe Allotcott chose a suitor who wouldn’t take away Or add to Jo’s gifts or personality. He would simply support her. I think there is something to be admired in all of the relationships including Alcott’s relationship with the world. It tells you a lot about the time in which she was living but it also tells the reader how important and different relationships can be. Love is not always a fairytale nor is it always a person! Love has many faces and many dances! I think her work reflects this beautifully and to criticize is to only criticize the many different flows of life.
This was also my first exposure to the story, and I'll admit I had trouble seeing Amy and Laurie together at the end, but you've given it good context. I can actually picture it now, maybe when I can give it another watch I'll be able to appreciate it better. Thank you!
This story reminds me of 2 actors here in my country. They became friends for a long time, the boy never view the girl as love of his life but when that one night, by just staring that girl he just felt the feelings that he had been longing for and just have private conversation with only them he just ask the girl to marry him. 20 years of their marriage btw
Jo and Laurie are more like Harry and Hermione. but Amy and Laurie were made for each other. she was the one who was able to control him and bring him to the right part. I don't understand why people hate on Amy. she is really the beest.
As much as I loved Laurie. I don't think he deserved to be with Joe or Amy. From my perspective, Amy just feels like a second-choice or left-overs for Laurie. He was rejected, and she was there.
I just finished reading the book today, and, of course, in there it is explained a lot better why Amy and Laurie ended up together. Reading the book I didn't feel like Amy had a girlhood crush on Laurie. They all saw him as their brother, maybe saw him ending up with Meg, if any at all. In the book when he proposes, Beth is still alive, though sick. Jo, anticipating his feelings and her reaction to them, leaves for New York to help Laurie get over her, before she has to refuse him openly. But when she gets back, he proposes anyway, and she pushes him away, because she agrees with her mother, that they wouldn't be good for each other and that he needs someone who is at the same time more and less like himself. During their life together, Jo tries to push Laurie (She tells him not to drink, not to gamble, and make something of his talents), but he rarely does the same for her, and she only ever asserts external pressure on him. He finishes college first of his class for her and is then devastated when that is not enough to make her love him. So he leaves for Europe with his grandfather, where he spends his days in leisure and eventually meets Amy in Nice. There they spend a lot of time together, but only with feelings of siblings for each other, since Laurie is still hung up on Jo and Amy is unhappy by the laziness in his behaviour. Then comes the monologue, where she clearly tells him what she thinks of the way he chooses to spend his time and that she despises him for it. He leaves her, but actually starts getting over Jo and realizes that she is not the only woman he will ever love. And then somewhat naturally the roles of Amy and Jo become reversed, one from sister to lover, the other back. Meanwhile Jo filled her life with caring for Beth and after her death her life is empty and she tries her best to fill it. And while I feel like the professor came in kind of last minute, since she didn't really have feelings for him in her time in New York, I do think he is a better match for her than Laurie would have been. She ends up running a school/orphanage with him, and I think if Alcott had her way she might run it alone or even with the professor, but not in a romantic way. When I watched the movie I was a little confused by the order of events and why people were where they were at certain times, but I think if they had wanted to make the relationship of Amy and Laurie a focus they would have, but they didn't and that is just as well. It's not a focus in the book either and just kind of comes along in the last 100 pages. What I noticed when reading the book, as opposed to romantic works like Pride and Prejudice, was, that it wasn't really structured in a classical way. It was just about four sisters and their lives, with all the ups and downs, mishaps and tragedies that come along naturally, and so did the love between those two people. It just kind of happens as love does and that is fine by me. TL;DR: People fall in and out of love all the time, and that's fine. Amy and Laurie are great together. Also, don't name your child Beth. According to the book that name is cursed.
Honestly....I DON'T think you're wrong. Louisa May Alcott originally didn't want Jo, the her heroine in her novel, to marry AT ALL. But much as we see in the movie's ending, the publisher insisted that Jo marry because that's the way things were done. So she had Jo marry the good Professor Bhaer. Laurie and Jo are best friends.....and in a way, she DOES consider him to be the brother she never had. The love each other and she leans on him for support during her moments of greatest emotion (like when Beth fell sick and when Amy burned her manuscript) but she's not IN love with him. I DO agree with you.....when Laurie proposes to Jo, she turns him down, but then, when Beth dies, there is a hole in Jo's heart and she feels she needs to be loved, so she wants to marry Laurie, but just for the sake of having someone to love her. When Marmee asks her if she loves Laurie she even says "Its more important for me to BE loved" And in this new movie, I DO like how they expanded Amy and Laurie's relationship. Amy is different from Jo. Her dreams are different. Jo is a free spirit. She wants to be a writer and be independent. Amy wants to be rich and be the elegant and refined lady and marry into high society and pursue her dreams of being an artist. And Laurie supports those dreams. He is a bit lackadaisical when it comes to fulfilling his duty and what's expected of him (from both Amy and his grandfather) but in the end, he's willing to change to prove himself worthy of her. He's not afraid of her ideals and her ambitions. I think all the March sisters consider Laurie to be their affectionate older brother, but as they grew up, that relationship between Amy and Laurie changed into love. They make a good match.
this is absolutely perfect, so spot on!! Every time someone keeps on insisting that Jo and Laurie should have ended together I'll just send them this video and won't be bothered
I related so much to the scene where Joe said: "I just want to be loved". I was once loved truly, But I wasn't in love. It is an Isolating feeling but when you are completely alone it seems like it's the only alternative. I found it powerful that Amy ended up with Laurie because It stopped Joe from being completely alone with a man she didn't LOVE. Friendship is very powerful, but Laurie wanted more, It would lead to both of their hearts being broken. However, In my imagination I really wanted Amy to marry someone who showed her the emotions Laurie showed Joe, So that for once in her life she feels like the First choice.
When Jo writes her love letter to Laurie she says “My dear teddy, I miss you more than I can express. I used to think that the worst fate was to be a wife, I was young and stupid. But now I have changed. The worst fate is to live my life without you in it.” I think Jo finds it hard to express her feelings without going against her believes/ideas about what women should and shouldn’t be in the world. Like when Jo tells her sister Meg that she doesn’t need to get married to John and that she will get bored after 2 years. Later on Jo telling her mum that she is sick of women having their only purpose of to love. Jo realised that women are more than that. To all the people saying Jo felt ‘lonely’ and needed to fill a void that’s why she confesses to Laurie her love that was not the reason. When Jo left to go to New York she left her sisters behind. And when her sister Beth got sick she came back in a heart beat. Stopping everything that she was doing her dreams and ambition for her sister. When her sister Amy burned her papers Jo got angry at Amy and even said she will never ever forgive her and then when her sister nearly drowned she went back to talking to her in a heart beat realising that her sister was more important. Similarly as soon as she rejects Laurie she kept writing to him but he was the one that was not answering to her letters. Jo truly did care for him. She just didn’t have herself figured out yet. Jo thought a women cannot marry and pursue her dreams at the same time in the end she realises she can when she marries the professor. She realises this before however and wanted to tell Laurie by confessing to him through the letter but it was to late. Jo wanted it to be Laurie that she marries. Jo even admitted to her mum that when she gets angry her anger can blind her. Like when she rejected Laurie because of her anger blinding her to thinking women should be independent and never married, but she doesn’t realise women can be both. Jo is a strong willed character who refuses to back down but then she does on all of these occasions she does it for the people that she loves. She did that when she rejected Laurie. She was angry because she had dreams she wanted to pursue and marriage was not on her radar back then. However after loosing her sister for good this time she realises the mistake she made rejecting Laurie. She realises death is her worse enemy and it can come in the way of things even when she thinks she is in control. She steers the wheel of her life, she is independent, unmarried, in New York writing doing everything she ever wanted but death still has a way of ruining things. When she comes to this realisation she cannot bear to loose Laurie in the same way without telling him how she truly feels. Because Jo finally realises that the love she holds for him is greater than whatever it is she wanted to do as a single women.
I’m talking about the movie btw. The 2019 movie adaptation. Laurie fell in love with Amy’s beauty. Constantly calling her beautiful and admiring only that about her. That’s even what he notices about her when he speaks to her. You look beautiful, you are beautiful. Whereas with jo he has loved her ever since he met her. Watching her live out her passion for acting and supporting her by being part of her play. Watching her fall in love with writing and even him inviting her to the theatre to watch a play because he knows that’s what she lives for and loves. Laurie fell in love with jo for her soul and everything she is. So for the people saying that laurie would never have supported jo in the way the professor does in her passions that is so false. What Laurie and jo had was ethereal.
@@boudouroubou9790 I agree it was special and someone else here said the they were "Platonic soulmates" which is quite accurate in my opinion. However, in the movie you can just tell that Laurie is not as passionate about his work as Jo and when she meets the prof' she feels like she has something to learn. Yes, Laurie loved her deeply of course he would be supportive but Jo is competitive by nature and she needed someone to challenge her! She needed to feel feminine and ladylike where's with Laurie she felt like he would do anything she says and she felt like she had the power, there was no challenge. Love isn't just about supporting each other But it's about finding a partner that pushes you to be the best version of yourself.
In the movie I think she may have found it difficult maybe to admit to her mum that she is in love with him, perhaps because she was shy. Besides she never says she doesn’t love him she says “I care more to be loved.” She shows her love through her actions she doesn’t need to say the words. In other words she loves differently. She’s not one to be lovely dovey like her sisters she has a different love language. Hers isn’t like Meg or Amy’s, jo shows her love differently through acts of service. She didn’t want to be with Laurie because she was lonely she kept in contact with him even after rejecting his proposal it wasn’t at beths death that she realised she wanted to be with him because she was lonely. She has always wanted to be with him but just that she didn’t have herself figured out yet. He loved her to early she loved him to late. Besides Laurie does push her to be her best self. In different ways. He doesn’t need to critic/challenge her to push her to be the best possible version of herself. Sometimes all it takes is just support being there for the person. Being part of their dreams and ambitions and passions. He did that, he did all of that. Jo yearned for Laurie before her sister Beth dies. In the movie when she comes back from New York she tells her sister that she kept writing to him but he won’t answer to her letters. And her sister asks her do you miss him. And jo says “i miss everything” she misses the love he showed her and what they had. It wasn’t loneliness that prompted her to want to be with Laurie because she says all of this before her sister dies. she loved him way before she even realised.
Your assessment is pretty correct. In "Little Men", Amy continues to challenge Laurie, he works to make her proud of him, and he and Jo are best of friends. Jo can write without feeling guilty.
I think Jo and Laurie would be so supportive of each other to the point they won't call each other out. They for sure won't be happy if they ended up together. They'll ruin each other. And their partners both knew how to call them out and be honest with them, not being afraid to hurt their feelings.
I think overall I like the original better but the actress who plays any did an amazing job. Also Meryl streep was a great addition along w timothee. The music and cinematography were also top notch
Holy crap, I love the quiet Your Lie in April music in the background of this video!!!!!❤❤❤❤❤❤ (ngl I had to rewatch this video because the first time around I was concentrating on the song until around the second half when in changed😂, but the content was great 👍)
I’ve never read the book, and this genre of entertainment doesn’t really grasp my attention. Yet I still loved the movie. On a completely different note Timothée Chalamet did fantastic and I’ve never loved anyone more.
I remember watching the movie for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I have never read Little Women nor have I seen another adaptation. I went into it blindly, just wanting something to watch. Naturally, I fell in love with the story, BUT the moment Amy cried out to Laurie in Paris in the beginning, jumping off the carriage, running in her dazzling puffy dress to engulf him in a bear hug, I immediately said "Oh! I hope they end up together!!" And while Jo and Laurie's relationship is very heart warming romantically they could NEVER work, and so I was very excited by the ending with Laurie and Amy getting married.
I feel that when Amy says to laurie that”[she] believes she has power over who she loves” she is saying to laurie that love is something she can develop through time not that she still has feelings for laurie.
I love your content. Here's my personal franchise suggestions for future videos. 1) Berserk 2) Hunter x Hunter 3) Akira 4) Code Geass 5) One Piece 6) Hellsing 7) Demon Slayer 8) Bleach 9) Vineland Saga 10) Mob Psycho 100 11) One Punch Man
I think it boils down to this, Jo can’t push Laurie to be his best and he can’t push her because he puts her on a pedestal, Amy and Laurie can challenge each other and help each other grow as equals. As I see it, Jo and Laurie are kindred spirits, people who experience the world in a way that is so the same, while Laurie and Amy are soul mates, people who compliment each other through their differences.
Jo and Laurie felt slightly off as a couple for me. I feel as though it would have been strange for them as a couple considering how strongly their relationship was built like a brother and sister, it would have been uncomfortable to watch unfold. They treated each other like siblings of their own, Jo was only confused on whether she was fit for the love she could give, because all she really wanted was to BE loved, rather than having the ability to love anyone else, especially Laurie since he is, deifnitely, a very passionate character. Amy, who was LOOKING to marry and believing she does have the ability to love someone was definitely a better choice for Laurie, considering they would both have strong mutual feelings. Unlike for Laurie and Jo, it was confusing and scary and not enough to drive them together.
I love this video so much! I've always had trouble explaining why I felt that Amy and Laurie were the perfect ending, and you've just put my thoughts into words.
Such a beautiful explanation. I hadn’t seen Amy and Laurie as making any sense!but your perspective has started to make me look at it from a different angle. Thank you for that.
My preferred Little Women (after the 90s one) is the 2017 version by the BBC with Maya Hawke and I think they're clearer in showing that Jo and Laurie really aren't compatible. Their Amy is less likable than Florence's Amy (who's great but imo always looks too old for either of her ages as Amy) but I believe her and Laurie very easily.
Anyone who thinks Jo and Laurie shot have been together has provided seen too many bad romcoms where a guy obsesses over and finally wears down an unwilling woman into accepting him. In what world is ir either healthy or romantic for somepne to propose by saying "I'll changs everything about myself so yoz would want me, now you must accelr me!' or for the other person to eventually go "I should marry my childhood friend because I'm really lonely and I don't want to lose him as frirnd/faux-brother, even though I'm not in love with him and never wanted to marey him in general and him specifically"? How does "I'm not in love with him, but I'm lonely and want to be loved" a good reason to marry someone?
Having a boy best friend for 12 years I can assure sometimes you both are soulmates but not necessarily romantic, we had so many people even saying to our back "they are dating" "they are hucking up" or "tana i saw luca with some girl" like ¿? All this after we made clear we weren't dating, Even if we absolutely love each other we don't have sexual tension, we don't find each other attractive like that, it's just, not us, so I can tell why Jo rejected him and why they didn't end up together, they just weren't the love of each other life's amy is, that's it. (Sorry for my english)
I strongly recommend that you read the books (including A Long, Fatal Love Chase) Alcott wrote as well as the biographies written about her. While it's interesting to speculate, the fact remains that Louisa May Alcott is quoted as saying, "I won't marry Jo to Laurie to please ANYBODY". Her publisher was pressing her to marry Jo to someone, as marriage in post-Civil War America was still the only honorable end for a female's youth--and Jo was nearing 30 by the end of Good Wives (the second installment of Little Women; yes, it has a name). Not being married by age 30 (spinsterhood looming) was still an anathema in my youth in post WW II America. It was only with the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the Women's Rights Movement of the late 60s and early 70s that women were beginning to rethink their roles as human beings. By the way, Margaret, the "best actress in the family" as Jo speaks of her in Little Women, married and had a family (she has another daughter by John Brooke before he dies in a later novel--read Little Men and Jo's Boys) and one of her daughters becomes the actress that Margaret (Meg) was NOT permitted to do.
Jo wanted to be loved instead of being the loving one. For Laurie, he wanted to be loved one too. But he was going to be the giving one on the one hand the relationship he had with Amy, he was the taker. Not giver. He was the loved one. They all wanted to be loved one. The taker. But Amy was there to give for Laurie. I totally agree about their relationships making sense tho. I tried to look from a different perspective.
I first read the book when I was in elementary school. It was the first book that didn't have a completely happy ending, with beth dying and the main dude from the beginning did not end up with the main girl and it made me so upset, but as I grew older I totally started to understand how the different ending is consistent with the characters and what alcott was saying all in all. I really love how at the end you said the story is more about Jo finding her self and her relationships with her sisters rather than about who they fell in love with!
I think Laurie and Amy was a good endgame. Why? Because Jo wants him because she is afraid of being alone, as she said, she doesn’t wish to get married because that’s all people think women can do, she wants to change that. But then Jo realised she is feeling alone so she went back to teddy. But when it came to Amy, it’s true love. Jo can never love Laurie like Amy did, Jo only loved Laurie as a friend but Amy loved him as a lover, her lover, the love of her life and Laurie’s feelings are mutuals. So yes, I prefer Amy and Laurie than Jo and Laurie.
I view my relationship with my loved one a lot like Laurie and Amy. My girlfriend, though rarely disagreeing with me, pushed me to become a better person, and I'm grateful for that.
I didn't watch the film yet but I watched a ton of clips and I actually loved their pairing and I also read that in the books he really fell in love with her so I don't get why ppl don't like their pairing xD
this analysis was great! at first, i was a little bummed out by friedrich because i thought he was a bit last minute, but now that you've shed some light on his and jo's relationship i've definitely grown to like him more! also, the choice of background music was chef's kiss, haha. your lie in april and 5cm per second have incredible music too :D
i would be lying if i say that i did not want laurie to be with jo. maybe the fact that laurie felt and looked that way to jo stuck with me. not wanting anyone else for laurie but jo. it breaks me how jo cannot reciprocate laurie’s love or when the moment was too late to do so. it felt like all the years wanting jo was put into waste. i hated amy, now i do not know what to feel after this video.
I've always felt a close connection to Jo and now I get it. I've never really seen her or understood her as I do now after you talked about her and her temper. Also I was so sad for her and Laurie but it makes so much more sense and also the whole "she needs someone quieter, without a temper, who will tell her what she doesn't want to her and help her grow" it's perfect in every sense in my situation. I discovered something new about me today hahaha
First video I've watched of yours and subscribed at once !! Your explanation as well as articulation is very good and well done. I agree completely, just that, i found it a teeny bit weird for Laurie to marry the little sister of the woman he thought he was in love with (i don't say loved cause i feel he confused being comfortable with a person with romance, which though complementary, are different, especially in this case). He had much more sensual chemistry with Amy. To her, he was a man. To Jo, he was a boy, a brother even. Anyway, great work🙏❤️
laurie any jo were definitely the best of friends and are compatible in the sense of being just that. laurie and amy were 1000% more compatible as a couple. laurie and jo would’ve never had a lasting relationship as man and wife, they just don’t click in that way, but laurie and amy do.
You should review JoJo Rabbit. I found it to be a vary insightful movie. It was a mix between satire and melodrama. Truthfully it is one of those rare movies that is in a category all on it's own.
Irrelevant to this video but you should go over the Korean Film 'Burning' it's a very symbolic one that leaves your mind thinking the entirety, stunning visuals and Steven Yeun is in it aswell!
I like the couples that came out of the story. I think Jo was right in saying she and Laurie would make each other miserable. They both had a childish streak to them that they brought out in each other. They would always be a young boy and girl together throwing tantrums. Where are Laurie and Amy were much more a man and woman with similar ideals about love and life. There’s a childhood charm to their relationship that’s fun and lighthearted as opposed to jo and Laurie a intense childish feel. The childhood friendship between them breaks the otherwise very formal and economic relationships that their expectation in life would have given them. Amy and Laurie just fit into each other’s already existing lives so perfectly. The man Jo ends up with whose name I can’t remember is also so much more suited to Jo. His lifestyle is more free and fun and away from the societal norms that Jo hates. So they too fit into each other’s already existing lives so well. Also Jo is a bit over imaginative and excitable so it makes sense that as a woman she ends up with a very grounded realistic man who can bring her back down to earth but without crushing her dreams. Though so does have a good go at accusing him of it. Everyone gets exactly what they want and need.
Amy and Laurie make sense because they've always been the kind of people who knew what they wanted and always went after it, regardless of proving some point. They were passionate but level-headed, and both grew up into their own person and matured to want the same things in the same way. Very unlike Jo who, while meaning well, didn't really care for the same things Laurie did. She entertained the thought of romantically loving him because he loved her, but other than that, there was nothing there.
I always saw Jo and Laurie together. I felt as though Jo wouldn't submit and turn into and average housewife and Laurie wouldn't force her too, and easily come to terms with that after a few spats. I did think it was weird turning to another sister and that Amy reciprocated. If that happened in reality I think most people even if they rejected that person would feel some type of way even if it was just a cousin.
I don't understand how people hate on Amy - like Jo and Laurie would have never worked. I literally use them as an example to explain why me and my best friend are only ever going to be friends and honestly I'm not sure I would have ever realised that if I hadn't read little women. Which might have led me to some bad choices
Please leave comments telling me why I’m wrong! I did think it was weird that Laurie decided to go after Jo’s little sister after being rejected by her. I definitely overlooked it because Timothée Chalamet played Laurie. Laurie wanted to be a March so bad.
Im not gonna tell you wrong but i wanna recommend something to read while it rains ryuuma no gagou and it truly embodies the term you die twice once when you body dies and the other when everybody who knows you forgets your name
I agree with Amy and Laurie being a better romantic match than Jo and Laurie, however the way they went about it was completely wrong and the timing was horrible and Laurie jumping from one sister to the other is nastyyyyy
Maybe given the context it wasn’t uncommon . She other than jo was the most suitable and he had spent many years knowing her and he knew the family.
You are not wrong. But it is clear that you have only seen Gerwigs version. She makes it clear that these are the right matches by showing Amy and Laurie first. This is not clear in any other version.
Please make a video on after the rain!!! Please please
Can I just say how much I love Florence's performance in this film? Amy is so distinctly different in Paris, she's grown up and that transition is do so masterfully.
It's clever how we see Amy in a new light because the movie deliberately makes an effort to force us to do so. By first meeting an adult, we see someone whose petulance has given away to even-tempered stoicism, whose pettiness has sharpened into ambition, and whose childhood stubbornness has become the sort of steeliness that one admires.
Allowing us to see the type of woman that Amy becomes and, more importantly, spending time with that woman allows us to more easily see her faults for what they were - childhood flaws and foibles that one grows out of - and forgive her for them.
It gives Amy the sort of treatment she probably should’ve had the whole time - the same treatment the narrative and all its adaptations have afforded to Jo.
@@elamplough1 this is so well written ! literally exactly my thoughts but you've said it so well :)
if you think laurie should’ve ended up with jo, you didn’t understand the core message of the movie.
I did not see him with anyone in this family. Never liked him.
What would the core message of the movie be? Genuinely asking
@@jazzstew3108 that you can have your own future that you genuinely want for yourself; to be confident and strong enough to live by your own beliefs. she told us from the beginning that she does not want to marry anybody, that she doesnt see herself getting married. she has this burning passion and she really wants her dream to become a writer happen. yes, she had thought about going back to laurie but these are the times where she felt lonely and has this void. it made her feel even emptier when she stopped writing. she wrote that letter to him not that she loves him in a romantic way, but to fill her emptiness.
I know I am replying many months later but I personally believe its not up to you to say whether he understood the core message or not. Movies are all about personal interpretation and I share the same opinion as him but someone else might not and that doesn't make any of us right or wrong.
No its bc the movie set it up for them to be together and flopped building up amy and laurie
if im honest with myself i perfectly know that i only wanted jo and laurie to end up toghether because im jo, im lonely and i want to be loved. i understand her point of view perfectly, but i rationally know that laurie and amy are a great couple, and jo didint know how to love him properly
Jo loves Laurie differently is the right word not "not properly"
@@o.b.c.6377 she wouldn't love him properly in the romantic sense
Idk why but this comment made me smile, figured I'd let you know :)
@@shannonreynolds3719 aww🥺
This- yes.
jo wants to run back to laurie towards the end of the movie because he's familiar, even if she doesn't realize it. laurie represents childhood and all the good memories jo holds with him and her sisters. jo even admits it: she's lonely! beth has just died, and how could we blame her for longing for the past, longing for simpler and joyful times when she didn't have to worry about making money, feeling lonely, or beth's sickness? i'll admit, the first time i watched this movie, i was upset that they didn't end up together, but after i digested it and watched it another time, it is so clear that they would have crashed and burned as a couple. they would have held each other back.
amy & laurie and jo & friedrich supremacy luv xo
Amy is so misunderstood as a character. She has such a good character development and arc- she is always been my favourite of all the sisters. And the romance with Laurie...I love it!! I found it very convincing- to be honest they were perfect for each other.
I too love their romance! Couldn’t explain why, but it just was nice to me
Can u help explain I pissed my girlfriend off this morning because I’m not understanding her character and honestly dislike her as a character. We watch the movie it’s one of her favorites. It was my first time viewing it. I definitely enjoyed it nine out of 10 style but I do dislike Amy.
The thing is I feel like in the book it makes sense. Yes, she did reject him, but in the book, she is constantly saying how she feels and saying she thinks Laurie should be with Beth or with Meg. She realizes early on in the book that she doesn't want to be with Laurie and that she loves him as a friends. Also, in the ending of the film in the part when Laurie is saying how she loves Amy in a way he could never love Jo, Jo completely agrees with him. I think the book represents Jo's feelings a lot better and makes the decision to have Amy and Laurie end up together make so much sense.
I was a kid when i read the book (or a version of it) and always rooted for Laurie. It felt like he "lost" when he didn't end up with Jo, and that bothered me as a kid 😂 looking back with what I know now, it makes better sense he ended up with Amy. No one lost.
Edit: typos.
Yea the book probably fleshed it out much better than the movie
I think the writers are Jo+Laurie shippers bc the book is very clear in the part that Jo doesn’t love him and that she’s just lonely and wants to be loved when she writes the letter. It’s very clear she doesn’t love him, while the movie makes her seem in love with him, or at least more so. And I don’t believe she really was supposed to love Fredrick, but the sexist editors and publishers and the societal standards caused them to make the author have her get married
Yeah, I think the book shows Jo's feelings better. To be honest, I totally shipped Jo and Laurie in the first book, but in the second part, you can perfectly understand why she doesn't love Laurie that way. Also, I don't know why in the movie they made it seem as if she regrets rejecting Laurie and she going with Fritz like a consolation prize when it wasn't like that in the book at all. Anyway, for me, it would have been a more satisfying ending if she had stayed single but Alcott was forced to marry Jo.
@@marybr5154 i agree her going w fritz like a cheap consolation was kinda lame
High school me was devastated that Jo and Laurie didn't end up together. I believed that their sameness is why they were soulmates. When in reality that thought process was just because I was naive and lacked romantic history. As an adult, I understand why Laurie ended up with Amy. Jo and Laurie's sameness would cause them to burn each other up. Their romantic relationship wouldn't help either of them grow into better versions of themselves like good romantic relationships should. Jo encouraged Laurie's childish and selfish behavior, while Amy pushed him into becoming a more mature version of himself. Laurie needs Amy's pragmatism. Amy also enjoys Laurie's way of life. A way of life that Jo would have resented and wilted under.
I agree that they might have burned each other up, but Jo was always correcting Laurie. She was constantly telling him not to play billiards, that the joke that he played on John and Meg was nasty, that he should be grateful for his opportunity to go to college. Amy just fit in better with his world because she likes high society, as you said.
@@dynesteefields4396 correcting people and effectively pushing them into better versions of themselves is not quite the same thing. Amy's temperament could manage it with Laurie, Jo's could not
Jo's conversation with Marmee was really similar to my conversation with my mom about love. I said I wanted to find someone who loves me more than I do but my mom said I was wrong. When my mom was young, she was going through the Vietnam War, so in a sense marriage is an economic proposition for her. But the way my mom spun it, she believes love is about sacrifice and compromise, which means you have to accept each other's flaws and support them with either your economic wealth or your emotional support. I guess that's what "to be there in sickness and in health" means.
The reason why every woman in Little Women ended up with someone was because Louisa Alcott was pressured by her publishers to have all her female characters married by the end. Which is why Jo’s storyline focused a lot on sexist publishers telling her how she has to write with the intention of encouraging women to get married. So even with critics stating Laurie and Amy’s relationship makes no sense or has no thematic relevance. Keep in mind the times and how the author herself probably wasn’t too happy about it either. Considering being a “sPiNsTeR” was treated like a swear and deemed a crutch on society for women to refuse marriage and children. You can criticize it but honestly it’s pointless to do so, disregards the context, and invalidates the importance of her work. She encouraged a whole generation of Women to live there lives for themselves. We would probably be set back decades if it weren’t for her trailblazing. Show some respect.
Making Women more independent
Facts
How does critique invalidate the significance of a work? Nothing is perfect and trying to put something on a pedestal just because it was ahead of its time is dumb. Hell trying to put anything on a pedestal is dumb.
Corksucker Fair enough, I grasp her novel isn’t perfect but criticizing aspects of it that were out of the authors control isn’t right to me. Criticism isn’t wrong in fact people offering different perspective’s on fiction should be welcomed. We shouldn’t ignore when certain good pieces of work have problematic elements, no more or less than should we ignore objectivity with fiction that helped in positive social change. This is coming from someone whose an aspiring author and a feminist.
Corksucker Bottom line, one can think Amy and Laurie not being romantically involved would have been objectively better for the story. However keep in mind it was out of Louisa’s control and said uncontrollable minor flaws shouldn’t be ammunition to diminish her work.
In the book Amy and Laurie’s love makes complete sense, you actually see the connection and subtle hints long before they end up together towards the end of the story.
i honestly find their relationship very sweet. i’ve known of people who ended up dating/ marrying their older siblings best friend after they had a crush on them when they were younger. tbh i don’t even think laurie and jo were really actually in love, i think they were just close and thought that they should be
If Jo would have been what Alcott truly wanted, she would have been a spinster or with a woman. Jo and Laurie would have been a terrible match. Some people make fantastic friends, but horrible couples. More often than not with couples like this, the coupling ruins the great friendship. Amy and Laurie are actually an amazing couple. They both push each other in the right ways and both are better people for it.
Little Women definitely is a love story though, just not the one we are used to. It's a love story between sisters and their simpler youth. Gretta also made it a love story about a woman and her books. Which is the greatest love story of all lol
Completely agree! Personally I like to see Jo as gay, but understand that some people may not. But she was never going to marry a man had Louisa been able to publish the story she wanted. Jo and Laurie are platonic soulmates, but romantically, they would have been miserable! Amy and Laurie suit eachother and romantically get along so well, which allows Jo to have Laurie as part of her family too.
@@connie6738 as a spinster, I definitely see a lot of myself in Jo, but I can also see why the gay community sees a lot of themselves in Jo as well. While of course I would prefer a spinster because we all look for characters that represent us the best, I take no issue with Jo possibly being a lesbian. All that matters is that Jo is happy. Alcott does not go into it enough to fully know if this is the case, but I feel like Jo would also be very intrigued, if not a part of, the non-binary movement going on now and days. Because the book is from the 1800s, obviously Alcott does not go into this, but Jo at least it's very upset at being a woman. Whether that's just because of the time she lives in or maybe something else, we'll never know.
👏🏼👏🏼
The alphabet people want jo to be gay so bad. She isn’t gay. Alcot never said that you guys make up whatever you want
I don't agree, it was ultimately Alcott's decision and it was more in response to her fans' feedback than any pressure from publishers. She actually had a really good relationship with her publisher by all historical accounts. Alcott herself expressed a similar loneliness to Jo in her journal entries and Bhaer has a lot of characteristics of men in her life that she expressed admiration for. I love Jo and Friedrich together, it's think it's beautiful that Jo was eventually able to see the value in marriage and found someone who complimented her personality perfectly and made her a better writer and person.
I think what some people miss is how selfish Jo is in regards to Laurie and how possessive. I love Jo's character and also because it is flawed. She wants Laurie to love her and not to return that love and for that to be enough for him. Yes I know what it is like to be lonely but to push your loneliness on someone else is not a good thing. Also Laurie being unavailable is what frees Jo from the idea and sets her off to pursue her career instead of giving in to her selfish desires after Beth's death. I know exactly what it's like to be in Jo's position. And Laurie did the best thing for her in moving on.
"Are you hurt?"
"I'm Amy!"
I understand all of them completely. For Laurie, Jo was his teenage crush. He loved her cuz she was kinda the first girl who entered in his life, and was his alter ego. I don't think he really loved her as a "woman". However, Amy grew up so beautifully and with elegance. Laurie also matured and would see Amy as more desirable wifely figure than Jo. Besides I can see Laurie wanting Amy in a more sensual way than he did with Jo.
This makes so much sense.
Jo embodied the free spirit Laurie wanted to embody when he was young. She inspired him and made his stiff rich kid life less boring. So he was drawn to her like a moth to flame and in his naivete believed that meant he was in love with her.
Omg this is a perfect explanation
this seems weirdly sexist like after he becomes mature Laurie can only want and see himself with someone who fits the gender roles better?
@@arunima8138 Well this was set in the 1800s when gender roles were firmly established, what do you expect? Amy needed to find a wealthy husband who could provide for her and her family, and Laurie needed to find an elegant and charming woman who could mind his big house and fortune and be the perfect wife. We may not like it now, but it was perfectly natural then.
You have the most amazing voice ever, it just makes me feel so calm
And with the rain sound in the background.... so calming.
MissMiia LOL exactly I was thinking
I agree too! Amy and Laurie are meant for each other. Like Laurie said in the movie, the love he felt for Jo is different. For him, Jo was a crush, but once he fell in love he realized that his love for Jo wasn't romantic, while his love for Amy is!
I largely agree with your analysis regarding this adaptation in isolation- it's not a shock to say that film adaptations of novels struggle to portray the story with same emotional depth, since they lack the time to detail such depth organically. However, I think you noticed/touched on many subtle intricacies used by the actors to reinforce certain ideas. You mention the difference between romantic and platonic love, which is certainly a running theme or juxtaposition presented in the film, but I do think that the film undercuts/does not complete the core question regarding what 'love truly is' in comparison to the book... and that's largely due to the limited and somewhat inauthentic characterization of Beth.
For those of you who haven't read the book but plan to, spoilers ahead, but the novel certainly does make Amy and Laurie's romance feel honest, organic and logical... although Alcott achieves this in a way that's complex and not completely wholesome, like a Hollywood love-story often is. What you first need to know for any of this to make sense is that, within the novel, Alcott cements the notion that there is a person, a soul-mate, for everybody and that soul-mates fill in the blank spaces and inadequacies the other person.
As children, Amy and Laurie envy one another for completely different reasons, and this envy becomes fascination in time. The adaptation definitely touches on this, but the wealth and refinery afforded to Laurie is enchanting to her- unlike her sisters, she attends a school where most of the girls in her grade are upper-class, or upper-middle class... and as her own family is only struggling more by the day, her urge/obsession to attain wealth grows at a similar rate. When Laurie becomes their neighbor and shows an impressionable Amy, who is only 12, the refinery of upper-class life not through her own experience but through Meg and Jo's (the theater, fancy parties), her imagined ideal of not who Laurie is, but what he represents, is reinforced. A key theme within the book is the imaginative landscape of girlhood, especially in an era in which a woman might not have the opportunity to do or achieve whatever she likes, but she can take solace in imagination and fantasy. What Laurie represents to a 12 year-old Amy is respect, acceptance and refinery- due to her low self-esteem brought on by being ridiculed at school (wearing old, second-hand clothes, not having the finest pens), she equates wealth to self-acceptance. The blank space within her is a lack of self-respect... regardless of the fact that wealth should not fix a person's self-esteem issues, Laurie is able to fill this blank space and complete her.
In Laurie's case, although wealthy he is overwhelmingly lonely- in the same way that Amy is fascinated by and envies his social standing, he envies the effortless love and warmth of family that the sisters are able to enjoy. Once he is essentially accepted as an honorary family-member, the fear of losing this strong sense of love and kinship after years of isolation overcomes him. To guarantee being part of this family forever, he must marry into it- in the novel, he first claims that Meg is the most beautiful girl he's even seen and he does lust over her... he's obviously infatuated with Jo as their sibling-like love develops, he makes a special effort to ask over Beth, listen to her intently when she's often interrupted by others and listens to her play the piano for hours on end... he's very affectionate and protective of Amy. With Meg being married, Jo's denial when he does propose and Beth's untimely death... only Amy can fill his blank space and make him feel whole- in Alcott's mind this is what a soulmate, or your 'person', truly is- they complete you. Amy and Laurie do complete each other in these ways, although they both seem to not be fully conscious of why that is.
Like the adaptation, the novel details love and its many forms, but what it fails to show us is the very bleak reality surrounding Jo and her soul-mate. In the book, Jo acknowledges that the profession is a good man, but he is not her person. She acknowledges that Laurie will always be a brother to her, but is not her person either- neither candidate completes her. Her person, the only one who completed her, was Beth. Perhaps they didn't include certain lines/neglected to characterize Beth authentically because it's far too bleak, but Jo and Beth mirror and complete each other, as soul-mates so. Jo is confident, she speaks her mind, she's stubborn, somewhat self-important, and ultimately feels like being great, like a talented writer or a war-hero or an influential academic, is most important, 'be great or die'- in the book she says she'd prefer death over being ordinary, and ordinary people are always forgotten to history. Beth mirrors her, like soul-mates do. Out of the four sisters, she's the only one who doesn't have strong ambitions or lofty dreams- she is timid and often won't speak her mind, or at all, because she prefers to listen. In the novel, she says to Jo that 'I was never like the rest of you, making plans about the great things that I would do... I never saw myself as anything much, not a talented writer like you'. Unlike Jo who equates importance to greatness, Beth makes her realise that a person can be relatively ordinary and lack talent, but despite this, her inherent selflessness and purity of heart renders her just as important as any iconic, talented figure remembered forever. Beth completes Jo because she offers her this new understanding, that living a kind and giving life is 'great' in of itself... she's also Jo's main confidant, offering her a rational and empathetic perspective when Jo's frustrated or angry- in the novel, Jo laments that Beth was the only person she felt she could be truly honest with, and accepted by.
Jo completes Beth by always noticing her, being attentive, asking her to elaborate on her feelings or why she feels afraid about certain situations- because Beth is not inclined to talk about herself or her feelings naturally, so as to not be burdensome, Jo prompting it completes her... it allows her to vent without feeling selfish for doing so. In conversations where all four sisters are talking over one another, Jo will tell everyone to stop talking so Beth can chime in. Jo helps Beth to find her 'voice'- she says 'she feels stronger' when Jo is with her.
It's a sad conclusion, but Jo (or Louisa's, as the story is essentially a memoir) realises that Beth, despite her purity and selflessness, would be forgotten to history. The adaptation changes these two moments, but in the novel, Beth is the one that pushes the family to give their Christmas feast up to the starving family, and later, she sneaks out to help them alone in secret, without being told to. These two moments exemplify Beth's 'greatness' and why the Beths of the world ought to be remembered.
One of my favourite paragraphs of the novel is as follows, and it illustrates this whole argument: “There are many Beths in the world, shy and quiet, sitting in corners till needed, and living for others so cheerfully that no one sees the sacrifices till the little cricket on the hearth stops chirping, and the sweet, sunshiny presence vanishes, leaving only silence and shadow behind.”
Love has many forms beyond romantic love in Little Women, and although Jo lost 'her person', 'her soul-mate', she was able to immortalize Beth forever. In Louisa's private journal, she explains that she didn't like writing realism over fantasy but she was driven to write Little Women to immortalize her little sister Elizabeth, whose pet-name was Lizzy instead of Beth in real life, and she succeeded in that. Showing the importance of Beth, her legacy, that's true love to me.
kudos for this essay
Interesting, thank you for this write-up!
this is stunning and very beautiful and very true, well done
Thankyou for this.
This was amazing to read I believe every last word of it. There are so many different loves, especially in this story. This was an incredible analysis of this 🙂
Jo does not own Laurie!!! They don’t need to be together!!! Let Amy and Laurie be together!
This is such a HUGE thing that a lot of Jo stans dont seems to understand. Jo does not have a monopoly on Jo. Amy didnt STEAL Laurie from Jo when Jo stated multiple times she didnt love Laurie (until she got desperate and lonely) and Laurie grew up and out of the boyhood crush he had on Jo. Amy just happened to be the sister of his first crush. That is IT. Amy and Laurie are a romantic couple and partners in life while Jo and Laurie are platonic soulmates. These are FACTS that Jo stans just dont want to admit.
Jenna Wallace and even if you don’t like the Amy and Laurie pairing, that doesn’t mean that Amy stole Laurie, he’s a person (character) capable of making his own decisions.
It's not that Jo owns Laurie, it's just that the first book specifically builds their relationship. Jo introduces Laurie to the March family. Jo is best friends with Laurie. Meanwhile, Amy comes off as shallow in the first book. By the time that it's over, it's almost inconceivable that suddenly it would by Amy and Laurie. The writing was extremely in depth for the first pairing.
@@dynesteefields4396 if i am not wrong, Louisa May Alcott, based the book on herself and her sisters and she wrote herself as Jo. it's from her point of view and majorly set in their childhoods where admittedly she was friends wih Laurie first and introduced him to her family and they hung out together all the time. but time spent together doesn't equal love. Amy and Laurie, they fit better because they want similar things from life and better each other by being together.
Saw this movie with my sister and the way it ended made sense amy and laurie thrive on what is expected Jo ended up with Friedrich they can challenge each other and complement each other she can make the German professor more at ease and and he is a tether to earth.that the rebellious March sister doesnt mind having
I genuinely appreciated that you as a man saw value in this movie and it’s themes when so many other men only saw it as another chick flick solely because it focuses on 4 sisters. It’s validating so see a man look at this movie and see it’s values and themes that extend beyond the gender narrative and expectations of society. Themes and values that can be appreciated by everyone no matter who they are. I appreciated especially that the focus of your video was given towards to a romantic development and dynamic in the movie. Something that a lot of people would deem to be only fit for exploration by women since men couldn’t possibly be interested. Also I agree with you wholeheartedly on your perspective and I thought you explained it perfectly and concisely. This video was an absolute delight from beginning to end
thank you!
A lovely comment on a beautiful & thoughtful review: Thank you! 🙏🏽
In the script, after Jo and the Professor first meet, he says "No one gets ink stains like yours just out of a desire of money."
It reads 'Jo feels the intense pain and pleasure of being seen by someone, of knowing that they know you.'
when i first saw the movie in theaters, my opinion strictly was that jo and laurie should have been together. but the more and more i watched the movie and read the book, i realized, amy and lauries ending was perfect. it made so much more sense that they ended together than say jo and laurie. so i 100% agree with you.
When Jo writes her love letter to Laurie she says “My dear teddy, I miss you more than I can express. I used to think that the worst fate was to be a wife, I was young and stupid. But now I have changed. The worst fate is to live my life without you in it.” I think Jo finds it hard to express her feelings without going against her believes/ideas about what women should and shouldn’t be in the world. Like when Jo tells her sister Meg that she doesn’t need to get married to John and that she will get bored after 2 years. Later on Jo telling her mum that she is sick of women having their only purpose of to love. Jo realised that women are more than that. To all the people saying Jo felt ‘lonely’ and needed to fill a void that’s why she confesses to Laurie her love that was not the reason. When Jo left to go to New York she left her sisters behind. And when her sister Beth got sick she came back in a heart beat. Stopping everything that she was doing her dreams and ambition for her sister. When her sister Amy burned her papers Jo got angry at Amy and even said she will never ever forgive her and then when her sister nearly drowned she went back to talking to her in a heart beat realising that her sister was more important. Similarly as soon as she rejects Laurie she kept writing to him but he was the one that was not answering to her letters. Jo truly did care for him. She just didn’t have herself figured out yet. Jo thought a women cannot marry and pursue her dreams at the same time in the end she realises she can when she marries the professor. She realises this before however and wanted to tell Laurie by confessing to him through the letter but it was to late. Jo wanted it to be Laurie that she marries. Jo even admitted to her mum that when she gets angry her anger can blind her. Like when she rejected Laurie because of her anger blinding her to thinking women should be independent and never married, but she doesn’t realise women can be both. Jo is a strong willed character who refuses to back down but then she does on all of these occasions she does it for the people that she loves. She did that when she rejected Laurie. She was angry because she had dreams she wanted to pursue and marriage was not on her radar back then. However after loosing her sister for good this time she realises the mistake she made rejecting Laurie. She realises death is her worse enemy and it can come in the way of things even when she thinks she is in control. She steers the wheel of her life, she is independent, unmarried, in New York writing doing everything she ever wanted but death still has a way of ruining things. When she comes to this realisation she cannot bear to loose Laurie in the same way without telling him how she truly feels. Because Jo finally realises that the love she holds for him is greater than whatever it is she wanted to do as a single women.
Boudourou Bou boo we don’t need a full explanation of the movie we saw it. Just because jo was lonely does not mean she was in love with Laurie in that way. She was just lonely she expressed that many times and she missed her friend. She felt like she needed to except Lauries proposal because of society’s shame to unmarried women.
This point is illustrated in her SECOND BOOK "Little Men" which chronicles the story if Jo and the professor running a school in Aunt March's big house. It continues all their stories, plus those of the kids in the school, but it just beautifully shows how well they are paired, and the blossoming role of best friends that Laurie continues to play. Not gonna lie, I actually prefer "little men" to "little women" but they are both made better by the stories in the other.
Jo and Laurie is the MOST unrealistic and irrational pair (if they were ever paired) I don't understand the literary dunces who ship them! Laurie and Amy on the other hand go as smooth as soft butter on crusted bread.. It just goes so well, you don't even need to doubt. Both compliment each other so well!
Just because you disagree with someone’s favorite pairing doesn’t mean you have the right to insult them, there’s no need to be rude
I again i was actually shocked to hear that people were upset that Jo didn't end up with Laurie. Jo was always honest with her thoughts of settle down and playing the wife role she wanted to write and spend her life with her sisters. While Laurie was always trying to avoid life. Like the narrator said Jo wasn't concern about Laurie's potential she liked him because he loved to break the rules like she did. I love Jo and Laurie's relationship, but i was happy the way the story ended especially knowing that the publisher pressured her into finding love in the end. It was refreshing especially because i couldn't understand why with a lot of tv couples especially i got annoyed with a lot of them after they got married the main reason was because of the unnecessarily drama made just to play with the audiences emotions some storylines were reasonable but the unnecessary affairs and love triangles.... I am SOOOO tired of love triangles!
I so am defiantly Jo know marriage is not for me. I'm not against people that go that route but for me that is something i rather die without. That doesn't mean i don't want to have relationships or fall in love, but having a legal contract with someone finically tell divorce or death is not for me especially because am going Jo's route and looking for my owe success not marry into success like Amy. No shade to her i love her character growth, but I'm a Jo and it's nice for us Jo's to get a story about get our dreams come true without a love interests overshadowing our success.
@@lstarsabb Its not all too shocking when you consider the time period that this came out. Things were very simple then. Girl meets boy. Girl has significant interactions with boy, girl marries boy. The readers of Alcott's time just could not fathom Jo having such an important and close friendship with a boy if she wasn't romantically connected to him. The only way readers could have understood was if another suitor was courting Jo, but at the time of Laurie's marriage proposal, Jo hadn't even met her actual love interest yet. Its like growing up your whole life being told Peanut butter had to ALWAYS be served with jelly, no question, and then after growing up this way and finally going to a restaurant only to be served a peanut butter sandwich with no jelly in sight. Its not that it CAN'T happen, its just that for you its NEVER happened.
This video was what I needed to see. I am currently in the works for creating a video essay for my film theory class and the topic of "gaze" was discussed too. I was trying to find out what angle to take my video since I chose to compare 1954 vs 2019 versions of Little Women, and your discussion of "gaze"/"look" helped, thank you!
Good luck on your essay!
🙏🏻🌹🙏🏽
I like your analysis. I believe Laurie fell for Amy after the whole, "Marriage is an economic proposition" conversation. He was used to seeing the childish Amy but after that moment he saw her in a different light. He realised that it was not Jo whom he loved romantically but Amy. After all, if Laurie and Jo were to be married, they would prove to be incompatible to each other.
Also, I think Jo didn't get together with the professor at the end, she only wrote it that way because of the publisher. Jo never wanted to marry someone, all she wanted was to be with her family. I think the slight romantic looks given by Jo were added to the story on the demand of the publisher.
Jo: I'm independent, I don't want to be a rich housewise
Fans: Haha marriage go brr
I finally got to this movie on my "to watch" list last night and spent the whole second half of the movie in tears. It was beautiful- and like you I went into this movie blind as I had not seen any other films or read the original novel. I loved what you pointed out about how love and good partners should be honest and push you to be better- this is so true. The scene where the professor reads Jo's work and comments on it was so powerful to me- as he said "has no one taken you seriously before?" because that is so true. To take someone seriously is to be honest with them and point out any flaws you may see in their work, not to just say "oh it's lovely!" and keep any criticism or comments to yourself xo
Monica AP absolutely, criticism it’s so important, and even more so from loved ones. I’m glad you enjoyed it as much as I did!!
@@SagesRain 🥰🥰
I really love the last part where you clarify the true importance of the story, and the warm parts of childhood versus the cold separation of adulthood, because it brings words to the reason why I love this story so much as someone who grew up with two sisters (albeit with not such a rosy childhood, but we were together all the same), and all still trying to figure out and pursue our ambitions in our 20s and 30s, separately and somewhat alone.
I have never loved a comment section more than this one seeing how everyone has literal paragraphs about this book and movies and how everyone is just in love with Amy and Laurie which is so true. Jo and Laurie were something else but in a different way. Amy called each one of Laurie's bullshit even after being in love with him she didnt hesistate in pointing it out fearing that she might lose him. Now thats the kind of love a relationship needs. THIS WOMAN MADE HIM A MAN. #amyandlaurieforever
And also Flo's performance in this movie. HOLY SHIT. That scene where laurie confessed oml her acting there and in this movie is MARVELOUS. no wonder she got an oscar nomination. She is going to RULE the world here i predict future now
I've always liked how Amy and Laurie ended up together
jo will forever be coded as a lesbian to me
she may be ace tho
She is. Louisa may alcott was said to be queer and she never married and jo was based on herself. Jo only gets together with the professor in the end bc the original publishers refused to end the story with Jo being a spinster with no love interest
How cool would it have been if LMA had only referred to The Professor as such or just as Bhaer, no pronouns and no first name, and Bhaer’s gender could have been left up to interpretation? The publisher would probably have just assumed Bhaer was a man (as would most of the readers of the time) and published it without a second thought, but it would never actually be canon. Dang, now I want an adaption where Bhaer is a woman, especially if she was portrayed as ultra feminine so that when she’s introduced as Bhaer, people are really thrown.🤷🏻♀️
@@theliteraryspinster when we get frieda bhaer >>>>
Or aromantic
wow... i was definitely one of those people that HATED that amy and laurie ended up together (i think lowks just cuz i love timmy and saoirse together lol) :”)) after watching your video i definitely agree with the fact that amy and laurie were right to end up together, but yes, jo and laurie are definitely platonic soulmates
I loved Amy and Laurie together in the book as well as in the movie. I first read “Little Woman” when I was in my sophomore year of high school and I related a lot to Josephine March. We both liked writing and didn’t really focus on marriage. Like Jo I had a friend who I could be myself around. We thought of each other as protectors. We wanted the best for one another but we didn’t need nor want each other, if that makes sense. I think that’s why I understood Jo’s and Lauries relationship.
Amy and Laurie I also understood. I wanted to be able to love someone as she did. I wanted to be able to see some ones potential and help them reach it. I called her the supporter of dreams. I think her and Laurie needed the extra push that can only come froM a gentle push in the right direction. And the gentle push is so hard to get right, it literally takes the right people.
As to Jo and professor Bear, I understand why some would say it doesn’t make sense but for me, that was the only logical choice. Sometimes we have a talent so rare and beautiful that when we know it’s good, it’s hard to see the flaws. I also believe that when people care about us and pay attention they can see when we are not being true to ourselves. Jo never needed nor wanted a romantic marriage. I think she needed something honest and helpful. Since she didn’t want to be alone I think being with Bear was an option that offered her a companionship that wouldn’t result in Juvenile behavior. It was simply more her speed. I believe Allotcott chose a suitor who wouldn’t take away Or add to Jo’s gifts or personality. He would simply support her.
I think there is something to be admired in all of the relationships including Alcott’s relationship with the world. It tells you a lot about the time in which she was living but it also tells the reader how important and different relationships can be. Love is not always a fairytale nor is it always a person! Love has many faces and many dances! I think her work reflects this beautifully and to criticize is to only criticize the many different flows of life.
This was also my first exposure to the story, and I'll admit I had trouble seeing Amy and Laurie together at the end, but you've given it good context. I can actually picture it now, maybe when I can give it another watch I'll be able to appreciate it better. Thank you!
6:30 "Jo and Laurie's relationship shows the power of platonic relationships and even their importance." My favorite line in your video. ❤
This story reminds me of 2 actors here in my country. They became friends for a long time, the boy never view the girl as love of his life but when that one night, by just staring that girl he just felt the feelings that he had been longing for and just have private conversation with only them he just ask the girl to marry him. 20 years of their marriage btw
Jo and Laurie are more like Harry and Hermione. but Amy and Laurie were made for each other. she was the one who was able to control him and bring him to the right part. I don't understand why people hate on Amy. she is really the beest.
As much as I loved Laurie. I don't think he deserved to be with Joe or Amy. From my perspective, Amy just feels like a second-choice or left-overs for Laurie. He was rejected, and she was there.
I just finished reading the book today, and, of course, in there it is explained a lot better why Amy and Laurie ended up together. Reading the book I didn't feel like Amy had a girlhood crush on Laurie. They all saw him as their brother, maybe saw him ending up with Meg, if any at all. In the book when he proposes, Beth is still alive, though sick. Jo, anticipating his feelings and her reaction to them, leaves for New York to help Laurie get over her, before she has to refuse him openly. But when she gets back, he proposes anyway, and she pushes him away, because she agrees with her mother, that they wouldn't be good for each other and that he needs someone who is at the same time more and less like himself. During their life together, Jo tries to push Laurie (She tells him not to drink, not to gamble, and make something of his talents), but he rarely does the same for her, and she only ever asserts external pressure on him. He finishes college first of his class for her and is then devastated when that is not enough to make her love him. So he leaves for Europe with his grandfather, where he spends his days in leisure and eventually meets Amy in Nice. There they spend a lot of time together, but only with feelings of siblings for each other, since Laurie is still hung up on Jo and Amy is unhappy by the laziness in his behaviour. Then comes the monologue, where she clearly tells him what she thinks of the way he chooses to spend his time and that she despises him for it. He leaves her, but actually starts getting over Jo and realizes that she is not the only woman he will ever love. And then somewhat naturally the roles of Amy and Jo become reversed, one from sister to lover, the other back.
Meanwhile Jo filled her life with caring for Beth and after her death her life is empty and she tries her best to fill it. And while I feel like the professor came in kind of last minute, since she didn't really have feelings for him in her time in New York, I do think he is a better match for her than Laurie would have been. She ends up running a school/orphanage with him, and I think if Alcott had her way she might run it alone or even with the professor, but not in a romantic way.
When I watched the movie I was a little confused by the order of events and why people were where they were at certain times, but I think if they had wanted to make the relationship of Amy and Laurie a focus they would have, but they didn't and that is just as well. It's not a focus in the book either and just kind of comes along in the last 100 pages. What I noticed when reading the book, as opposed to romantic works like Pride and Prejudice, was, that it wasn't really structured in a classical way. It was just about four sisters and their lives, with all the ups and downs, mishaps and tragedies that come along naturally, and so did the love between those two people. It just kind of happens as love does and that is fine by me.
TL;DR: People fall in and out of love all the time, and that's fine. Amy and Laurie are great together.
Also, don't name your child Beth. According to the book that name is cursed.
Thank you so much for talking about this film. I didn't expect to love and feel for the characters and their stories as much as I did.
Honestly....I DON'T think you're wrong. Louisa May Alcott originally didn't want Jo, the her heroine in her novel, to marry AT ALL. But much as we see in the movie's ending, the publisher insisted that Jo marry because that's the way things were done. So she had Jo marry the good Professor Bhaer. Laurie and Jo are best friends.....and in a way, she DOES consider him to be the brother she never had. The love each other and she leans on him for support during her moments of greatest emotion (like when Beth fell sick and when Amy burned her manuscript) but she's not IN love with him. I DO agree with you.....when Laurie proposes to Jo, she turns him down, but then, when Beth dies, there is a hole in Jo's heart and she feels she needs to be loved, so she wants to marry Laurie, but just for the sake of having someone to love her. When Marmee asks her if she loves Laurie she even says "Its more important for me to BE loved" And in this new movie, I DO like how they expanded Amy and Laurie's relationship. Amy is different from Jo. Her dreams are different. Jo is a free spirit. She wants to be a writer and be independent. Amy wants to be rich and be the elegant and refined lady and marry into high society and pursue her dreams of being an artist. And Laurie supports those dreams. He is a bit lackadaisical when it comes to fulfilling his duty and what's expected of him (from both Amy and his grandfather) but in the end, he's willing to change to prove himself worthy of her. He's not afraid of her ideals and her ambitions. I think all the March sisters consider Laurie to be their affectionate older brother, but as they grew up, that relationship between Amy and Laurie changed into love. They make a good match.
Nope, laurie and amy will forever be shipped for me. For ever.
wait people are unhappy about amy and Laurie? damn I loved them
this is absolutely perfect, so spot on!! Every time someone keeps on insisting that Jo and Laurie should have ended together I'll just send them this video and won't be bothered
this is so truthful BUT IT HURTS SO MUCH i'm crying!!!!!
I related so much to the scene where Joe said: "I just want to be loved". I was once loved truly, But I wasn't in love. It is an Isolating feeling but when you are completely alone it seems like it's the only alternative. I found it powerful that Amy ended up with Laurie because It stopped Joe from being completely alone with a man she didn't LOVE. Friendship is very powerful, but Laurie wanted more, It would lead to both of their hearts being broken. However, In my imagination I really wanted Amy to marry someone who showed her the emotions Laurie showed Joe, So that for once in her life she feels like the First choice.
When Jo writes her love letter to Laurie she says “My dear teddy, I miss you more than I can express. I used to think that the worst fate was to be a wife, I was young and stupid. But now I have changed. The worst fate is to live my life without you in it.” I think Jo finds it hard to express her feelings without going against her believes/ideas about what women should and shouldn’t be in the world. Like when Jo tells her sister Meg that she doesn’t need to get married to John and that she will get bored after 2 years. Later on Jo telling her mum that she is sick of women having their only purpose of to love. Jo realised that women are more than that. To all the people saying Jo felt ‘lonely’ and needed to fill a void that’s why she confesses to Laurie her love that was not the reason. When Jo left to go to New York she left her sisters behind. And when her sister Beth got sick she came back in a heart beat. Stopping everything that she was doing her dreams and ambition for her sister. When her sister Amy burned her papers Jo got angry at Amy and even said she will never ever forgive her and then when her sister nearly drowned she went back to talking to her in a heart beat realising that her sister was more important. Similarly as soon as she rejects Laurie she kept writing to him but he was the one that was not answering to her letters. Jo truly did care for him. She just didn’t have herself figured out yet. Jo thought a women cannot marry and pursue her dreams at the same time in the end she realises she can when she marries the professor. She realises this before however and wanted to tell Laurie by confessing to him through the letter but it was to late. Jo wanted it to be Laurie that she marries. Jo even admitted to her mum that when she gets angry her anger can blind her. Like when she rejected Laurie because of her anger blinding her to thinking women should be independent and never married, but she doesn’t realise women can be both. Jo is a strong willed character who refuses to back down but then she does on all of these occasions she does it for the people that she loves. She did that when she rejected Laurie. She was angry because she had dreams she wanted to pursue and marriage was not on her radar back then. However after loosing her sister for good this time she realises the mistake she made rejecting Laurie. She realises death is her worse enemy and it can come in the way of things even when she thinks she is in control. She steers the wheel of her life, she is independent, unmarried, in New York writing doing everything she ever wanted but death still has a way of ruining things. When she comes to this realisation she cannot bear to loose Laurie in the same way without telling him how she truly feels. Because Jo finally realises that the love she holds for him is greater than whatever it is she wanted to do as a single women.
@@boudouroubou9790 I think it's up for interpretation, it's art.
I’m talking about the movie btw. The 2019 movie adaptation. Laurie fell in love with Amy’s beauty. Constantly calling her beautiful and admiring only that about her. That’s even what he notices about her when he speaks to her. You look beautiful, you are beautiful. Whereas with jo he has loved her ever since he met her. Watching her live out her passion for acting and supporting her by being part of her play. Watching her fall in love with writing and even him inviting her to the theatre to watch a play because he knows that’s what she lives for and loves. Laurie fell in love with jo for her soul and everything she is. So for the people saying that laurie would never have supported jo in the way the professor does in her passions that is so false. What Laurie and jo had was ethereal.
@@boudouroubou9790 I agree it was special and someone else here said the they were "Platonic soulmates" which is quite accurate in my opinion. However, in the movie you can just tell that Laurie is not as passionate about his work as Jo and when she meets the prof' she feels like she has something to learn. Yes, Laurie loved her deeply of course he would be supportive but Jo is competitive by nature and she needed someone to challenge her! She needed to feel feminine and ladylike where's with Laurie she felt like he would do anything she says and she felt like she had the power, there was no challenge. Love isn't just about supporting each other But it's about finding a partner that pushes you to be the best version of yourself.
In the movie I think she may have found it difficult maybe to admit to her mum that she is in love with him, perhaps because she was shy. Besides she never says she doesn’t love him she says “I care more to be loved.” She shows her love through her actions she doesn’t need to say the words. In other words she loves differently. She’s not one to be lovely dovey like her sisters she has a different love language. Hers isn’t like Meg or Amy’s, jo shows her love differently through acts of service. She didn’t want to be with Laurie because she was lonely she kept in contact with him even after rejecting his proposal it wasn’t at beths death that she realised she wanted to be with him because she was lonely. She has always wanted to be with him but just that she didn’t have herself figured out yet. He loved her to early she loved him to late. Besides Laurie does push her to be her best self. In different ways. He doesn’t need to critic/challenge her to push her to be the best possible version of herself. Sometimes all it takes is just support being there for the person. Being part of their dreams and ambitions and passions. He did that, he did all of that. Jo yearned for Laurie before her sister Beth dies. In the movie when she comes back from New York she tells her sister that she kept writing to him but he won’t answer to her letters. And her sister asks her do you miss him. And jo says “i miss everything” she misses the love he showed her and what they had. It wasn’t loneliness that prompted her to want to be with Laurie because she says all of this before her sister dies. she loved him way before she even realised.
Your assessment is pretty correct. In "Little Men", Amy continues to challenge Laurie, he works to make her proud of him, and he and Jo are best of friends. Jo can write without feeling guilty.
It is so lovely hearing someone with such love for the film discuss it.
I think Jo and Laurie would be so supportive of each other to the point they won't call each other out. They for sure won't be happy if they ended up together. They'll ruin each other. And their partners both knew how to call them out and be honest with them, not being afraid to hurt their feelings.
I think overall I like the original better but the actress who plays any did an amazing job. Also Meryl streep was a great addition along w timothee. The music and cinematography were also top notch
Hamza Hassaballa what’s the “original” little women supposed to be?
@@itsflowerside the version of the film from 1994 i think
For me it was the Laurie misconstrued platonic love and desire to be in Jo’s family’s life with romantic love.
You speak beautifully. I feel like crying after watching this and I don't really know why.
Holy crap, I love the quiet Your Lie in April music in the background of this video!!!!!❤❤❤❤❤❤ (ngl I had to rewatch this video because the first time around I was concentrating on the song until around the second half when in changed😂, but the content was great 👍)
I’ve never read the book, and this genre of entertainment doesn’t really grasp my attention. Yet I still loved the movie. On a completely different note Timothée Chalamet did fantastic and I’ve never loved anyone more.
I remember watching the movie for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I have never read Little Women nor have I seen another adaptation. I went into it blindly, just wanting something to watch. Naturally, I fell in love with the story, BUT the moment Amy cried out to Laurie in Paris in the beginning, jumping off the carriage, running in her dazzling puffy dress to engulf him in a bear hug, I immediately said "Oh! I hope they end up together!!" And while Jo and Laurie's relationship is very heart warming romantically they could NEVER work, and so I was very excited by the ending with Laurie and Amy getting married.
One thing I love most about your channel is the versatility I never know what your gonna cover next thank you
Never seen this movie before but I love how your making this have more depth which peeks my curiosity about the nature of the main heroines
omg i could listen to analyze everything 😂 so glad i saw this!
I feel that when Amy says to laurie that”[she] believes she has power over who she loves” she is saying to laurie that love is something she can develop through time not that she still has feelings for laurie.
I wasn't aware that this needed to be defended, I would have hated it if Jo and Laurie had ended up together.
Your voice is so relaxing and has so much gravitas. I'd love to hear you narrate an audiobook.
You never disappoint, Sage. This makes me wanna rewatch it :') 💕
I love your content. Here's my personal franchise suggestions for future videos.
1) Berserk
2) Hunter x Hunter
3) Akira
4) Code Geass
5) One Piece
6) Hellsing
7) Demon Slayer
8) Bleach
9) Vineland Saga
10) Mob Psycho 100
11) One Punch Man
I think it boils down to this, Jo can’t push Laurie to be his best and he can’t push her because he puts her on a pedestal, Amy and Laurie can challenge each other and help each other grow as equals. As I see it, Jo and Laurie are kindred spirits, people who experience the world in a way that is so the same, while Laurie and Amy are soul mates, people who compliment each other through their differences.
THIS!! I’ve always shipped Amy and Laurie together. Jo and Laurie are best suited as bestfriends, nothing more.
Jo and Laurie felt slightly off as a couple for me. I feel as though it would have been strange for them as a couple considering how strongly their relationship was built like a brother and sister, it would have been uncomfortable to watch unfold. They treated each other like siblings of their own, Jo was only confused on whether she was fit for the love she could give, because all she really wanted was to BE loved, rather than having the ability to love anyone else, especially Laurie since he is, deifnitely, a very passionate character. Amy, who was LOOKING to marry and believing she does have the ability to love someone was definitely a better choice for Laurie, considering they would both have strong mutual feelings. Unlike for Laurie and Jo, it was confusing and scary and not enough to drive them together.
I love this video so much! I've always had trouble explaining why I felt that Amy and Laurie were the perfect ending, and you've just put my thoughts into words.
florence pugh is such an amazing actress
Such a beautiful explanation. I hadn’t seen Amy and Laurie as making any sense!but your perspective has started to make me look at it from a different angle. Thank you for that.
5:13 YESSS REPLAY!!! Amy and Laurie stans where u at?
My preferred Little Women (after the 90s one) is the 2017 version by the BBC with Maya Hawke and I think they're clearer in showing that Jo and Laurie really aren't compatible. Their Amy is less likable than Florence's Amy (who's great but imo always looks too old for either of her ages as Amy) but I believe her and Laurie very easily.
Anyone who thinks Jo and Laurie shot have been together has provided seen too many bad romcoms where a guy obsesses over and finally wears down an unwilling woman into accepting him. In what world is ir either healthy or romantic for somepne to propose by saying "I'll changs everything about myself so yoz would want me, now you must accelr me!' or for the other person to eventually go "I should marry my childhood friend because I'm really lonely and I don't want to lose him as frirnd/faux-brother, even though I'm not in love with him and never wanted to marey him in general and him specifically"?
How does "I'm not in love with him, but I'm lonely and want to be loved" a good reason to marry someone?
"even though it isn't romantic, their platonic love can still be powerful." this is a really well written video. fantastic job, you convinced me
Having a boy best friend for 12 years I can assure sometimes you both are soulmates but not necessarily romantic, we had so many people even saying to our back "they are dating" "they are hucking up" or "tana i saw luca with some girl" like ¿? All this after we made clear we weren't dating, Even if we absolutely love each other we don't have sexual tension, we don't find each other attractive like that, it's just, not us, so I can tell why Jo rejected him and why they didn't end up together, they just weren't the love of each other life's amy is, that's it. (Sorry for my english)
Me: I'm not going to cry for Little Women anymore
Also me: *cries for a video essay about it*
greta gerwig is a genius i can't wait to see what else she does in the future
I strongly recommend that you read the books (including A Long, Fatal Love Chase) Alcott wrote as well as the biographies written about her. While it's interesting to speculate, the fact remains that Louisa May Alcott is quoted as saying, "I won't marry Jo to Laurie to please ANYBODY". Her publisher was pressing her to marry Jo to someone, as marriage in post-Civil War America was still the only honorable end for a female's youth--and Jo was nearing 30 by the end of Good Wives (the second installment of Little Women; yes, it has a name). Not being married by age 30 (spinsterhood looming) was still an anathema in my youth in post WW II America. It was only with the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the Women's Rights Movement of the late 60s and early 70s that women were beginning to rethink their roles as human beings. By the way, Margaret, the "best actress in the family" as Jo speaks of her in Little Women, married and had a family (she has another daughter by John Brooke before he dies in a later novel--read Little Men and Jo's Boys) and one of her daughters becomes the actress that Margaret (Meg) was NOT permitted to do.
Jo wanted to be loved instead of being the loving one. For Laurie, he wanted to be loved one too. But he was going to be the giving one on the one hand the relationship he had with Amy, he was the taker. Not giver. He was the loved one. They all wanted to be loved one. The taker. But Amy was there to give for Laurie. I totally agree about their relationships making sense tho. I tried to look from a different perspective.
I first read the book when I was in elementary school. It was the first book that didn't have a completely happy ending, with beth dying and the main dude from the beginning did not end up with the main girl and it made me so upset, but as I grew older I totally started to understand how the different ending is consistent with the characters and what alcott was saying all in all. I really love how at the end you said the story is more about Jo finding her self and her relationships with her sisters rather than about who they fell in love with!
I think Laurie and Amy was a good endgame. Why? Because Jo wants him because she is afraid of being alone, as she said, she doesn’t wish to get married because that’s all people think women can do, she wants to change that. But then Jo realised she is feeling alone so she went back to teddy. But when it came to Amy, it’s true love. Jo can never love Laurie like Amy did, Jo only loved Laurie as a friend but Amy loved him as a lover, her lover, the love of her life and Laurie’s feelings are mutuals. So yes, I prefer Amy and Laurie than Jo and Laurie.
I view my relationship with my loved one a lot like Laurie and Amy. My girlfriend, though rarely disagreeing with me, pushed me to become a better person, and I'm grateful for that.
I didn't watch the film yet but I watched a ton of clips and I actually loved their pairing and I also read that in the books he really fell in love with her so I don't get why ppl don't like their pairing xD
I'm like, "is it just me or I'm hearing Your Lie in April in the background"? But no it wasn't just me. You've got great BGM taste, fren
this analysis was great! at first, i was a little bummed out by friedrich because i thought he was a bit last minute, but now that you've shed some light on his and jo's relationship i've definitely grown to like him more! also, the choice of background music was chef's kiss, haha. your lie in april and 5cm per second have incredible music too :D
i would be lying if i say that i did not want laurie to be with jo. maybe the fact that laurie felt and looked that way to jo stuck with me. not wanting anyone else for laurie but jo. it breaks me how jo cannot reciprocate laurie’s love or when the moment was too late to do so. it felt like all the years wanting jo was put into waste. i hated amy, now i do not know what to feel after this video.
I've always felt a close connection to Jo and now I get it. I've never really seen her or understood her as I do now after you talked about her and her temper.
Also I was so sad for her and Laurie but it makes so much more sense and also the whole "she needs someone quieter, without a temper, who will tell her what she doesn't want to her and help her grow" it's perfect in every sense in my situation. I discovered something new about me today hahaha
Beautiful insight. Nice to hear from a man!
First video I've watched of yours and subscribed at once !! Your explanation as well as articulation is very good and well done. I agree completely, just that, i found it a teeny bit weird for Laurie to marry the little sister of the woman he thought he was in love with (i don't say loved cause i feel he confused being comfortable with a person with romance, which though complementary, are different, especially in this case). He had much more sensual chemistry with Amy. To her, he was a man. To Jo, he was a boy, a brother even. Anyway, great work🙏❤️
laurie any jo were definitely the best of friends and are compatible in the sense of being just that. laurie and amy were 1000% more compatible as a couple. laurie and jo would’ve never had a lasting relationship as man and wife, they just don’t click in that way, but laurie and amy do.
This was so beautiful especially the end part about how its not a love story
You should review JoJo Rabbit. I found it to be a vary insightful movie. It was a mix between satire and melodrama. Truthfully it is one of those rare movies that is in a category all on it's own.
Honestly
I agree with you buddy
It is a good explanation
this was so beautiful! and i love how you tied Jo & the professor back to marriage as an economic proposition.
Irrelevant to this video but you should go over the Korean Film 'Burning' it's a very symbolic one that leaves your mind thinking the entirety, stunning visuals and Steven Yeun is in it aswell!
I like the couples that came out of the story. I think Jo was right in saying she and Laurie would make each other miserable. They both had a childish streak to them that they brought out in each other. They would always be a young boy and girl together throwing tantrums.
Where are Laurie and Amy were much more a man and woman with similar ideals about love and life. There’s a childhood charm to their relationship that’s fun and lighthearted as opposed to jo and Laurie a intense childish feel. The childhood friendship between them breaks the otherwise very formal and economic relationships that their expectation in life would have given them. Amy and Laurie just fit into each other’s already existing lives so perfectly.
The man Jo ends up with whose name I can’t remember is also so much more suited to Jo. His lifestyle is more free and fun and away from the societal norms that Jo hates. So they too fit into each other’s already existing lives so well. Also Jo is a bit over imaginative and excitable so it makes sense that as a woman she ends up with a very grounded realistic man who can bring her back down to earth but without crushing her dreams. Though so does have a good go at accusing him of it.
Everyone gets exactly what they want and need.
Amy and Laurie make sense because they've always been the kind of people who knew what they wanted and always went after it, regardless of proving some point. They were passionate but level-headed, and both grew up into their own person and matured to want the same things in the same way. Very unlike Jo who, while meaning well, didn't really care for the same things Laurie did. She entertained the thought of romantically loving him because he loved her, but other than that, there was nothing there.
I always saw Jo and Laurie together. I felt as though Jo wouldn't submit and turn into and average housewife and Laurie wouldn't force her too, and easily come to terms with that after a few spats. I did think it was weird turning to another sister and that Amy reciprocated. If that happened in reality I think most people even if they rejected that person would feel some type of way even if it was just a cousin.
I don't understand how people hate on Amy - like Jo and Laurie would have never worked. I literally use them as an example to explain why me and my best friend are only ever going to be friends and honestly I'm not sure I would have ever realised that if I hadn't read little women. Which might have led me to some bad choices