This was fantastic and I say this as someone who saw Barbie twice in theaters. Thank you for reminding us all that women don't have to settle for mean girl misery because it's been normalized!
Thank you!!!! I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out why Barbie had this "almost there" or rather a "not quite there" feel to it. You spelled it out PERFECTLY.
I was going into a very rambling thought reply but as I thought of it, Gerwig and more widely pop feminism seems to be an evolved version of Not Like Other Girls, in that our 'strong female character' is different from other women (and therefore better than them) according to whatever is labeled as 'feminist', weather its Galadriel being turned into a cynical warrior because donning armor and kicking ass shows how she is strong, determined, and capable (even though she was already all those things in the book), or Jo March not accepting anything but glowing praise for her writing because she's a girl boss who knows her worth. I have something that I call The Eowyn Problem: When I was 14, Eowyn was my favorite character in LOTR because 14 year old me loved the idea of the woman warrior with all her strength and determination. 14 year old me could also hated how her story ended with her being married and settling into a peaceful life rather than being the kick-ass lady warrior she was so clearly meant to be. Than 35 year old me read LOTR again and actually saw Eowyn as a fully developed character with reasons and motivation for her act of heroism: she wasn't there to show the boys how it was done or to prove her mettle, she ended up on Pelanor Field because she had no hope for the war being won and she went to die in way she found honorable rather than at the hands of an invaliding army and all the horror that implies. 14 year old me only wanted to see a symbol, mature me see's the character and the modern trend of 'strong women' only sees symbols.
@@BetterWithBob. Have you seen"Equal Fights"from powerpuff girls? That episode warned us about this exact same type of feminism(i.e.;"feminazis")! Sad right?
Here's a hot take from a historian: if Emma Watson didn't want to wear a set of stays as whatever kind of statement there was a historically accurate alternative. A bedgown or Manteau de Lit or short gown, was a garment that was less fitted than a jacket or bodice that was worn as functional work clothes with a petticoat and often without stays.
She only cares about money. I have been running the Little Women podcast for years now and one thing that comes out very clearly in Louisa May Alcott's diaries is that she was quite lonely and she envied her sisters marriages. Little Women represents wish fulfillment. Henry David Thoreau appears in literal disguises in every single book of hers (he is Friedrich in Little Women, Mac in Rose in Bloom and Eight Cousins, Father Ignacio in Long Fatal Love Chase, David In Work..and many more). He passed away when Louisa was 28. There are diary markings where Louisa writes that she and Henry will "reunite" in the afterlife, and in this next life, she gets to have a husband and children and that she deserves them. We recently did an episode in the Little Women podcast about the 2019 LW, in one interview Gerwig said that Jo should end up with Laurie (Laurie is based on Alcott's ex), in another one that Jo is gay and in another that Jo is asexual (followed by racist comments on Friedrich being German and not looking like Timothee Chalamet) Jo in the book is not into Laurie, but Laurie is written to be dark skinned Italian (not looking like Timothee Chalamet), so in all these different interviews Gerwig lies about Jo's life. I also must add, Louisa May Alcott loved stout men and she had a thing for German accents (she studied German). What really gets me is that, in the Little Women 2019 film guide, there is whole chapter where Gerwig talks about wanting to make mockery of the book...if you hate book that much, why do you make a movie of it?....and also, what about her complaints about age gaps?. she is married to a man 13 year older than her, but complaints that when Jo falls in love with older man (also Thoreau and LMA..same 16 year age gap as between Jo and Fritz). I'll stop ranting...more people need to call out this woman for lying to the public.
Also, the 2019 Little Women movie insists upon itself too much. Like, we get it, being a woman in this time wasn't a picnic, but was that whole "marriage is an economic proposition" speech necessary? Does she really think she's so profound saying that? Also, if Louisa was REALLY forced by her publisher to marry Jo off, don't you think she would have killed Fritz off or not have him in the story all that much? No, they're just casually making out when they're old enough to be grandparents, and that's beautiful. Also, the costumes are ugly AF and make no sense, to the time or characters 🤢
Thank you for vocalizing issues I had a hard time putting my finger on but bothered me. And off topic, I wish they'd remake 500 Days of Summer from Summer's POV but have no confidence they'll get the nuances right.
@@BetterWithBob It's tricky, like I would like it to be clear how insidious what JGL character did was but I'm not sure how to strike the right balance between intentions and actions. Not to mention what we've been ingrained to view as natural/acceptable vs whether that's actually the case or not. Like someone can do a bad thing without being a bad person. But mostly I'd like to focus on how Summer felt and thought about the experience. 🤔
Can I correct you a little bit the part "little women was published, because two men pressured her, because it would sell". There are some diary markings from Louisa from the time when she was in her twenties and she has a draft about a story very similar to Little Women. It tells about Louisa and her sisters. I personally think, she would have written to story at some point, even if Niles would not have encouraged her. I guess she was one of those people, who always had story ideas in their head. Also something very interesting, LMA's favorite writer was the German poet Goethe (also one of the models for Friedrich), his book Sorrows of youg Werther, literally tells the story of Laurie being rejected by Jo (Werther being rejected by Lottie). Another German connection, there was a German professor called Charles Follen who knew Louisa's uncle. Charles was a German immigrant and married an American female writer (what Jo March does...marries a German immigrant). After Charles passed away, his wife wrote a book about him. Louisa read it as a teen ager, and she made tons of marking about their relationship (calling it sweet and romantic). In the novel when Jo describes Friedrich, it is almost word to word, Eliza's description about her late husband. I had shivers on my spine when I read about it. This was a wonderful essay. I haven't watched the Barbie movie and you just proved why I shouldn't lol.
I mean Louisa told to the press that she was pressured by her publisher..so you are not wrong..but in her diaries, there is the draft of the book, like decades before. She wasn't always truthful with the press. For example she always spoke very highly to the press, about Laddie Wisniewski (the real life Laurie), then in letters with her sister, they kinda criticise him, for being lazy etc. There is an american Alcott scholar called Daniel Shealy, who has written about the way Louisa and Thomas Niles together created the "spinster brand", I guess it was some sort of self-protection, since Laurie and Fritz are based on real people
I enjoyed this video, though with many nitpicks. The main one is the idea that characters need to be idealized or always face consequences for their actions. The novel is extremely didactic, but people respond to its humour and pathos. Jo is clearly satirized in the scene where she can't take criticism from Friedrich. She's a hot-headed, ambitious character who misplaces her frustrations onto the wrong person. I dislike obnoxious girlbossing too, but I didn't get that from either Ronan or Pugh's performances. At worst, they don't moralize any more than the novel does. I also think you've misread Jo's arc. She never expresses any desire for romance or marriage, but she's tortured by loneliness because being a single woman is socially isolating. She has lost her support system from childhood. Her family are moving apart. Her best friend has prioritized Amy. That's why she reconsiders his proposal; she knew it was a bad idea, but she's second-guessing the price of non-conformity. It's poignant and refreshing. I do agree that Gerwig can be too heavy-handed, but no worse than average for Hollywood. She's great at stylizing and just slightly exaggerating real experiences, and she's tapped into a huge audience of women who aren't used to seeing themselves done well in film.
Really great video. I completely agree with many of your main points, especially in regards to Gerwig’s apparent lack of nuance or understanding when it comes to acknowledging intersectionality. And, as a lover of Little Women (2019), I mostly agree with your criticisms. It’s definitely not perfect, and Gerwig’s shortcomings are very visible in some instances. However, I’d actually like to provide an alternate interpretation of the ending as it pertains to Jo’s arch as someone who identifies on the aromantic spectrum because I feel like applying that label to Jo can actually better explain (possibly better than Gretta Gerwig’s original intention could) the direction of her character. For those who aren’t aware of this incredibly underrepresented and misunderstood orientation, aromantic refers to having little to no romantic attraction. That is not the same with having little to no physical attraction (ace) or having no capacity for love as love and romance are not synonymous despite being consistently conflated by Amatonormative society (a society which prioritizes romantic love on a culturally tailored relationship hierarchy). Aromantic people can still feel lonely and often do because the world was not made to even conceptualize our existence. We can still want and pursue companionship, but because of our lack of romantic attraction, we often prioritize bonds perceived as less ‘real’ or ‘tangible’. Now, if we keep that in mind when following Jo throughout the movie, certain moments start to make more sense. For example, she doesn’t merely abstain from romance out of spite; she actively does not understand it. She begs her sister not to get married and doesn’t even consider the possibility that Meg’s doing it because she actually wants to. Jo even alludes to feeling abandoned in favor of her new husband and states that she can’t understand why people aren’t just content with their families like she is. When rejecting Laurie, Jo tells him “I’ve tried, but I can’t. I don’t know why”, suggesting a complete inability to experience this romantic spark everyone seems to expect from her, and not for a lack of trying. When she reconsiders the proposal, it’s not because she’s actually interested, it’s because she’s lonely, starved of affection, and feels this is the only way to secure it. More than anything, the love she wants is not the love of a partner, but the love of her family. It’s shown time and time again that they are her real priority-her everything. She wants to go back to the way she and her sisters used to be, when they were all together, sharing in each other’s worlds. This is most apparently shown within her fantasy ending, where the partners are completely glossed over in favor of following the sisters as they walk through the scene and stand together as a unit. In this reading, marriage is her enemy because, as her sisters marry, she begins to feel small, like her worth to them withers with each proposal and change to the status quo. And it would be bittersweet because there is no fix. Marriage is only another cage for her, and no matter how much she might want it, nothing will ever be like it was.
Barbie (2023) did manage to make me tear up during the montage scenes of our title character experiencing human emotion, both in the park and with Ruth, as it made me nostalgic towards the pure joy of my being a 2000's Barbie lover growing up, and the fact that I can still have appreciation for my childhood loves as an adult. And I did like Little Women (2019), though admittedly, what I most remember from it nowadays is Florence Pugh's performance as Amy. Plus, I'd already watched the "female writer mc struggles to have her work respected and published by men" bit in Crimson Peak (2015), and personally, I think I liked it better in that film. Probably because it doesn't quite so demand itself to be noticed by the audience (at least in my view); it was simply a part of the story. So, although I like these two films, they don't necessarily make me worship the ground that Greta Gerwig walks on, and it's nice to hear you dissect your mixed feelings towards her work in a rational manner, unlike so many "FEMINISM IS BAD AND STUPID," de-criers who just want the attention. 😌👏
The reason people are going against Feminist ideals lately is because those championing it have forgotten the original goal, and become inverted now going for opressing Man! But if you actually paid attention to things back then, you noticed that girls have been doing nothing but fine dining for years, from shows that go for general appeal but still have good female characters like culture cornerstone last airbender and criminally underrated storm hawks, to explicitly female lead projects like oban star racers,w.i.t.c.h.,Winx club,sailor moon,jem and the holograms,powerpuff girls,my little pony,direct to video barbie movies,personally seen and enjoyed many of them. Powerpuff Girls in particular made an episode explicitly to warn us about this kind of radical and toxic feminism called"Equal Fights", but Man didn't head the warning, and woman took it diffrently, the episode's writer Lauren Faust, after her disillusionment with hasbro/m.l.p. and helping her husband with wander over yonder, turned to DC superhero girls, wich is Feminist crap where Jessica Cruz have two moms,male heroes like hal jordan is a macho meathead,aqualad is a little pipequeak,hawkman is a silent Batman knockoff,flash is a hyperactive ditz,the list goes on, diffrence is night and day! Not to mention female directors like Kathryn Biggolow! This isn't feminism it's being feminazis!
I had heard of Little Women growing up but had only listened to an abridged version once as a kid. So the 2019 version is the one I saw first. I do like that version but there are some things that are definitely off. For one thing Amy's film relationship with Lourie is reduced to her scolding him though most of the film. As you said her speech about womanhood isn't something she should need to explain because they both live in and understand that culture. She says it for the audience's benefit. Also Gerwig removes her one genuinely compassionate scene where she sympathizes and shows her care for Lourie by having her know about Jo's refusal of him at the beginning. I do like Ronan as Jo but after having seen the 1994 film I prefer Wynona Ryder. I do own both versions.
@@BetterWithBob Ha ha awesome. Trust me, I for one already consider you my "Charmed go-to" channel. And I'm glad to hear you're a fan of Jessie Earl's videos! 😊
I think my problem is that she rips compassion out of her females. The Charmed women transformed their world by compassion. So women can be just as self centered as the males Gerwig hates and speaks against.
@@BetterWithBob which makes me scared of how terrible her Chronicles of Narnia will be. All of the radical Christian compassion Lewis infused will be obliterated. Queen Susan will no longer be "The Gentle." Aravis will rage at the unfairness of Aslan giving her stripe for stripe that her maid received due to Aravis running away. Ugh.
@@pamelatarajcak5634 the optimist in me thinks that maybe she will be delicate with it, since she did have a Catholic upbringing herself, and hopefully his estate will be a steadying hand keeping things true to the books
The 1994 Adaptation is more subtly feminist than the In-your-face Feminist messages of the 2019 Adaptation! At one point Meg says she enjoyed being admired. Marmee replies "Of course not, but if you find your value lies in being merely decorative, I fear that one, that's all you think you are." Louder for the Gretas in the back! Then Jo says "women should vote because they are citizens too!" Take that, Greta Gerwig!
Most female focused media made during the 'Girl Power Era' of the 90s and 2000s was actually better at this sort of thing really. Like Legally Blonde, Bring It On and Miss Congeniality have a LOT going on if you read into them. Way more than Barbie really
@@BetterWithBob. How about captain marvel? Like robot head said the movies version of the 90's is the 50's. Real 90's woman looked and acted like man!
I like both, but I don't find 1994 subtle at all. It's preachy. The book is too, so that's fine. But to me, the 2019 characters seemed more like real people with opinions than characters delivering a moral.
“It’s a well-written Instagram post.” Dude. Yes. Nailed it. I loved the humor of the movie, but otherwise, didn’t enjoy it primarily for the heavy-handedness, the narration and exposition. I’m glad I saw it, but I wouldn’t watch it again.
Until you explained why regina becoming Queen of the land at the end was off. I couldn't vocalise why that ending for her in OUAT didn't feel happily ever after for her.😮
I'd like to defend the 2019 Little Women movie just a bit. I get the criticism that the movie doesn't develop Prof. Bhaer and makes his attraction for Jo seem to just be that he's hot. But to be fair, the movie has a lot of characters to develop and only two hours and a bit to develop them all. Considering that, I think it's awesome how complete most of their arcs feel, especially compared to most adaptations which only develop Jo, Laurie, Beth and the professor. Jo does suffer a little bit for her temper tantrum in response to Prof. Bhaer's feedback. When her mother advises her to go back to New York, she says glumly that she ruined her friendship with him. (Or was that just in the script and got cut from the final movie?) I agree though that it would have made for a better character arc to have her apologize to him. A big part of the reason so many readers have preferred the idea of a Jo-Laurie romance or even the Jo-Bhaer romance to the Amy-Laurie romance is because of the lack of conflict in the last one, so I can't blame the movie for wanting to add more drama to it. (It is rather eyebrow raising though one of the reasons given for why Jo and Laurie wouldn't work as a couple is that they fight too much when Amy and Laurie seem just as combative.) Also, the book Little Women is full of speechifying and moralizing albeit less about feminism per se and more about morality in general, so I feel like that's what people expect, even want from an adaptation. I do agree though that the movie really oversimplifies the story behind the book's creation and publication, mainly the part about Louisa May Alcott not wanting to write it, for the sake of social commentary and the ending, while it seems clever at first, is ultimately frustrating. And, yeah, more historically accurate costumes and hairdos would have been welcome.
You just convinced me to watch other adaptations of Little Women. Barbie and Little Women (2019) will still be on my list of fav movies tho because I had a lot of fun watching them (and the list is in pen).
Thank you for this video, I feel like you illustrated very well the issues that I had with the Barbie movie, and in particular that monologue. It definitely helps to see that this isn't a single instance of heavy-handed moral messaging, but rather a pattern (I haven't seen Little Women, save for some clips here and there - I enjoyed the version with Winona Ryder and didn't feel the need for another version). I think the thing that bothered me the most about the monologue is that, narratively speaking, it felt unearned. Yes, everything that was stated was valid in terms of describing women's experiences, but the character saying those things hadn't earned that moment, she didn't have an arc that showed her struggling with those pressures, and her audience of Barbies likewise didn't need that speech, as it was describing experiences none of them have had or understand. It just felt like the movie assumed the audience wouldn't be able to understand its message if it were delivered with subtlety.
THANK YOU FOR THE SASHA CALLOUT. I HATED that the movie just let her get away with being so vicious to a clearly clueless stranger without ever being called on it or humbled. The movie just let it slide like she was in the right or some kind of righteous young"truth-teller", when really she was just using pseudo-social justice buzzwords as a cover to bully someone who is NOT the source of the problem, to try and look cool in front of her friends. It actually feeds into some of the worst stereotypes about teenagers and about people who legitimately try to call out societal problems in a constructive way. It struck me as a boomer's idea of what a "woke" young person is like. I really hated it.
I thought I was the only one who couldn't stand her! Arianna plays her wonderfully, she looks the part of a catty teenager, absoloutely nothing but praise for her, but other than that, Sasha was awful! "Barbie represents facism", seriously?? I cringed in my seat, I was her age in the 2010s, but no child would go after a literal DOLL compared to the ADULTS who read way too much buzzfeed and suddenly decided Barbie and Disney princesses were a "detriment" to women and girls everywhere 🙄🙄 She barely had much of an arc (a lot of people try to loop it around and say "well she isn't the main focus"), so her "snap out it" pep talk to her mum was unearned because she was nothing but a "I'm too cool for this, disrespecting adults and making them cry gives me a sense of control" character before all this. It's almost sad how we have to add another teen character to the list of "teen characters written to be bratty and edgy by adults" 🙃
I think Barbie doesn't lend itself well to being a movie due to the lack of a storyline for the toys themselves. If you take a property like Transformers for instance, that has the basic storyline of good robots vs bad robots, and while it's basic as I mentioned, it can still be used as a foundation for a film's story. With Barbie, the only way they could get it to feasibly work was by having her still be a toy in her movie and having her discover humanity and emotions and what not, which is a story we've seen time and again. It makes it a bit uninspired imo.
Fun fact about the Brontë sisters: they all initially published under male pseudonyms to give the works a greater chance of being published. Wuthering Heights was published under the name Ellis Bell, while Jane Eyre was published under the name Currer Bell. Jane Austen on the other hand included the line „by a lady“ in all of her works, which were published anonymously.
Yes! I have no nostlagic attachment to any of the previous adaptations because I only watched the 1994 version for the first time 3 DAYS before seeing the 2019 one, and without any childhood bias, 1994's version flowed SEAMLESSLY. I was so lost when watching the 2019's adaptation, they jumped WAY TOO MUCH across the timelines, Beth's death (which had SO LITTLE IMPACT compared to '94 AND the book??), followed immediately by Meg's wedding where BETH WAS THERE, and us having to "rely on the colours being tinted" to know when the memory took place?? Not helped that the horrendous costumes couldn't give us a hint as to WHEN the events took place, the sisters not really have chemistry (to me), again, compared to '94, younger Amy's casting being laughable when '94 and probably (correct me if I'm wrong) earlier adaptations had two actresses playing them, I could go on. The two things I did like was Amy's scenes as an adult (the backdrop and costuming there was STUNNING, Florence shined in those scenes) and Jo's future being open-ended, which was what Louisa wanted initially for her. But that's about it, it was so bad that my sister walked away after Meg's wedding scene.
This was incredibly satisfying. I feel like there's a thread of contempt for women running through Gerwig's movies, particularly in Little Women, and I think you picked up a couple of reasons why.
Quite the poignant analysis and I mostly quite agree with you, except for some details, which might be small, but I like noticing small gems. 😊 I also love learning about film history and to see you debunk so many arguments that seem to be so prevalent in Online spaces. Especially when you spoke about mean girls being the ideal today. I could only happily agree. 🎉🎉 We might not be quite alike, as learned to dislike the clear-cut black-and-white morality in stories, which is why I HATE stories like ‘Morality Bites’ in Charmed, but I can’t deny that I also learned much from you…
This is exactly how I felt about the Barbie movie after seeing it the first time. Although I do love it now, you articulated the problems I had with it initially. Thank you!
Yes! I was obsessed with it as a kid, which in turn made me become obsessed with the novel, even though between the revolutionary plot(s), the Jo and Laurie characters getting together and Beth having sex in a convent with a Wickham-like character invented for the adaptation they couldn't be more different. I often wonder if the telenovela holds up any. 😂
I've not actually seen any of these movies, partly becuase they aren't my type and partly because I'm not a fan of modern Feminist stories for exactly the reasons you've laid out here! As someone fundementaly uninterested in romance, I still loved that Charmed showed how a woman wasn't less because she wanted it! Women used to make mistakes and learn! Now they are always right or else. My bullies in school were always girls. To see those same personalities lauded as Strong Women now pisses me off to no end! So thank you for calling that out!
@theredqveen that is true. It would have been nice to see one not interested in romance. Although I could argue that Prue had no interest in having kids. Romance yes, but she never expressed any desire to have kids. The closest she came, I think, was post seeing the future she didn't want to end up without her family.
I loved the 1994's Little Women, and I read the book, today one of my favorites, because of that version. Unfortunately, I hated Greta Gerwig version, because of these reasons: 1 - the "non-linear" estructure of the script, that alternates between the present and the past. This option turned the story more tiring and difficult to watch. 2 - the way that she intensified the rivaltry between Amy and Jo, that originally only occurred in that episode of the manuscript when they were teens. 3 - the changes that she did on the Profesor Bhaer, one of my favorite characters of the story. Not only she turned him french instead of german, but she altered the scene where he criticized the sensacionalistic tales that she wrotes, making his behavior more agressive and intolerant (at the book, he only said to her that was bad literature, without give her any glance that he was suspicious of what she was writing). And I suspect that these changes were proposital, to make the spectators of the story antipathize him and accept her end to the story, where Jo was alone and published her book with a "false end", where Jo is married with Profesor Bhaer and teaching at Plumfield with him. I'm really worried with the possibility of what she will do when she will direct "Narnia" or what she inserted at the script of the live action of Snow White. Based on that she did before, the possibilities to the future aren't much positives.
Legit i though barbie movie is another life size/lego movie but margo robbie as barbie. I was soo dead wrong, my cinema highlight at the time is the fnaf movie.
The thing with the editor and his daughters in the 2019 Little Women is sort of based on history but sensationalized for dramatic effect. Thomas Niles, Louisa May Alcott's editor, wasn't impressed with the first ten chapters or so of Little Women. But he didn't just dismiss the idea of the book. (As this video mentions, he was the one who requested Alcott to write it.) Instead, he showed the chapters to young girls who were the target audience and they loved it. FWIW, I think what the film does makes for better drama, but I understand the video essay's point that the movie was taking all the nuance out of history for the sake of the Message.
Yes it's an unfortunate fallacy in modern pop feminism that you can challenge a misogynist or chauvinist into being more progressive when in all likelihood someone who isn't already progressive minded is unlikely to change their views very suddenly because someone commands them to
@@BetterWithBob I'm not really sure how that applies to the scene in question since I thought the movie's implication was that the editor just decided to publish Jo's book since his daughters proved there was a market for it. I wouldn't call that changing his entire worldview or anything.
It feels a bit much to me because a straw misogynist would probably dismiss his three daughters and be like "what do they know?" and that guy is just presented as so straw misogynist, like not even caring about his wife or her mother
@@BetterWithBob OK, fair enough. I guess I interpreted the argument with his wife as being humorous filler. You see I read the script online first which describes the wife as trying to start an argument, making her seem bad too. FWIW, I actually find the 1994 Little Women more tiresomely preachy when it comes to sexism, racism, etc. I mean, in one scene we cut from Marmee talking about how bad corsets are to Jo complaining about her skirts. That pretty much killed subtlety. Also, it bugs me that they shoehorned a line in about how Amy's teacher thinks it's as useful to educate a woman as a cat. If that's his opinion, why is he running a school specifically for girls?! Instead of making me hate him, that line actually kind of made me feel sorry for the guy since he apparently believes he's wasting his life.
@@BetterWithBob I hasten to add after my last comment that I really do enjoy the 1994 movie. I think it's casting, music and art direction are all much better than those of the 2019 one. I just think the 2019's script is much better. I know that's very different from your take but what can I say?
Thank you so much for calling out GG's signature sidestepping of accountability because "we're girls." That is the number one thing, along with the impressive shallowness of her idea of feminism, that keeps me from going to any of her movies anymore.
Thanks for putting into words so many things that I've thought about feminism for years. I am the only female lawyer in my office of 8 attorneys, and I much prefer it that way. In my experience, older female attorneys tend to be harsh and overly critical, especially to other women. And, I totally agree with your criticisms, particularly of Little Women. It's one of my favorite books, so it was hard for me to see it sacrificed on the alter of performative feminism.
I have seen non of these movies but it sounds like Greta Gerwig is the female version of Joss Whedon and these films suffer from what as a video game would be called ludo-narrative-dissonance but I have no idea what the right term for a film is.
I loved the 2019 little women movie!!! But honestly, that was the only great herring movie I loved, and even I acknowledge it has its problems… I genuinely couldn’t finish Barbie I got such terrible secondhand embarrassment, and ladybird was also terribly cringy to me at the time watching it. I was the same age as the main characters in ladybird and I felt like it was so condescending and trying to hard to be “artsy”. I’ve never understood the great herring hype as a director tbh, sorry not sorry 🤷♀️
26:25 - I don't know that forced transitioning is a myth. I know at least there's those who regret transition in the western world where they wrongly believed it was the only solution for them because it works for other people, but beyond that, there's the more concrete cases of homophobia driving transition. In religious cultures (particularly the Muslim world), there's plenty parents would rather have their kid transition to be heterosexual rather than stay as homosexuals. Maybe the way you mean myth is something beyond that, but either way it's a real thing whether it's exaggerated for political use or not. But other than that great video :3 As a guy a bit more on the anti-feminist side that cringes at intersectionality, you've given me a nice perspective on the flaws with the film that isn't rooted in the anti-woke stance I lean towards. Good job!
Around the 34 minute mark you're talking about "high spots" Whenever this type of thing comes up, I think of Super Bunny Hop's video about the importance of Quiet Time: he talks about how contrast helps keep a story interesting and engaging, that you can't have the entire story be action or tension, that the quiet moments contrast with the louder or busier (or whatever) moments and that contrast is what keeps it engaging and memorable. It's okay to show and show and show and then to take a moment to tell... but if your movie (or tv show, or book, or whatever) is just many small moments of telling, then one big monologue, it'll almost certainly fall flat. (There are, of course, exceptions, as in all art. "Crank" is obviously an attempt to make a movie that's ALL climax. But something like that is gimmicky; it can be fun to try, to break from convention, but it shouldn't be the only tool you have in your toolbag.)
I definitely appreciate this video, and your commentary as always, but I disagree with what was said around 39:47 cuz apart from the (beautiful) scene mentioned, I do think there were little moments here and there throughout the entire second half of the movie where Margot Robbie's performance shows us that she as Barbie is noticing the horrible and beautiful things about being "human." Idk, I haven't actually seen any of Greta's other movies, and that could be entirely on Margot herself (like how you said about Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter essentially being able to "direct themselves" earlier in the video), but I saw a lot of moments where Barbie seemed like she was at least "intrigued" or otherwise drawn to the "real world." I agree that the speech from Gloria (regardless of how true) was very heavy-handed, and that shouldn't have been the "climax" of the film... I still really liked the movie though, and my original point was that I saw moments of Barbie being drawn to the "real world" before the seemingly "sudden" change.... Idk it's hard to explain. (I didn't care as much about Gloria and Sasha as I did Barbie herself, so maybe that skewed my perception a little, as I saw them as more of "plot devices" for Barbie and Ken's journeys, as opposed to actual fleshed out characters... I also laughed my ass off and cried multiple times during the film, both in the theatre and at home, so whatever that's worth lol).
Hi Bob! Disclaimer I haven't seen this movie and agree with your takes about Laurie and Amy being unhealthy. Is it possible that the film that the writers were going for what tv tropes called Belligerent sexual Tension ? I really dislike this trope for many reasons. I will always prefer friends to lovers over enemies to lovers.
Loved every bit of this, but I am _horrified_ to learn from this video that Gerwig is directing the Narnia remakes! Nooooooooo!! She's a great director _technically,_ but I HATE how she inserts 21st-century hyper-feminism into everything I've seen from her so far. As a young woman who is NOT a fan of modern "don't need no man" girlboss feminism, I can't stand that about her movies. And I grew up with the Narnia stories, so this makes me so upset. I will hold out 5% hope that she might not do that in the Narnia remakes... but come on. Fat chance. I can't see anything but all the exact criticisms you laid out in this video. Great video though!
@@BetterWithBob - Not well, I predict. :/ Picturing the softness and femininity of Susan and Lucy be ruined by feminism literally makes me not want to watch it at all.
small remark: yes, since ages there have been movies and media for women, but what those female characters in them were like is a big question to me. among all the disney princesses that a girl in the early 00s could pick from there was barely a story that was not only about a happy ending with a guy. Mulan was there, yes, but that is it. You would need to wait for at least 10 years to get a deeper story, like Princess and a Frog. Same with books:) harry potter? lord of the rings? percy jackson? of course, they had female characters but it isn't Hermione Granger and the Philosopher's Stone, right? This would have been a completely different story with a different focus. I am not claiming that they are bad for not having a female lead! No! Just pointing out that yes, media made for women existed but the portrayal of the female character was very limited
@Yourfairyfish What about Pocahontas? That was my favorite movie as a child, and it wasn't because of the love story. To me, it always felt like the love between Pocahontas and John was there to represent the message and move the deeper themes of the plot along, rather than to take center stage. I'd go as far as to say it's her relationship with the willow tree that left a stronger impression on my young mind. I haven't watched it again as an adult, but if I remember correctly, she also chooses her love and loyalty toward her tribe over John. But something to consider (whether it adds a new perspective, or reaffirms the one you've got): the 00s had movies like UpTown Girls, Legally Blonde, Thirteen, Aquamarine, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and The Devil Wears Prada, to name just a few. These focused primarily on friendships, personal growth, and self-love, understanding, and acceptance. Though not without their faults, I'd still say they redefined what a female character could look like. Or at least they started too. With it being all white, stereotypically beautiful women in the lead roles, there were still many young girls who probably felt isolated and unrepresented. But it was definitely a step in the right direction.
Pocahontas is one of my favourites. Criminally underrated I was going to include a section on those 90s and 2000s female characters in things like Legally Blonde for comparison but that would probably be enough material for a video on its own lol
With books that's a massive supply issue on your part. Those three series were all written with a male audience one just happened to have had a female author. Harry Potter's direct contemporary rival on the British children's fiction charts was the works of Philip Pullman (male author with mostly female protagonists) and his direct predessor is The Worst Witch (magic school, female protagonist). There are loads of female protagonist children's books predating the 2000s and you've listed Lord of the Rings so just had bad luck to have not been exposed to Tamora Pierce or other High Fantasy with female characters. Wizard of Oz has mostly female protagonists as does Alice in Wonderland its not like girls have been side characters for the majority of the history of children's fiction. Sounds like you only had access to a tiny narrow band of succesful books which sucks but lack of opportunity to find what was there is very different from what existed.
Tamora Pierce has at least 20 books with a female main character. More than one of them don't end up married. And that was before 2010. Her first book came out in the 80's. Diane Duane also has multiple books written with a female protagonist. Again, limitted romance. I agree with Disney Princessess, but that's one corporation. Goosebumps was massivly inclusive for it's time. I'd actually argue Harry Potter was horrible to its female characters. Media for girls and women has frequently been looked down on, but it's there. It always has been.
Just basing it on how the film looks like in this video, but Gerwig's Little Women film looks so plastic. That look might have fit with Barbie - but not with Little Women. I really, really dislike the so called pop feminism that's so popular today. I hate characters that are written without flaws. Or more like, they have obvious flaws, but they never seem to learn better. Just leaves me with an awful taste in my mouth. That's what I dislike the most about today's movies. Not all movies and all that, but so many series and films have the same problem - flat characters. Characters who seem to consist more of an idea instead of being a full character. I remember films from yesteryear, where female characters were allowed to make mistakes and have flaws, but also allowed to learn from them. Today it seems like too many female characters are written to be more or less perfect, or at least not with anything that can make her seem or feel less in any way. Makes for very, if not extremely, boring characters. I wish female characters were allowed to be more human, period.
It’s funny you finish with open-mindedness about criticism. Taylor Swift, the biggest artist in the world, just released an album and her reaction to the divisive reviews is to pointedly spotlight the unabashedly positive few. I think to be a creative and antagonistic to criticism is detrimental to honest discourse on how we consume art.
@@BetterWithBob who’s Song? Btw are you fond of reading? I’m a writer. I find the character analyses in your vids transferrable to prose medium as well.
As a yogi I was also taught not to rely on the “crutch” of water, so I get it. What about her cinematic security blanket, comfort zone, go-to, safety net, or cop-out? They may not be as snappy but are each more welcoming
20:38 „Yes, there obviously was sexism as well, but in entertainment, the money always takes priority…“ 20:51 „Little Women 2019 ignores all this nuance and complexity and goes for the simplistic message of ‚the patriarchy doesn’t want women’s stories told‘, because that’s more marketable.“ Ironic, isn’t it? Consistent Feminism that is aware of historical facts and constructs a meaningful story takes a back seat to marketability - because in entertainment, the money always takes priority. Pity, that.
Yeah and there are so many different schools of feminism - radical, liberal, Marxist, sex negative, sex positive etc - and it really does require doing the reading to even begin to make sense of the history behind it all.
@@BetterWithBob One would imagine that a screenwriter intending to tell a great feminist story would be willing to put in those hours, though... I mean, it isn't impossible to tell a meaningful, full story with a number of layers, interesting character arcs and a bunch of meta-commentary about a toy. The Lego Movie was great, after all, and let's not get started on Toy Story. Barbie just fell flat on so many levels... a complete mess of a movie imo, and I really, REALLY wanted to like it. :-(
10:58 i wish youd make an entire video on this topic. Everytime this issue is spotlighted the response especially from Women is usually cruel/one sided/and just reeks of the feeling of "who cares what matters to men?"
That would be interesting 🤔 but my mentor whose comment is pinned to the top does a lot of videos on topics like that if you'd like to check them out 🙂
@@BetterWithBob I noticed that a bunch of people dropped videos today. Good job getting a Gerwig video out so quickly, I know it’s hard when your channel is small.
@@BetterWithBobI hope you got a good sleep after you uploaded. Great video by the way. Some constructive criticism: Talk more about men. You’re a masc sounding person with a firm grasp on feminism, I wanted to hear you talk more about Kenergy.
43:01 - 43:21 . This sentiment is lost in entertainment right now, most notably with musicians. The fan bases of two female singers in particular come to mind.
Ah I don't have much context for that because I'm used to seeing people decrying her for apparently running sweat shops for her merch or not writing her own stuff, so I was more surprised when I discovered how praised she is. I'm fairly neutral on her - since the last Beyoncé song I remember is Single Ladies
@@BetterWithBob I don't particularly enjoy Beyonce's music. I am a fan of Taylor Swift, but I can't say I've enjoyed everything she has put out. To that point, I think her latest album would have been better served as a graphic poetry novel coupled with performance poetry audio. In place of music videos, I imagine performance poetry set to the backdrop of short stories that could stand alone but still come together (like Black Mirror). Sort of like a jazz poetry/opera/music video hybrid.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
This was fantastic and I say this as someone who saw Barbie twice in theaters. Thank you for reminding us all that women don't have to settle for mean girl misery because it's been normalized!
Thank you!!!! I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out why Barbie had this "almost there" or rather a "not quite there" feel to it. You spelled it out PERFECTLY.
Thank you for watching :)
I was going into a very rambling thought reply but as I thought of it, Gerwig and more widely pop feminism seems to be an evolved version of Not Like Other Girls, in that our 'strong female character' is different from other women (and therefore better than them) according to whatever is labeled as 'feminist', weather its Galadriel being turned into a cynical warrior because donning armor and kicking ass shows how she is strong, determined, and capable (even though she was already all those things in the book), or Jo March not accepting anything but glowing praise for her writing because she's a girl boss who knows her worth.
I have something that I call The Eowyn Problem: When I was 14, Eowyn was my favorite character in LOTR because 14 year old me loved the idea of the woman warrior with all her strength and determination. 14 year old me could also hated how her story ended with her being married and settling into a peaceful life rather than being the kick-ass lady warrior she was so clearly meant to be. Than 35 year old me read LOTR again and actually saw Eowyn as a fully developed character with reasons and motivation for her act of heroism: she wasn't there to show the boys how it was done or to prove her mettle, she ended up on Pelanor Field because she had no hope for the war being won and she went to die in way she found honorable rather than at the hands of an invaliding army and all the horror that implies. 14 year old me only wanted to see a symbol, mature me see's the character and the modern trend of 'strong women' only sees symbols.
Excellently put :)
@@BetterWithBob. Have you seen"Equal Fights"from powerpuff girls? That episode warned us about this exact same type of feminism(i.e.;"feminazis")! Sad right?
SAY THE CORSET THING FOR THOSE IN THE BACK
Another person of culture, I see
@@songweretson I try to be. Lol
Song opened my eyes a long time ago 😄
Here's a hot take from a historian: if Emma Watson didn't want to wear a set of stays as whatever kind of statement there was a historically accurate alternative. A bedgown or Manteau de Lit or short gown, was a garment that was less fitted than a jacket or bodice that was worn as functional work clothes with a petticoat and often without stays.
@@BetterWithBob. Ever heard of JLongBone?
She only cares about money. I have been running the Little Women podcast for years now and one thing that comes out very clearly in Louisa May Alcott's diaries is that she was quite lonely and she envied her sisters marriages. Little Women represents wish fulfillment. Henry David Thoreau appears in literal disguises in every single book of hers (he is Friedrich in Little Women, Mac in Rose in Bloom and Eight Cousins, Father Ignacio in Long Fatal Love Chase, David In Work..and many more). He passed away when Louisa was 28. There are diary markings where Louisa writes that she and Henry will "reunite" in the afterlife, and in this next life, she gets to have a husband and children and that she deserves them. We recently did an episode in the Little Women podcast about the 2019 LW, in one interview Gerwig said that Jo should end up with Laurie (Laurie is based on Alcott's ex), in another one that Jo is gay and in another that Jo is asexual (followed by racist comments on Friedrich being German and not looking like Timothee Chalamet) Jo in the book is not into Laurie, but Laurie is written to be dark skinned Italian (not looking like Timothee Chalamet), so in all these different interviews Gerwig lies about Jo's life. I also must add, Louisa May Alcott loved stout men and she had a thing for German accents (she studied German). What really gets me is that, in the Little Women 2019 film guide, there is whole chapter where Gerwig talks about wanting to make mockery of the book...if you hate book that much, why do you make a movie of it?....and also, what about her complaints about age gaps?. she is married to a man 13 year older than her, but complaints that when Jo falls in love with older man (also Thoreau and LMA..same 16 year age gap as between Jo and Fritz). I'll stop ranting...more people need to call out this woman for lying to the public.
Very well said
Also, the 2019 Little Women movie insists upon itself too much. Like, we get it, being a woman in this time wasn't a picnic, but was that whole "marriage is an economic proposition" speech necessary? Does she really think she's so profound saying that?
Also, if Louisa was REALLY forced by her publisher to marry Jo off, don't you think she would have killed Fritz off or not have him in the story all that much? No, they're just casually making out when they're old enough to be grandparents, and that's beautiful.
Also, the costumes are ugly AF and make no sense, to the time or characters 🤢
@@BetterWithBob. You should see what JLongBone said about the cinematic dumpsterfire known as greta gerwig's barbie!
Thank you for vocalizing issues I had a hard time putting my finger on but bothered me. And off topic, I wish they'd remake 500 Days of Summer from Summer's POV but have no confidence they'll get the nuances right.
How would you make the story work from her POV? Genuinely curious :)
@@BetterWithBob It's tricky, like I would like it to be clear how insidious what JGL character did was but I'm not sure how to strike the right balance between intentions and actions. Not to mention what we've been ingrained to view as natural/acceptable vs whether that's actually the case or not. Like someone can do a bad thing without being a bad person. But mostly I'd like to focus on how Summer felt and thought about the experience. 🤔
Can I correct you a little bit the part "little women was published, because two men pressured her, because it would sell". There are some diary markings from Louisa from the time when she was in her twenties and she has a draft about a story very similar to Little Women. It tells about Louisa and her sisters. I personally think, she would have written to story at some point, even if Niles would not have encouraged her. I guess she was one of those people, who always had story ideas in their head. Also something very interesting, LMA's favorite writer was the German poet Goethe (also one of the models for Friedrich), his book Sorrows of youg Werther, literally tells the story of Laurie being rejected by Jo (Werther being rejected by Lottie). Another German connection, there was a German professor called Charles Follen who knew Louisa's uncle. Charles was a German immigrant and married an American female writer (what Jo March does...marries a German immigrant). After Charles passed away, his wife wrote a book about him. Louisa read it as a teen ager, and she made tons of marking about their relationship (calling it sweet and romantic). In the novel when Jo describes Friedrich, it is almost word to word, Eliza's description about her late husband. I had shivers on my spine when I read about it. This was a wonderful essay. I haven't watched the Barbie movie and you just proved why I shouldn't lol.
Ah my bad, I should have fact checked a little harder
I mean Louisa told to the press that she was pressured by her publisher..so you are not wrong..but in her diaries, there is the draft of the book, like decades before. She wasn't always truthful with the press. For example she always spoke very highly to the press, about Laddie Wisniewski (the real life Laurie), then in letters with her sister, they kinda criticise him, for being lazy etc. There is an american Alcott scholar called Daniel Shealy, who has written about the way Louisa and Thomas Niles together created the "spinster brand", I guess it was some sort of self-protection, since Laurie and Fritz are based on real people
I enjoyed this video, though with many nitpicks.
The main one is the idea that characters need to be idealized or always face consequences for their actions. The novel is extremely didactic, but people respond to its humour and pathos. Jo is clearly satirized in the scene where she can't take criticism from Friedrich. She's a hot-headed, ambitious character who misplaces her frustrations onto the wrong person. I dislike obnoxious girlbossing too, but I didn't get that from either Ronan or Pugh's performances. At worst, they don't moralize any more than the novel does.
I also think you've misread Jo's arc. She never expresses any desire for romance or marriage, but she's tortured by loneliness because being a single woman is socially isolating. She has lost her support system from childhood. Her family are moving apart. Her best friend has prioritized Amy. That's why she reconsiders his proposal; she knew it was a bad idea, but she's second-guessing the price of non-conformity. It's poignant and refreshing.
I do agree that Gerwig can be too heavy-handed, but no worse than average for Hollywood. She's great at stylizing and just slightly exaggerating real experiences, and she's tapped into a huge audience of women who aren't used to seeing themselves done well in film.
She’d better not screw with Narnia. The last thing we need is for someone to think a timeless classic needs to be “updated”.
Really great video. I completely agree with many of your main points, especially in regards to Gerwig’s apparent lack of nuance or understanding when it comes to acknowledging intersectionality. And, as a lover of Little Women (2019), I mostly agree with your criticisms. It’s definitely not perfect, and Gerwig’s shortcomings are very visible in some instances. However, I’d actually like to provide an alternate interpretation of the ending as it pertains to Jo’s arch as someone who identifies on the aromantic spectrum because I feel like applying that label to Jo can actually better explain (possibly better than Gretta Gerwig’s original intention could) the direction of her character. For those who aren’t aware of this incredibly underrepresented and misunderstood orientation, aromantic refers to having little to no romantic attraction. That is not the same with having little to no physical attraction (ace) or having no capacity for love as love and romance are not synonymous despite being consistently conflated by Amatonormative society (a society which prioritizes romantic love on a culturally tailored relationship hierarchy). Aromantic people can still feel lonely and often do because the world was not made to even conceptualize our existence. We can still want and pursue companionship, but because of our lack of romantic attraction, we often prioritize bonds perceived as less ‘real’ or ‘tangible’. Now, if we keep that in mind when following Jo throughout the movie, certain moments start to make more sense. For example, she doesn’t merely abstain from romance out of spite; she actively does not understand it. She begs her sister not to get married and doesn’t even consider the possibility that Meg’s doing it because she actually wants to. Jo even alludes to feeling abandoned in favor of her new husband and states that she can’t understand why people aren’t just content with their families like she is. When rejecting Laurie, Jo tells him “I’ve tried, but I can’t. I don’t know why”, suggesting a complete inability to experience this romantic spark everyone seems to expect from her, and not for a lack of trying. When she reconsiders the proposal, it’s not because she’s actually interested, it’s because she’s lonely, starved of affection, and feels this is the only way to secure it. More than anything, the love she wants is not the love of a partner, but the love of her family. It’s shown time and time again that they are her real priority-her everything. She wants to go back to the way she and her sisters used to be, when they were all together, sharing in each other’s worlds. This is most apparently shown within her fantasy ending, where the partners are completely glossed over in favor of following the sisters as they walk through the scene and stand together as a unit. In this reading, marriage is her enemy because, as her sisters marry, she begins to feel small, like her worth to them withers with each proposal and change to the status quo. And it would be bittersweet because there is no fix. Marriage is only another cage for her, and no matter how much she might want it, nothing will ever be like it was.
Barbie (2023) did manage to make me tear up during the montage scenes of our title character experiencing human emotion, both in the park and with Ruth, as it made me nostalgic towards the pure joy of my being a 2000's Barbie lover growing up, and the fact that I can still have appreciation for my childhood loves as an adult. And I did like Little Women (2019), though admittedly, what I most remember from it nowadays is Florence Pugh's performance as Amy. Plus, I'd already watched the "female writer mc struggles to have her work respected and published by men" bit in Crimson Peak (2015), and personally, I think I liked it better in that film. Probably because it doesn't quite so demand itself to be noticed by the audience (at least in my view); it was simply a part of the story. So, although I like these two films, they don't necessarily make me worship the ground that Greta Gerwig walks on, and it's nice to hear you dissect your mixed feelings towards her work in a rational manner, unlike so many "FEMINISM IS BAD AND STUPID," de-criers who just want the attention. 😌👏
The reason people are going against Feminist ideals lately is because those championing it have forgotten the original goal, and become inverted now going for opressing Man! But if you actually paid attention to things back then, you noticed that girls have been doing nothing but fine dining for years, from shows that go for general appeal but still have good female characters like culture cornerstone last airbender and criminally underrated storm hawks, to explicitly female lead projects like oban star racers,w.i.t.c.h.,Winx club,sailor moon,jem and the holograms,powerpuff girls,my little pony,direct to video barbie movies,personally seen and enjoyed many of them. Powerpuff Girls in particular made an episode explicitly to warn us about this kind of radical and toxic feminism called"Equal Fights", but Man didn't head the warning, and woman took it diffrently, the episode's writer Lauren Faust, after her disillusionment with hasbro/m.l.p. and helping her husband with wander over yonder, turned to DC superhero girls, wich is Feminist crap where Jessica Cruz have two moms,male heroes like hal jordan is a macho meathead,aqualad is a little pipequeak,hawkman is a silent Batman knockoff,flash is a hyperactive ditz,the list goes on, diffrence is night and day! Not to mention female directors like Kathryn Biggolow! This isn't feminism it's being feminazis!
You expressed my thoughts exactly, thank you
@@natcolita You're most welcome. 😊
I had heard of Little Women growing up but had only listened to an abridged version once as a kid. So the 2019 version is the one I saw first. I do like that version but there are some things that are definitely off. For one thing Amy's film relationship with Lourie is reduced to her scolding him though most of the film. As you said her speech about womanhood isn't something she should need to explain because they both live in and understand that culture. She says it for the audience's benefit. Also Gerwig removes her one genuinely compassionate scene where she sympathizes and shows her care for Lourie by having her know about Jo's refusal of him at the beginning. I do like Ronan as Jo but after having seen the 1994 film I prefer Wynona Ryder. I do own both versions.
Lol same. I have the 2019 one on DVD and the 1994 one bought on here
Gotta notice and appreciate the Charmed reference you snuck in there. 😉🧙♀
I want that to become to my channel what Star Trek is to Jessie Earl's lol
@@BetterWithBob Ha ha awesome. Trust me, I for one already consider you my "Charmed go-to" channel. And I'm glad to hear you're a fan of Jessie Earl's videos! 😊
@@DJtheBlack-RibbonedRose Oh she's great. I sometimes aren't able to watch every one because of the length but I have mad respect for her
@@BetterWithBob. Why can't you be more like JLongBone?
@@BetterWithBob. You need to find better role models. Mine is JLongBone,funny,informative and smart!
I think my problem is that she rips compassion out of her females. The Charmed women transformed their world by compassion. So women can be just as self centered as the males Gerwig hates and speaks against.
Excellently put 👏👏👏
@@BetterWithBob which makes me scared of how terrible her Chronicles of Narnia will be. All of the radical Christian compassion Lewis infused will be obliterated. Queen Susan will no longer be "The Gentle." Aravis will rage at the unfairness of Aslan giving her stripe for stripe that her maid received due to Aravis running away. Ugh.
@@pamelatarajcak5634 the optimist in me thinks that maybe she will be delicate with it, since she did have a Catholic upbringing herself, and hopefully his estate will be a steadying hand keeping things true to the books
Why can't women lack compassion and be self centered though?
The 1994 Adaptation is more subtly feminist than the In-your-face Feminist messages of the 2019 Adaptation! At one point Meg says she enjoyed being admired. Marmee replies "Of course not, but if you find your value lies in being merely decorative, I fear that one, that's all you think you are." Louder for the Gretas in the back! Then Jo says "women should vote because they are citizens too!" Take that, Greta Gerwig!
Most female focused media made during the 'Girl Power Era' of the 90s and 2000s was actually better at this sort of thing really. Like Legally Blonde, Bring It On and Miss Congeniality have a LOT going on if you read into them. Way more than Barbie really
And not because they are more moral than men or anything, but human beings. I really love the 1994 adaptation.
@@BetterWithBob. How about captain marvel? Like robot head said the movies version of the 90's is the 50's. Real 90's woman looked and acted like man!
I like both, but I don't find 1994 subtle at all. It's preachy. The book is too, so that's fine. But to me, the 2019 characters seemed more like real people with opinions than characters delivering a moral.
“It’s a well-written Instagram post.” Dude. Yes. Nailed it. I loved the humor of the movie, but otherwise, didn’t enjoy it primarily for the heavy-handedness, the narration and exposition. I’m glad I saw it, but I wouldn’t watch it again.
Same lol. Once was enough for me
Until you explained why regina becoming Queen of the land at the end was off. I couldn't vocalise why that ending for her in OUAT didn't feel happily ever after for her.😮
All credit to Song for giving me that light bulb moment last year 😁
@@BetterWithBob. In that case, need to finess your scripts more!
I'd like to defend the 2019 Little Women movie just a bit.
I get the criticism that the movie doesn't develop Prof. Bhaer and makes his attraction for Jo seem to just be that he's hot. But to be fair, the movie has a lot of characters to develop and only two hours and a bit to develop them all. Considering that, I think it's awesome how complete most of their arcs feel, especially compared to most adaptations which only develop Jo, Laurie, Beth and the professor.
Jo does suffer a little bit for her temper tantrum in response to Prof. Bhaer's feedback. When her mother advises her to go back to New York, she says glumly that she ruined her friendship with him. (Or was that just in the script and got cut from the final movie?) I agree though that it would have made for a better character arc to have her apologize to him.
A big part of the reason so many readers have preferred the idea of a Jo-Laurie romance or even the Jo-Bhaer romance to the Amy-Laurie romance is because of the lack of conflict in the last one, so I can't blame the movie for wanting to add more drama to it. (It is rather eyebrow raising though one of the reasons given for why Jo and Laurie wouldn't work as a couple is that they fight too much when Amy and Laurie seem just as combative.)
Also, the book Little Women is full of speechifying and moralizing albeit less about feminism per se and more about morality in general, so I feel like that's what people expect, even want from an adaptation.
I do agree though that the movie really oversimplifies the story behind the book's creation and publication, mainly the part about Louisa May Alcott not wanting to write it, for the sake of social commentary and the ending, while it seems clever at first, is ultimately frustrating. And, yeah, more historically accurate costumes and hairdos would have been welcome.
Thank you for this. You pretty much nailed everything I dislike about modern, pop feminism.
You just convinced me to watch other adaptations of Little Women.
Barbie and Little Women (2019) will still be on my list of fav movies tho because I had a lot of fun watching them (and the list is in pen).
Another insightful video essay. Thanks Bob. Your perspective is informed as always. I enjoyed all of Gerwig’s movies but you make salient points.
Thank you :)
One word, JLongBone!
Thank you for this video, I feel like you illustrated very well the issues that I had with the Barbie movie, and in particular that monologue. It definitely helps to see that this isn't a single instance of heavy-handed moral messaging, but rather a pattern (I haven't seen Little Women, save for some clips here and there - I enjoyed the version with Winona Ryder and didn't feel the need for another version). I think the thing that bothered me the most about the monologue is that, narratively speaking, it felt unearned. Yes, everything that was stated was valid in terms of describing women's experiences, but the character saying those things hadn't earned that moment, she didn't have an arc that showed her struggling with those pressures, and her audience of Barbies likewise didn't need that speech, as it was describing experiences none of them have had or understand. It just felt like the movie assumed the audience wouldn't be able to understand its message if it were delivered with subtlety.
Very well said!
your channel is so refreshing and i hope it takes off because i’m tired of the loudest voices on this platform being garbage like the critical drinker
I've never personally watched but my old best friend used to quote him because he found the accent funny lol
Narnia series was one of my favorite books growing up!
The Horse and His Boy is actually my favourite lol
@@BetterWithBob thank you for reminding me that this series exist! I just ordered to read them again ^^ this time in it's original language
THANK YOU FOR THE SASHA CALLOUT.
I HATED that the movie just let her get away with being so vicious to a clearly clueless stranger without ever being called on it or humbled.
The movie just let it slide like she was in the right or some kind of righteous young"truth-teller", when really she was just using pseudo-social justice buzzwords as a cover to bully someone who is NOT the source of the problem, to try and look cool in front of her friends.
It actually feeds into some of the worst stereotypes about teenagers and about people who legitimately try to call out societal problems in a constructive way. It struck me as a boomer's idea of what a "woke" young person is like. I really hated it.
Greta was born in 1983 so that'd make her Gen X rather than a Boomer but I see your point.
I thought I was the only one who couldn't stand her! Arianna plays her wonderfully, she looks the part of a catty teenager, absoloutely nothing but praise for her, but other than that, Sasha was awful!
"Barbie represents facism", seriously?? I cringed in my seat, I was her age in the 2010s, but no child would go after a literal DOLL compared to the ADULTS who read way too much buzzfeed and suddenly decided Barbie and Disney princesses were a "detriment" to women and girls everywhere 🙄🙄
She barely had much of an arc (a lot of people try to loop it around and say "well she isn't the main focus"), so her "snap out it" pep talk to her mum was unearned because she was nothing but a "I'm too cool for this, disrespecting adults and making them cry gives me a sense of control" character before all this. It's almost sad how we have to add another teen character to the list of "teen characters written to be bratty and edgy by adults" 🙃
I think Barbie doesn't lend itself well to being a movie due to the lack of a storyline for the toys themselves. If you take a property like Transformers for instance, that has the basic storyline of good robots vs bad robots, and while it's basic as I mentioned, it can still be used as a foundation for a film's story. With Barbie, the only way they could get it to feasibly work was by having her still be a toy in her movie and having her discover humanity and emotions and what not, which is a story we've seen time and again. It makes it a bit uninspired imo.
Very well said. And since the gimmick of Barbie was that she could be 'anything', the other films had to be fairy tale retellings
Fun fact about the Brontë sisters: they all initially published under male pseudonyms to give the works a greater chance of being published. Wuthering Heights was published under the name Ellis Bell, while Jane Eyre was published under the name Currer Bell.
Jane Austen on the other hand included the line „by a lady“ in all of her works, which were published anonymously.
I hated 2019 Little Women honestly, the timeline switches just really annoyed me.
Yes! I have no nostlagic attachment to any of the previous adaptations because I only watched the 1994 version for the first time 3 DAYS before seeing the 2019 one, and without any childhood bias, 1994's version flowed SEAMLESSLY.
I was so lost when watching the 2019's adaptation, they jumped WAY TOO MUCH across the timelines, Beth's death (which had SO LITTLE IMPACT compared to '94 AND the book??), followed immediately by Meg's wedding where BETH WAS THERE, and us having to "rely on the colours being tinted" to know when the memory took place?? Not helped that the horrendous costumes couldn't give us a hint as to WHEN the events took place, the sisters not really have chemistry (to me), again, compared to '94, younger Amy's casting being laughable when '94 and probably (correct me if I'm wrong) earlier adaptations had two actresses playing them, I could go on.
The two things I did like was Amy's scenes as an adult (the backdrop and costuming there was STUNNING, Florence shined in those scenes) and Jo's future being open-ended, which was what Louisa wanted initially for her. But that's about it, it was so bad that my sister walked away after Meg's wedding scene.
This was incredibly satisfying. I feel like there's a thread of contempt for women running through Gerwig's movies, particularly in Little Women, and I think you picked up a couple of reasons why.
Thanks for watching :)
Quite the poignant analysis and I mostly quite agree with you, except for some details, which might be small, but I like noticing small gems. 😊 I also love learning about film history and to see you debunk so many arguments that seem to be so prevalent in Online spaces. Especially when you spoke about mean girls being the ideal today. I could only happily agree. 🎉🎉
We might not be quite alike, as learned to dislike the clear-cut black-and-white morality in stories, which is why I HATE stories like ‘Morality Bites’ in Charmed, but I can’t deny that I also learned much from you…
This is exactly how I felt about the Barbie movie after seeing it the first time. Although I do love it now, you articulated the problems I had with it initially. Thank you!
Thanks for watching :)
3:29 there is also a Venezuelan Telenovela adaptation of Little Women set during the war for independence.
Ooh really? How was it?
@BetterWithBob back then, I liked it a lot. But it had all the signifiers of a Telenovela made Latin America. Heightened drama.
Yes! I was obsessed with it as a kid, which in turn made me become obsessed with the novel, even though between the revolutionary plot(s), the Jo and Laurie characters getting together and Beth having sex in a convent with a Wickham-like character invented for the adaptation they couldn't be more different. I often wonder if the telenovela holds up any. 😂
I've not actually seen any of these movies, partly becuase they aren't my type and partly because I'm not a fan of modern Feminist stories for exactly the reasons you've laid out here! As someone fundementaly uninterested in romance, I still loved that Charmed showed how a woman wasn't less because she wanted it! Women used to make mistakes and learn! Now they are always right or else. My bullies in school were always girls. To see those same personalities lauded as Strong Women now pisses me off to no end! So thank you for calling that out!
But they were ALL interested in romance and babies. All four of them. We never get an alternative view.
@theredqveen that is true. It would have been nice to see one not interested in romance. Although I could argue that Prue had no interest in having kids. Romance yes, but she never expressed any desire to have kids. The closest she came, I think, was post seeing the future she didn't want to end up without her family.
I loved the 1994's Little Women, and I read the book, today one of my favorites, because of that version. Unfortunately, I hated Greta Gerwig version, because of these reasons:
1 - the "non-linear" estructure of the script, that alternates between the present and the past. This option turned the story more tiring and difficult to watch.
2 - the way that she intensified the rivaltry between Amy and Jo, that originally only occurred in that episode of the manuscript when they were teens.
3 - the changes that she did on the Profesor Bhaer, one of my favorite characters of the story. Not only she turned him french instead of german, but she altered the scene where he criticized the sensacionalistic tales that she wrotes, making his behavior more agressive and intolerant (at the book, he only said to her that was bad literature, without give her any glance that he was suspicious of what she was writing). And I suspect that these changes were proposital, to make the spectators of the story antipathize him and accept her end to the story, where Jo was alone and published her book with a "false end", where Jo is married with Profesor Bhaer and teaching at Plumfield with him.
I'm really worried with the possibility of what she will do when she will direct "Narnia" or what she inserted at the script of the live action of Snow White. Based on that she did before, the possibilities to the future aren't much positives.
Legit i though barbie movie is another life size/lego movie but margo robbie as barbie. I was soo dead wrong, my cinema highlight at the time is the fnaf movie.
Ladybird is absolutely a masterpiece, one of the best films of the century. Barbie, in retrospect, was very average.
Wait is fake charmed the reason we didn’t get an appearance from Audrey in Descendants 2 lol
If that gives me more reason to bash it out of sheer immature pettiness then yes
The thing with the editor and his daughters in the 2019 Little Women is sort of based on history but sensationalized for dramatic effect. Thomas Niles, Louisa May Alcott's editor, wasn't impressed with the first ten chapters or so of Little Women. But he didn't just dismiss the idea of the book. (As this video mentions, he was the one who requested Alcott to write it.) Instead, he showed the chapters to young girls who were the target audience and they loved it. FWIW, I think what the film does makes for better drama, but I understand the video essay's point that the movie was taking all the nuance out of history for the sake of the Message.
Yes it's an unfortunate fallacy in modern pop feminism that you can challenge a misogynist or chauvinist into being more progressive when in all likelihood someone who isn't already progressive minded is unlikely to change their views very suddenly because someone commands them to
@@BetterWithBob I'm not really sure how that applies to the scene in question since I thought the movie's implication was that the editor just decided to publish Jo's book since his daughters proved there was a market for it. I wouldn't call that changing his entire worldview or anything.
It feels a bit much to me because a straw misogynist would probably dismiss his three daughters and be like "what do they know?" and that guy is just presented as so straw misogynist, like not even caring about his wife or her mother
@@BetterWithBob OK, fair enough. I guess I interpreted the argument with his wife as being humorous filler. You see I read the script online first which describes the wife as trying to start an argument, making her seem bad too.
FWIW, I actually find the 1994 Little Women more tiresomely preachy when it comes to sexism, racism, etc. I mean, in one scene we cut from Marmee talking about how bad corsets are to Jo complaining about her skirts. That pretty much killed subtlety. Also, it bugs me that they shoehorned a line in about how Amy's teacher thinks it's as useful to educate a woman as a cat. If that's his opinion, why is he running a school specifically for girls?! Instead of making me hate him, that line actually kind of made me feel sorry for the guy since he apparently believes he's wasting his life.
@@BetterWithBob I hasten to add after my last comment that I really do enjoy the 1994 movie. I think it's casting, music and art direction are all much better than those of the 2019 one. I just think the 2019's script is much better. I know that's very different from your take but what can I say?
Thank you so much for calling out GG's signature sidestepping of accountability because "we're girls." That is the number one thing, along with the impressive shallowness of her idea of feminism, that keeps me from going to any of her movies anymore.
"Hyper-feminine" is spot-on. I wish everyone had realized that term ages ago.
Thank you, this video was amazing and really summarized the issues well
Thanks for putting into words so many things that I've thought about feminism for years. I am the only female lawyer in my office of 8 attorneys, and I much prefer it that way. In my experience, older female attorneys tend to be harsh and overly critical, especially to other women. And, I totally agree with your criticisms, particularly of Little Women. It's one of my favorite books, so it was hard for me to see it sacrificed on the alter of performative feminism.
I have seen non of these movies but it sounds like Greta Gerwig is the female version of Joss Whedon and these films suffer from what as a video game would be called ludo-narrative-dissonance but I have no idea what the right term for a film is.
Oh my 😂😂
I loved the 2019 little women movie!!! But honestly, that was the only great herring movie I loved, and even I acknowledge it has its problems… I genuinely couldn’t finish Barbie I got such terrible secondhand embarrassment, and ladybird was also terribly cringy to me at the time watching it. I was the same age as the main characters in ladybird and I felt like it was so condescending and trying to hard to be “artsy”. I’ve never understood the great herring hype as a director tbh, sorry not sorry 🤷♀️
I am so worried about how she might overcorrect when it comes to characters like Susan, Lucy, and the Witch.
26:25 - I don't know that forced transitioning is a myth. I know at least there's those who regret transition in the western world where they wrongly believed it was the only solution for them because it works for other people, but beyond that, there's the more concrete cases of homophobia driving transition. In religious cultures (particularly the Muslim world), there's plenty parents would rather have their kid transition to be heterosexual rather than stay as homosexuals. Maybe the way you mean myth is something beyond that, but either way it's a real thing whether it's exaggerated for political use or not.
But other than that great video :3
As a guy a bit more on the anti-feminist side that cringes at intersectionality, you've given me a nice perspective on the flaws with the film that isn't rooted in the anti-woke stance I lean towards. Good job!
I miss read the title as "cinematic crushes"😅
Fair 😂😂
Around the 34 minute mark you're talking about "high spots"
Whenever this type of thing comes up, I think of Super Bunny Hop's video about the importance of Quiet Time: he talks about how contrast helps keep a story interesting and engaging, that you can't have the entire story be action or tension, that the quiet moments contrast with the louder or busier (or whatever) moments and that contrast is what keeps it engaging and memorable. It's okay to show and show and show and then to take a moment to tell... but if your movie (or tv show, or book, or whatever) is just many small moments of telling, then one big monologue, it'll almost certainly fall flat.
(There are, of course, exceptions, as in all art. "Crank" is obviously an attempt to make a movie that's ALL climax. But something like that is gimmicky; it can be fun to try, to break from convention, but it shouldn't be the only tool you have in your toolbag.)
Oh yes absolutely. Excellent analysis :)
I definitely appreciate this video, and your commentary as always, but I disagree with what was said around 39:47 cuz apart from the (beautiful) scene mentioned, I do think there were little moments here and there throughout the entire second half of the movie where Margot Robbie's performance shows us that she as Barbie is noticing the horrible and beautiful things about being "human." Idk, I haven't actually seen any of Greta's other movies, and that could be entirely on Margot herself (like how you said about Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter essentially being able to "direct themselves" earlier in the video), but I saw a lot of moments where Barbie seemed like she was at least "intrigued" or otherwise drawn to the "real world." I agree that the speech from Gloria (regardless of how true) was very heavy-handed, and that shouldn't have been the "climax" of the film... I still really liked the movie though, and my original point was that I saw moments of Barbie being drawn to the "real world" before the seemingly "sudden" change.... Idk it's hard to explain.
(I didn't care as much about Gloria and Sasha as I did Barbie herself, so maybe that skewed my perception a little, as I saw them as more of "plot devices" for Barbie and Ken's journeys, as opposed to actual fleshed out characters... I also laughed my ass off and cried multiple times during the film, both in the theatre and at home, so whatever that's worth lol).
as a longtime fan of Narnia I am dreading what Greta will do to my beloved franchise. I just know she's going to do Susan dirty.
Hi Bob!
Disclaimer I haven't seen this movie and agree with your takes about Laurie and Amy being unhealthy. Is it possible that the film that the writers were going for what tv tropes called Belligerent sexual Tension ? I really dislike this trope for many reasons. I will always prefer friends to lovers over enemies to lovers.
Possibly they were. It's not really exclusive to Greta Gerwig and just happens in a lot of today's films it seems
@@BetterWithBob Thank you😊
Loved every bit of this, but I am _horrified_ to learn from this video that Gerwig is directing the Narnia remakes! Nooooooooo!! She's a great director _technically,_ but I HATE how she inserts 21st-century hyper-feminism into everything I've seen from her so far. As a young woman who is NOT a fan of modern "don't need no man" girlboss feminism, I can't stand that about her movies. And I grew up with the Narnia stories, so this makes me so upset. I will hold out 5% hope that she might not do that in the Narnia remakes... but come on. Fat chance. I can't see anything but all the exact criticisms you laid out in this video.
Great video though!
Hehe we'll have to see how she handles the "battles are ugly when women fight" part of LWW
@@BetterWithBob - Not well, I predict. :/ Picturing the softness and femininity of Susan and Lucy be ruined by feminism literally makes me not want to watch it at all.
small remark: yes, since ages there have been movies and media for women, but what those female characters in them were like is a big question to me.
among all the disney princesses that a girl in the early 00s could pick from there was barely a story that was not only about a happy ending with a guy. Mulan was there, yes, but that is it. You would need to wait for at least 10 years to get a deeper story, like Princess and a Frog.
Same with books:) harry potter? lord of the rings? percy jackson? of course, they had female characters but it isn't Hermione Granger and the Philosopher's Stone, right? This would have been a completely different story with a different focus.
I am not claiming that they are bad for not having a female lead! No!
Just pointing out that yes, media made for women existed but the portrayal of the female character was very limited
I mean I wouldn't call Princess and the Frog deep since I consider Tiana the weakest princess from a writing POV, but I see your point
@Yourfairyfish What about Pocahontas? That was my favorite movie as a child, and it wasn't because of the love story. To me, it always felt like the love between Pocahontas and John was there to represent the message and move the deeper themes of the plot along, rather than to take center stage. I'd go as far as to say it's her relationship with the willow tree that left a stronger impression on my young mind. I haven't watched it again as an adult, but if I remember correctly, she also chooses her love and loyalty toward her tribe over John.
But something to consider (whether it adds a new perspective, or reaffirms the one you've got): the 00s had movies like UpTown Girls, Legally Blonde, Thirteen, Aquamarine, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and The Devil Wears Prada, to name just a few. These focused primarily on friendships, personal growth, and self-love, understanding, and acceptance. Though not without their faults, I'd still say they redefined what a female character could look like. Or at least they started too. With it being all white, stereotypically beautiful women in the lead roles, there were still many young girls who probably felt isolated and unrepresented. But it was definitely a step in the right direction.
Pocahontas is one of my favourites. Criminally underrated
I was going to include a section on those 90s and 2000s female characters in things like Legally Blonde for comparison but that would probably be enough material for a video on its own lol
With books that's a massive supply issue on your part. Those three series were all written with a male audience one just happened to have had a female author.
Harry Potter's direct contemporary rival on the British children's fiction charts was the works of Philip Pullman (male author with mostly female protagonists) and his direct predessor is The Worst Witch (magic school, female protagonist).
There are loads of female protagonist children's books predating the 2000s and you've listed Lord of the Rings so just had bad luck to have not been exposed to Tamora Pierce or other High Fantasy with female characters.
Wizard of Oz has mostly female protagonists as does Alice in Wonderland its not like girls have been side characters for the majority of the history of children's fiction.
Sounds like you only had access to a tiny narrow band of succesful books which sucks but lack of opportunity to find what was there is very different from what existed.
Tamora Pierce has at least 20 books with a female main character. More than one of them don't end up married. And that was before 2010. Her first book came out in the 80's. Diane Duane also has multiple books written with a female protagonist. Again, limitted romance. I agree with Disney Princessess, but that's one corporation. Goosebumps was massivly inclusive for it's time. I'd actually argue Harry Potter was horrible to its female characters. Media for girls and women has frequently been looked down on, but it's there. It always has been.
disenfranchising the kens by distracting them on voting day is a callback likely not intended
I thought Greta Gerwig was that little activist girl I saw all over Facebook lol
little harsh lol
Just basing it on how the film looks like in this video, but Gerwig's Little Women film looks so plastic. That look might have fit with Barbie - but not with Little Women.
I really, really dislike the so called pop feminism that's so popular today. I hate characters that are written without flaws. Or more like, they have obvious flaws, but they never seem to learn better. Just leaves me with an awful taste in my mouth. That's what I dislike the most about today's movies. Not all movies and all that, but so many series and films have the same problem - flat characters. Characters who seem to consist more of an idea instead of being a full character.
I remember films from yesteryear, where female characters were allowed to make mistakes and have flaws, but also allowed to learn from them. Today it seems like too many female characters are written to be more or less perfect, or at least not with anything that can make her seem or feel less in any way. Makes for very, if not extremely, boring characters. I wish female characters were allowed to be more human, period.
We really did peak during the Girl Power Era
It’s funny you finish with open-mindedness about criticism. Taylor Swift, the biggest artist in the world, just released an album and her reaction to the divisive reviews is to pointedly spotlight the unabashedly positive few.
I think to be a creative and antagonistic to criticism is detrimental to honest discourse on how we consume art.
lol Song literally just released a video about that album and the response to it
@@BetterWithBob Yes, I did!
@@BetterWithBob who’s Song? Btw are you fond of reading? I’m a writer. I find the character analyses in your vids transferrable to prose medium as well.
@@deezxc *raises hand* I'm Song. I made the comments about bonnets and corsets in this video.
@@songweretson oh hey, great contribution:)
I thought Barbie was fun, but I think it could have been better
So excited! I’m READY for the Barbie analysis. Could we use a word besides “crutch” to be more welcoming to those with disabilities? 💗
Suggestions?
I was going off how in writing we're warned about 'crutch words'?
As a yogi I was also taught not to rely on the “crutch” of water, so I get it. What about her cinematic security blanket, comfort zone, go-to, safety net, or cop-out? They may not be as snappy but are each more welcoming
How about the cinematic comfort zone of Greta Gerwig?
20:38 „Yes, there obviously was sexism as well, but in entertainment, the money always takes priority…“
20:51 „Little Women 2019 ignores all this nuance and complexity and goes for the simplistic message of ‚the patriarchy doesn’t want women’s stories told‘, because that’s more marketable.“
Ironic, isn’t it? Consistent Feminism that is aware of historical facts and constructs a meaningful story takes a back seat to marketability - because in entertainment, the money always takes priority. Pity, that.
Yeah and there are so many different schools of feminism - radical, liberal, Marxist, sex negative, sex positive etc - and it really does require doing the reading to even begin to make sense of the history behind it all.
@@BetterWithBob One would imagine that a screenwriter intending to tell a great feminist story would be willing to put in those hours, though... I mean, it isn't impossible to tell a meaningful, full story with a number of layers, interesting character arcs and a bunch of meta-commentary about a toy. The Lego Movie was great, after all, and let's not get started on Toy Story. Barbie just fell flat on so many levels... a complete mess of a movie imo, and I really, REALLY wanted to like it. :-(
I’M READYYYY
Ma boooooyyyyy
10:58 i wish youd make an entire video on this topic.
Everytime this issue is spotlighted the response especially from Women is usually cruel/one sided/and just reeks of the feeling of "who cares what matters to men?"
That would be interesting 🤔 but my mentor whose comment is pinned to the top does a lot of videos on topics like that if you'd like to check them out 🙂
💥💥💥
Come on dude, don’t tease your videos like this.
I fucking hate when my feed gets clogged up with videos I can’t even watch.
eh I just happened to finish yesterday and Sunday is the worst day to upload so
@@BetterWithBob I noticed that a bunch of people dropped videos today.
Good job getting a Gerwig video out so quickly, I know it’s hard when your channel is small.
Eh just a couple of days staying up editing until midnight lol
@@BetterWithBobI hope you got a good sleep after you uploaded. Great video by the way.
Some constructive criticism:
Talk more about men. You’re a masc sounding person with a firm grasp on feminism, I wanted to hear you talk more about Kenergy.
43:01 - 43:21 . This sentiment is lost in entertainment right now, most notably with musicians. The fan bases of two female singers in particular come to mind.
Who's the second? I assume the first is Ms Swift
@@BetterWithBob you assume correctly. The other is Beyonce. You either like her country album or you're *insert accusation here*.
Ah I don't have much context for that because I'm used to seeing people decrying her for apparently running sweat shops for her merch or not writing her own stuff, so I was more surprised when I discovered how praised she is. I'm fairly neutral on her - since the last Beyoncé song I remember is Single Ladies
@@BetterWithBob I don't particularly enjoy Beyonce's music. I am a fan of Taylor Swift, but I can't say I've enjoyed everything she has put out. To that point, I think her latest album would have been better served as a graphic poetry novel coupled with performance poetry audio. In place of music videos, I imagine performance poetry set to the backdrop of short stories that could stand alone but still come together (like Black Mirror). Sort of like a jazz poetry/opera/music video hybrid.
It concerns me that grown men went out of there way to watch Barbie lmao