The Laurie Problem Part 2. Little Women Podcast Transcript

Little Women Podcast Transcript: The Laurie Problem Part 2

Booktuber Emily and I got together to talk about Laurie´s character arc and how it is missing from every single-Little Women adaptation. You can listen to the podcast episode on Soundcloud

Niina: What it comes to Louisa, the whole premise of Little Women was to write a book for girls about how to marry someone who you can actually live with for the rest of your life and she really does this very well when you think about it because she especially crafted Friedrich´s character for Jo and then he is based on men who Louisa was in love with.

Emily: As we pointed out before, we don´t have lots of full characterizations of Laurie in the films. I am wondering, did you expect the 2019 film to do better with his character?

Niina: I read very early interviews of Greta Gerwig who talked about the way Jo and Laurie have this relationship that is not romantic and that gave me hope but then I read the movie guide for the new film and then she takes it back. I think she is a Jo and Laurie shipper. This is why Laurie doesn´t have an arch. What I have seen in Little Women circles with an of the people who I have talked with and interviewed for my articles, is that there are a lot of people now who think that Laurie is very immature in that film and they are glad that Jo ended up with the professor. So it is some kind of improvement but he is still a million times more idealized in that movie than he is in the book.

Emily: The really dreamy Timothee Chamalet.¨

Niina: He doesn´t have a character arch. They did a pretty good job with Amy in that movie.

Emily: Yes, yes.

Niina: But it doesn´t work without Laurie´s arch. That is the problem.

Emily: That is very true. I was hoping to discuss this with you. Despite my very critical review of the new film. I think they were doing okay with Amy and Laurie. For up until the Europe part because I think setting up their relationship is pretty good. I think I said before in my review. I didn´t like how they contrived that with Amy´s painting being the set up for that because I think that is actually a very awful scene that is supposed to be a scene or righteous anger and I didn´t like that it was made to be comical. I liked that they did some work on establishing their relationship beforehand. I´d be okay with this and in Europe they have that discussion. Amy gives him talk and then Amy also doesn´t want to play second to Jo. I was like okay, this was fine. But then you noticed how Laurie doesn´t have to do any work for Amy?

Niina: That´s true.

Emily: I always found this to be a very crucial part of their arch. Amy even encourages him to be a productive member of society but then he never does any of that. That aspect of their story is left hanging and just incomplete and then it´s back to Beth´s death to speed up their relationship instead of him actually putting work in, which really sat badly with me.

Niina: That is something that really bothered me in the film and that kind of reflected in Jo´s character because she was not given a character arch either.

Emily: She is not. I said in my review her arch is flat without professor Bhaer.

Niina: If we compare that to the 1994 film, Jo has a full arch there. That is the way it goes in the book.Emily: Yes she does. Despite Laurie not having much of a characterization, maybe not much more in the 1994 film. I liked that they actually acknowledged that he went away to actually better himself before coming back to Amy.

Niina: It doesn´t really build up their relationship as much as the 2019 film but Laurie has some sort of arch in that movie.Emily: Now that we are talking about the film. I think you said in your blog post we don´t get a sense of his temper and how he would clash with Jo which is why we don´t always buy that they would kill each other.

Niina: That is the same with all adaptations. Louisa makes a really big effort in the book. She describes that Laurie has a temper and that he has these violent outbursts sometimes and Jo has them as well.

Emily: You get this sense that Laurie is butting heads with Jo, what he kind of is, but he also clashes with her in other ways but they never really represent that. I think in 1994 Christian Bale is really wonderful for the character that they wrote but I guess a lot of people have accused the film of making that relationship with Amy creepy. Underdeveloped maybe, but I never found it creepy particularly. ​

Niina: I think it´s because Amy is 12 in the first part and Laurie is 16 but it´s just a four years age difference and they are not romantically together in that way but then people also say that Jo and Friedrich are creepy but Jo is 24 when they meet. I never saw that creepy.

Emily: They are both adults. ​ Niina: It was written in the 19th century. Most marriages were marriages with age gaps and Louisa had a thing for older guys.Emily: Back then it was super common.

Niina: For most people there was an age gap in the marriages or in relationships in general.

Emily: Because families generally wanted their daughters to marry established gentlemen. Who already had a living and generally it would take time for a guy to actually establish his career and when he did at that point he would marry somebody. So it is not shocking at all that you would have age gaps like that.

Niina: If you think about some of the recent films. For example the new Emma. In the original Jane Austen´s Emma, Knightley´s and Emma´s age difference is 19 years. In the new film, Knightley´s actor is much younger looking. They do that nowadays. The male lead is hired to be a young-looking guy, even if the actor is actually a bit older in reality.Emily: It´s funny, you know in the 2019 film they did that with professor Bhaer. They were not going to do the proper arch anyway but they made him younger too. ​ Niina: The actor is actually 36 so his age is really close to the book Fritz but he looks much younger. It´s just Hollywood the way it does it but then if I think about Amy and Laurie in the 1994 film, I don´t think it´s creepy but if you think about how people could actually avoid that why can´t they actually hire a 16-year-old guy to play Laurie but people are going to complain about everything, it doesn´t matter who we are going to cast to play Laurie.

Emily: In the 2019 film I felt that it had an issue with Florence Pugh looking older in all of her scenes when Laurie just looked young in all of his scenes.

Niina: The actors are the same age.

Emily: They are the same age. It´s just that, you could not quite buy Amy or Florence Pugh as a child and you could never buy Timothee Chamalet as an adult. Whatever their real-life age is. It just doesn´t work in the sense of that visual contrast. I mean people have pointed out to me that Christian Bale was only 20 when he played Laurie but he is able to transition from being a teenager into an adult. Sometimes you know, even if the real age matches, that is the thing about casting, you need certain people to pass of different ages. It is weird because I haven´t seen the 1933 film but I noticed that both 1949 and 1994 don´t pay that much attention to Amy´s and Laurie´s arch. In fact,I think 1949 less so. It is not even there.

Niina: No. There is this scene before Laurie goes to propose Jo and Amy is looking at Laurie with a sad expression on her face. I think that is the only scene with them together and then there is the end when they end up together. That is their arch. Laurie´s proposal is extremely romanticized in that film and it´s really romanticized in the 1933 film and 1994 film. The 2019 film did better but then it completely erased Friedrich´s character so it kind of sucks. ​

Emily: Laurie in the 1949 film. I recall his proposal being pretty angry and I think that was the only time we could ever really buy into his character having a temper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzuK9xH54KQ&ab_channel=LittleWomenChannel

Niina: It is the same in the 1933 film. Laurie has a bit of a temper in it but after that, it is just really flat in the next adaptations. You can find the full transcript here https://www.fairychamber.com/blog/the-laurie-problem-podcast-transcript.html

If you enjoy reading my content, consider subscribing to my feed. Also, if you are not a Medium member and you would like to gain unlimited access to the platform, consider using my referral link right here to sign up. It’s $5 a month and you get unlimited access to my articles and many others like mine. Thanks