Why do we care?
Do men care if we like male dominated films?
Why is this even an article? How pathetic.
We like what we like-- we don't need permission or approval from the opposite sex.
119
This just reads like fluffy link bait trying to drum up conflict where none exists. Phrases like, "many of which are male-centered," typify this article. A lot of assumptions with no data. It's certainly an opinion, and it may be right, but there's no way to tell, because it's not supported by facts. I expect more from the New York Times.
74
David Brooks opinion piece just pressed the point on pieces like this: Media a fact and twist it to fit into their skewed world view.
"Little Women" didn't do boffo box office. Therefore, men really hate women. Are you kidding? This is your thesis?
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. And just as frequently, films are rejected at the box office for reasons that have nothing to do with sexism/racism/prejudice/blah, blah, blah...
Is this journalism or shooting dead fish in a barrel?
59
"Little Women" is a vehicle for a certain kind of pseudo-woke white posturing. In stories like this, upper and middle-class white people can still have their fairytales with a nod to racial correctness all while continuing to enjoy a fairly unquestioned privilege of place. In "Moby Dick," this is not possible because Melville has taken the time to consider his own whiteness in a more meaningful way. "Moby Dick" is a more deeply skeptical work that approaches whiteness not as something to preserve but as something to interrogate and even at times to hate. It is also, by the way, very queer. "Little Women" may fit the bill for a certain kind of cheap feminism, but "Moby Dick" is much more aware of itself with respect to race and to gender, in a more radical sense.
15
Let's face it, a movie titled "Little Women" has got to be a chick flick, which simply does not appeal much to a lot of guys of all ages.
There is nothing wrong with that; not every movie will appeal to every person (or gender or race or ethnic group of religion).
Trying to make men feel guilty for not wanting to watch "Little Women" is both stupid and sexist.
51
If the Little Women would only run around killing each other with glowing swords I'm quite sure men would pay attention.
24
Very surprised that no one has called out the author of this predictable, banal, shallow, weakly-argued piece on the glaring error of declaring Jane Austen "a giant in the literary landscape."
Didn't Jane Austen at first publish her novels secretly/anonymously? She was never a giant until long after her death.
Just one of the more egregious examples of the lack of logical or compelling rhetoric in this screed.
23
I have zero interest in seeing this movie. Apparently that makes me a male chauvinist pig.
These kinds of articles will get us another 4 years of Trump..
56
Perhaps there should be mandatory male viewing.
Right after the latest Star Wars.
Jeesh
14
To refute this piece, here's one Cleveland man's opinion:
https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2019/12/23/cast-is-incandescant-in-gerwigs-little-women
2
More overwoke whining from the NYT commentariat class. Maybe this movie would be more interesting to men if it had more car chases and sex scenes. Just a thought...
26
Based on the trailer, this movie seems to be aimed at women, and it is being marketed accordingly. It is not, therefore, something I'm excited about. I enjoyed Lady Bird, and have a high opinion of Saoirse Ronan and Greta Gerwig, so I'll probably see this, eventually, when it ends up on Netflix or Amazon Prime. It's not something I feel the need to see on "the big screen." Is that "dismissive?" Let's get real, this is not a "blockbuster" movie. The audience for this was never going to be huge.
18
First, this movie is not Little Women in any way shape or form, other than its title. It is a thinly veiled woke political diatribe cashing in on the name recognition of a beloved religious novel that carries nearly the very opposite message of this film. In that very real sense it is a disrespectful swipe at the memory of Louisa May Alcott. Second, men are not required to like any particular film, just as women are free to dismiss Raging Bull - which come to think of it is the perfect title for Ms. Eldredge's nonsense.
50
Somebody made a Moby Dick movie? What ever... I barely have enough time to pick up my 5 yr old son, feed him, play with him, take a bath, read stories and put him to bed. At which point I can eat dinner. Sorry I put my son first instead of going out to see this movie...
That said this article fails to mention a recent blockbuster film (that I did see) where the central characters, all in leadership roles, were women; Frozen II. No, I'm not trying to make light of the article's point - it just proves that my boss (my son) has no qualms about seeing a movie centered on women. It just so happens to be a fun new story in a medium that he likes (animation).
10
Men, if you do not see, are not interested or prefer other types of films; it is clear you must be a misogynist. I think this article is completely fabricated to drum up interest in a movie no one would otherwise care about... wokeitty woke woke....
32
I agree w/ Michael Gast that misogyny rarely exists apart from homophobia or racism for that matter. Anything that is woman centered is by definition, deemed not as interesting by male culture. Fleabag and Hustlers can pass the sniff test because of sex but none of the March girls will be having fake anal sex while they comment on it with a bored aside to the camera, nor will they be shown in states of undress. As a child I recall being disappointed that it seemed that Jo had to marry a father figure - especially since I knew something about the problematic relationship between Louisa May Alcott and her own father. My own father would drag me to every war movie ever made between 1958-1968 and needless to say, there was never a thought as to whether I liked it.
3
When I went to see ,"Ip Man 4", there were hardly any women in the audience. Why are women against Wing Chun? in 2019, why can't more women embrace Kung Fu?
22
This may be knee jerk feminism, misplaced. The movie had problems as it failed to be fully character driven and thus a bit blah.
Focusing on the plot themes and Gerwig's interesting film craft and gorgeous cinematography does not make this a great film.
But even more paradoxically- it may be that some of the critical praise for this film was by men who seemed thrilled to get inside a girl's world. The eunuch in the harem ? Many real girls did not find the fairy tell touches of childhood and growing pains very authentic. It could be Gerwig wanted it to be more fantasyland. The real Alcott whom Jo carried, never married and loved women more than men without any claim to sexuality. How refreshing to imagine a new remake allowing for Love ambivalence without pronouns or orgasm.
6
Lesson learned. Genderizing is an anachronism.
4
“The predominantly white and male guardianship of the literary and intellectual high ground…”
What does “white” have to do with it?
17
The author fails to mention Louisa May Alcott didn't like Little Women. She thought it trucked in cheap sentiment and was moralizing pap.
At the risk of being a male problem, I will take her word for it.
18
A.O. Scott liked it. He's the only man whose opinion counts, as far as I'm concerned. And if you can't appreciate the privilege of watching Saoirse Ronan for a couple of hours, then there may be something wrong with you--whether you're a man or a woman.
4
'Little Women' is a costume drama and period piece with no action element (cf. 'Braveheart', 'Gladiator'). It is notoriously hard to gain a broad audience for such films, no matter who makes them (men or women).
To come in third at the box office with such a film is, in fact, hella awesome. Gerwig should be darned proud of herself. I know I'm proud of her.
7
Little Women has always been sentimental Americana--nothing to get on a high horse about.
9
That "unconscious bias" gets me every time.
But I'm a man and just too stupid to know I should go see Little Women instead of Ford vs. Ferrari. /sarc
(Btw, I intend to go see Little Women. Just not immediately.)
9
Any man who would dismiss it out of hand is a moron. The book is incredible and I plan to go to the movie as soon as I get a day off work. I remember much the same issue with On the Basis of Sex. I was the only man in the theater I went too. Another great movie that I wish more would have seen.
I have zero interest and I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm not ok with being told what I should like. I will not be shamed by fem-fascists.
20
Contrived controversy.
22
In the long list of Progressive "woke" testing, the latest question on the quiz is now; will you see a movie about girls... and if the answer is "no thanks but you should go if you want to" .... you're (dun dun dun) a misogynist.
9
Your headline would be more accurate if it read, "Some Men..."
4
My lack of desire to see the umpteenth adaptation of "Little Women" is now tacked on to the perpetually growing list of ways in which I am guaranteed to displease women. It doesn't matter at all if I identified with Christine Lahti's character in Bill Forsyth's "Housekeeping," or that I enjoyed "Fellini Satyricon" at a time when my male friends favorite movie was "The Jerk," or that one of my long-time favorites is Bernardo Bertolucci's "The Sheltering Sky," a movie so genre-defying it was mistakenly marketed as a "chick flick." No, it all comes down to my lack of interest in a movie indicating that I am the Patriarchy and Part of the Problem. It's hard to believe such shallow intellectual posturing was published here, but criticizing it will of course be seen as indicative of patriarchal influence.
10
The writing is horrible like most hollywood movies
3
I don't need a woman to tell me what movies I can or should see.
18
Just because a work having entertainment value and/or a claim on artistic pretensions, is written, produced, directed or acted by a woman or women, it does bot follow that finding it deficient is an act of bias, if the criticism, so forthcoming is made by a man. Remember Wonder Woman (the movie), a piece of pure, unadulterated garbage if there ever was one, that received munificent kudos from folks who should have known better, proving only that women artistes are equally capable of turning out the same dreck that men have turned out for years. Little Women will have to stand on it's own.
4
I was ready to see it, until I read the column.
18
Sexism is still a regressively potent force among far too many American men.
7
I'm not interested in a lot of the buddy or bro films, so why should men be that interested in an examination of what it was like to be a woman back then or even now?
9
When you say 'men', don't presume to be talking about me. Who you are describing are Hollywood taste makers and there are many women in that camp as well. I would argue that if the film had actresses that were more than fleetingly popular with women audiences, it would have more buzz. But it's not. And more than that, don't blame men for YET ANOTHER Little Women adaptation that virtually NO-ONE cares about but you. It's in the same league as Moby Dick starring Patrick Stewart. Didn't see that get any buzz either.
9
Can't a movie just be bad?
18
I am a male who Ioves all the versions stage and film of "Little Women".
I just have not been in a movie theater since the film "Diva" a long time ago.
I think today I would be afraid of a large dark room with strangers in it and ringing cellphones along with talking patrons that see the film as if it were background TV in their living rooms.
4
sorry, it's not for me. But I don't force my wife or daughters to watch Star Wars and they don't force me to watch chick flicks. If you have an issue with that I will quote my daughter..."that's a you problem."
18
Every man I know who saw it really liked it, and I’m looking forward to seeing it.
But don’t let me spoil your “white male bashing” narrative.
21
Maybe it’s an old and lame thing and not a gender thing
13
It says “women”, and “little” in the title. There is crinoline. Husbands, boyfriends, single men stare into the middle distance, feign illness, or go out to mow lawns ...
12
Well, it's not that men have ever been known for emotional intelligence.
2
Oh stop the wailing and moaning. If you want men to like movies by female directors have them make war movies or action movies. Worked with the Hurt Locker for Bigelow. Have we ever seen an OPINION column from a man decrying the fact that women aren't agog over THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER or any other number of "guy flicks"? No we just don't care about this trivial stuff. And neither should woman. Are woman STILL looking for validation from men? I thought that was done with.
I just can no longer the amount of complaining form the NYT Opinion Page. "Men don't like what I like."
21
This is a warped portrayal of the 19th narratives written by men. Yes, Melville's popular narratives (Moby Dick not among the popular) have all-male adventure casts, as do the sea stories of Dana and London. But the much-maligned James Fenimore Cooper's work (not surprisingly, since his wife and eldest daughter were strong women) features major female characters; Cora Munro in Last of the Mohicans is the "heart" of the best European values, unlike the European men who betray them by the end, and it is she who in the climactic trial tries to defend them, Portia-like. Hawthorne gives us Hester Prynne, a far stronger and more thoughtful character than most of his males. Stop distorting the past in order to push political narratives of the present. `
15
Another annoying rant claiming- without much justification- discrimination, because something the writer likes is not the center of EVERYONE else’s attention.
When did the fight for equality and fairness devolve into a weird narcissistic belief that our own personal judgements of quality are universal and that our priorities and interests must be universal too?
Unless of course, you are a straight white cis male. In which case, it’s all your fault.
29
Enough of the culture wars for trivial things like this. Let each enjoy their tastes in narratives without weaponizing it and insinuating sexism, or racism, or whatever. What about the sexuality of these girls? Are we going to accuse the film of covert LSBG phobia too?
16
And just before reading this piece I read an article in the TImes titled "The Patriarchy of Alcoholics Anonymous."
I'm just so happy that we liberated open-minded, open-hearted NY Times readers have become oh-so-good at tribalizing ourselves.
Kudos.
24
My husband is an Executive Producer, so he enjoys film - yet he won’t see Little Women simply because it does not appeal to him. Like many men, he is just not into films that are all about relationships - they want action! Sad, I know but c’est la vie.........
I think of it in the context of I don’t enjoy watching sport on the screen - give me the highlights any day.
This is Mars and Venus stuff so why are you surprised?
6
I suppose, on the other side of the coin, women who don't watch westerns are man-haters.
18
I'm afraid to trust this movie edition. I welcomed an update to the ’33 and ’49 adaptations, but the ’94 version eliminated the game of Pilgrim's Progress. In that game the girls carry their bundles and burdens and venture through the Slough of Despond and the City of Destruction (these meditations during the Civil War), fighting Apollyon, all of which set the tone of the story to come for me: their worries for their father, their own deprivations, etc.
Go ahead. Give me a spoiler alert. Tell me this movie eliminated those Pilgrim scenes too. I don't care how much critics like this lavish new edition: If it doesn't have these scenes it can't be true to the spirit of the novel.
PS: Louisa May Alcott's mother loved the first two chapters above all. I have no doubt the reason. In the first chapter Mrs. March breaks the silence by asking: "Do you remember how you used to play Pilgrim's Progress when you were little things?"
I'm not gonna waste big bucks on a movie if it can't remember this essential tone-setter.
5
Who cares what men think? There are plenty of books and movies that have all or mostly men in them. Many movies have the obligatory one lone female in them, and women are not expected or allowed to complain. This has lead to homophobia, misogyny and hatred of anything intellectual, and bad movies. I tell these people to get a life.
I had to cringe by paragraph three, “if Twitter is any indication”. Yikes.
Why is it ‘journalists’ find it so important to consume themselves with Twitter?
I’m a man and I look forward to seeing the film. Looks great.
13
C oils it be that the R ratings of “Hustlers” and “Portrait of a Woman on Fire” could account for the enhanced appeal of these two movies of PG “Little Women?
1
Ms. Eldredge might have a point had Ms. Alcott's sequel to "Little Women" not fared infinitely worse onscreen. Indeed, "Little Men" has been filmed on a number of occasions (most recently in 1998) and has never made a dime at the box-office. Nor have any of its iterations been honored by any of the movie-awards organizations. If men are dismissing the Greta Gerwig film they also aren't showing up for "Cats." Does that imply they're ailurophobes?
10
It turns out there are significant evolutionary, biological and psychological differences between women and me. Wow. Who knew?
18
I love many classic "women's pictures". I have watched Little Women many times on TV and find it entertaining but somewhat irritating. The last thing I'll do now is go out into the cold and pay good money to see yet another adaption. However, I will watch it in later years when it's free on TV!
1
I’m a guy who happens to like many ‘chick flicks’ because they’re all about character and cogent (if sometimes cliched) stories, rather than action for the sake of it. I also think Fleabag is outstanding; really good. Could be that this adaptation of Little Woman is simply dull. Worse, when word gets out that men aren’t seeing it because they’re Neanderthals or chauvinists, that’s it, it’s toast. Some people still want to be, simply, entertained. But I’ll probably see it anyways because I’ll feel guilty if I don’t. What fun.
6
A dismissive and mindless take that adds nothing of value to the discussion of this film. What’s the point of making a generalization about all men that could not possibly describe the viewpoints of all men? Btw, I am a straight, cis white male and plan to go see the movie myself later this week...
10
Really, men don't like Little Women? A.O. Scott raved, and I didn't notice any shortage of men in the packed theater where I saw it. I hardly think award nominations are a valid survey of men's likes and dislikes. For that matter, I wouldn't put any stock in award nominations as a measure of the quality of this movie, which is spectacular.
4
So now men oppress women by not seeing a movie? And we wonder why Trump's supporters enjoy his non-PC rhetoric?
15
Ah, women DON’T get to tell men what movies they should like, what women and body type they should be attracted to. Moreover, what you think of men in relation to this movie is your business. What men want and desire is the man’s business.
8
"Cats" has beloved source material too, and it is geared toward a similar demographic as "Little Women," and guess what?
Cats isn't going to win any Oscars either.
Deal with it.
7
There are movies that are made for women. Why is that such a traumatic fact for some people to grasp? The people who made the "Sex and the City" movie or "Magic Mike" weren't expecting men to show up in droves. Nor did they attempt to paint the small number of men in the theaters as a patriarchal plot to deny women their due.
The author of this piece thinks "Little Women" movie deserves awards. That's just an opinion, not a fact. It's also a bad case of jumping the gun. The Oscar nominees haven't even been announced yet.
This whole mess of an opinion piece is like a car put together with a roll of tape. It falls apart as soon as it gets going.
13
I'm a woman and a great fan of the book and....meh. (just got back from the film).
9
Here's the real story. Hollywood is a monolithic and monstrous corporation. When it comes to making money it's more pernicious than Donald Trump. So stop thinking that somehow societal deficiencies will be improved upon by The entertainment capital of the world.
For every female, black, gay, trans, handicapped filmmaker, actor, or writer that catches a break there's millions upon millions that are still left behind.
The OWNERS of Hollywood couldn't care less about this stuff.
And sorry to report reality but Awards shows are 3 or 4 hour commercials and rarely pick true artists. These shows are to get the lemmings to theaters that line the pockets of this mostly male industry. Over time it may change.
I saw Little Women, it was a pleasant sweet picture that will pass the time nicely. It is in now way a brilliant piece of Cinema. But then most Hollywood garbage is much worse. So I say the girls should at least get a bunch of People's Choice or MTV, or FH-1, Blockbuster awards FOR SURE!
2
I'm a man, and I think this essay is silly.
If "men" have turned away from "Little Women," maybe it's because of writers like Ms Eldredge, who make them think they'll be going to see a film based on a political tome about what it means to be a woman instead of an entertaining movie about some young women making their way in the world.
I will see "Little Women" because I know the story and admire Ms Gerwig, whom I last saw in "Frances Ha!" As for the lack of award nominations, I don't get a vote, so...
6
Apparently, Louise May Alcott did not like the book or the hoards of obsessed fans who came to her. The author was a very indepedent perso n who objected to the portrayal of women in the book. Her publisher prevailed upon her to write a book that would be acceptable to the general public. It made her wealthy and famous, but she hated the book and referred to it as "boring". If the author did not like the book, why can't men also find it boring and insipid.
10
As a white female heterosexual of Anglo Saxon decent it was mandatory reading along with many other classic books that I enjoyed at school. I did find Little Women to be one of the least interesting.
I revisited it by viewing the many film adaptions of the book and still found it boring. Likes and dislikes are not necessary dictated by gender, race or biases just different tastes. Why do people think their take on things is the right one just because a book was written by a women for women and happened to be directed by one. Seriously get a life.
15
Obviously, these men who have issues with this theme of independent women have not caught up with the times nor the correct way to understand equality. This is 2020 (almost) and these guys who still think women do not deserve equality should join Trump and go live away from mainstream society, or at least on another planet. Women are just as smart as men, and probably more even tempered - think about your mother. How many more decades will it take for equality at all levels between the sexes? Shame on the human race for their narrow mindedness and continued attempt at power-centric, male dominated world.
I heard Wonder Woman drew pretty well, including men. Maybe the difference was the story and something called "action" ....
3
I am not going to the movie. Instead, I am going to wait for the book to come out.
4
I read LITTLE WOMEN in 1947. It was fun - girly & gossipy. I never would have expected boys would be interested in it. Nor did I expect that adults of any gender would be interested in it. That has been the big surprise - that adult women are apparently interest in LITTLE WOMEN.
6
I am sure the film is a worthy piece of art, but why should men be shamed and condemned for not being interested? It is silly to argue about tastes.
8
I put this article on the same level as the Gillette commercial. Unfounded men bashing is a safe clickbait strategy, apparently without any bad repercussions.
The movie publicist must be really happy.
12
@ nes regarding your comment,
“Everything is being made to fit the feminist narrative.”
If your statement were even half-true, we wouldn’t crave the inspiration we get from Little Women.
The dismissive attitude of so many commenters is exactly why the inspiration matters and is appreciated.
3
I think what we have here is a critic problem. Early on the author points out that other "women-led stories" have done very well with men. So why not this one? Then she goes on to point out a number of reasons the movie has presumably not generated much male enthusiasm: It's not "progressive enough"; There have already been seven screen versions; The bucolic imagery in the trailer "underlines the cozy, even slightly sappy aspects of Ms. Alcott’s book" Finally, in the second to the last paragraph she says "Several male film critics have given enthusiastic reviews, and on Wednesday Ms. Maslin tweeted her belief that male opposition has receded now that the movie is out. “Men are loving it,” she wrote. “Even ones who said they wouldn’t go.” !!! The only thing convincing about this article is that the critic has systematically undermined her own thesis.
10
Confession. Old white male. Loved the book years ago, loved the old TV adaptation. Never, ever, thought "anything feminine was deplorable." Just sayin': sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. Also, growing in the rural Midwest, but not a perfectly red state I admit, I never heard of anyone being beat up for carrying any kind of book to school. But I am probably a Northern Iowa red neck without realizing it. But then what can I do?
7
Yes, white men are profoundly lacking in imagination and ability to think outside themselves. Everyone else is forced from infancy to read, listen to, and watch stories where the protagonists are different from themselves. White men very rarely are and then later often choose not to do so because they never developed the empathy and imagination to do so. Imagining a white male protagonist as a messiah figure or surrounded by elfs doesn't actually count. I wonder when we'll start discussing it as what it really is, a profound lack of education for a large portion of the populace.
6
@LT Walt Disney is deeply saddened to learn of his tragically limited imagination.
9
I went to see it yesterday. I would not have expected men to like it beforehand and I still think most would not like it much. It is too long even for me and I love the book and have read it several times . I've seen some of the much older versions and a play. I liked Laura Dern quite a bit, thought Beth was extraordinarily well played and well cast and Meryl as Aunt March-well, of course. I did think that they should have cast both Jo and Amy as truer to physical type-coloring-as described by Alcott. In Jo's case this could have been achieved by much better hair which is possible through artifice. Ronan's performance as to character was excellent . Pugh was great too but I have no memory that Amy was either ambitious or independent and principled so this was a distraction.To try to force men to like it or pretend to like it is very futile. I walked out of Parasite as I sensed an impending bloodbath. D'Jango was truly awful in that way and I don't want to see Die Hard ever again. My daughter cautioned me
" not to go see No Country For Old Men alone " -potentially too upsetting. But I thought it was art. I adored the Terminator. But entertainment, even when we want to dub it high art, is one of the things in which we can all exercise choice
5
Ho Hum! The last version was done by Gillian Armstrong, a woman, too. The new film of this classic adds little except that it was filmed on locations in Massachusetts where the Alcott family actually lived. You can marvel at how good actors were miscast and be bored to death.
7
I won't be seeing it, even though the cast is spectacular, for the simple reason I have no interest in it. I watched part of the version that was on the BBC recently but just couldn't get into it.
Sit me in front of Howard's End, Sense and Sensibility, or Pride & Prejudice (the BBC/PBS version) with popcorn and I'll be very pleased. After that I'll watch the Fast & Furious.
7
A soon to be 70 year old male found "Little Women" to be unabashedly engaging, entertaining and unequivocally the finest movie of 2010.
Gerwig's staging carried the viewer into a time and place that was unique, different and engrossing.
The lives of the four sisters mimics the issues that contemporary women face today--what is the balance between love and romance vs. independence and fulfilling a drive to define one's autonomy of work or creative expression.
As the father of a 28 year old and the step father to two early 30 year olds, Gerwig's ability to transport universal issues of self determination vs. societal expectations of traditional femininity is the hallmark of her creative voice.
3
The evidence offered to back up the broad-brush headline - that men are dismissing or rejecting this movie - is thin. Maslin tweets they are, then tweets they aren't. One of the producers suspects male bias, a reasonable suspicion.
But plenty of male critics, not just several, have published rave reviews, including at least a dozen (not sure about gender in some cases) listed on Metacritic with a 100 score.
8
Is anyone willing to admit that awards are nonsense to begin with? It's purely subjective, and never unanimous, so somebody is going to feel aggrieved. Why should anyone even care?
Will I like a song any better if it's by a "Grammy-nominated" or "Grammy-award-winning" artist? Will I change my mind about that play once it wins a Tony? While I'm watching a movie, am I wringing my hands about whether it will win any Oscars? Of course not.
People get too involved in awards without even reflecting on how foolish the whole exercise is.
11
The Academy should have Best Female Director and Best Male Director awards if it is to put an end to the yearly cycles of accusations that it is sexist.
6
This is news to me.
I saw Little Women, and I enjoyed it very much. My 20-something son saw Stars Wars instead. We have different tastes, to say the least!
I didn’t think of Little Women as a women’s movie or chick flick. I simply enjoy period pieces — I think of them as a simpler and preferable time.
And I don’t make any excuses for my tastes. Decades ago, before marriage and children, I bought floral sheets because they were discounted. My secretary was horrified. I replied, I’ve never felt threatened by my sheets!
11
I know women who are not interested in this story, and this is a largely woman story with things that interest women. There are plenty of books and movies that are male-centric that I am not remotely interested in. This story, as relatable as it can be to some people, is a very narrow perspective of a very particular person in a very particular situation and time. To say that the problem is with men is not true. There are plenty of females out there who have no interest in a period piece in which very little actually happens and the characters make themselves miserable. I do want to see this film, but I take issue with the whole premise of this article. I wonder how many women were busting at the seems to watch Midway?
15
Hollywood has made itself the boy who cried wolf on movies about women. So when we (conservative men and women) watch trailers with outspoken liberal actresses speaking a character’s lines that sound like what we just heard the actress say in a recent magazine story, we are skeptical that the movie’s art will outweigh its propaganda. And too many of the movies have story lines that are predictable and characters that are stereotypes. So give us art, not propaganda. And maybe a movie about boys being left behind.
6
I read the article and I have not read the novel but if the introduction of the main protagonist has that 'person' bemoan that 'she always wanted to be a man', then I fail to see how the book is about women, and how women are confident enough to project themselves as women and not merely want to be like a man.
I would love to read a novel or watch a movie, where the woman is projected as a 'true' woman and how she stands unto any man as a woman, and does not need to go up against a man on the terms of a man at all. After all in real life we all respect women, starting from our mothers and ending with our daughters; not to mention our wives, of course.
My own mother does not care to 'adapt' to a man's world and does not see any need for that. There is very much out there a woman's world that co-exists alongside a man's world, and both are equally co-dependent and do co-exist with each other.
Of course most literature and even media focus on the dramatic above the humdrum, on the contrast and incompatibility of persons interacting with each other.
In the domestic setting, any man would laugh at any suggestion that the women in his life are the 'weaker sex'. Even nature has been even handed in the temperament and qualities of woman and man.
Inspite of all the symbolism and posturing, the woman's world is as much a critical factor as the man's world, since the birth of society. There has never been a society without both.
3
Over 50 years ago, when I was in middle school, I asked why books that focused almost exclusively on male characters, like Treasure Island and Kim, were considered “immortal childhood classics” that everyone had to read, while books like Little Women were dismissed as “sentimental stories for girls” and not worth the time of the boys in the class. Don’t we all need to think about how to get along with our families and how to live a fulfilling life in the real world, instead of fantasizing about being pirates or spies? It seems very little has changed.
8
@Susan Wladaver-Morgan
Perhaps because Louisa May Alcott herself wrote that she was "tired of providing moral pap for the young."
https://www.boston.com/news/books/2019/12/26/girls-adored-little-women-louisa-may-alcott-did-not
4
I approach fiction like I do life in one regard, no judgements on human characters (though it is easier to pass judgement on fictional characters, I try not to since it is a form of practice to not judge people but rather actions). So to me four white women doing something could be like my three (male) friends when I was a teenager - it's the circumstances and actions that I relate to (or not) but not the people.
This is how I've envisioned myself as everyone in this universe, from males to females, and people from all different walks of life (races, etc.). So when I read/watch fiction, I'm either the person doing those things or not. It doesn't matter what labels are being used -- what judgements are being passed on people -- it is the actions they take that matter.
2
Ronan was on a talk show and they had a film clip of Little Woman. There was a scene with her and an actor. I'm a big fan of hers maybe she's the next Meryl Streep. Anyway the actor gave me an impression he was modeled his role after an obedient miniature poodle. I guess that's what passes for hair whipping today.
I'm going to pass.
7
I’m more likely to watch movies geared toward guys or a general audience than a movie geared toward women. That said, if this movie helps me understand the challenges women face, including the women in my life, I’m interested. Movies can be a powerful force to help us understand other genders, races, cultures and religions. What good reason is there not to be interested in that?
4
I'm a woman and I avoid films full of blood and guts and starring only men - so I think it natural that fewer men that women will want to watch a female-centered story. But apparently Kristy Eldredge thinks womens' stories aren't good enough unless validated by male viewers.
The only issue is whether a female-centered film can get the same attention from the Academy. But for that, we just have to get more women in the Academy.
9
I'm a man, I regularly watch a variety of period dramas and many other films that would typically be referred to as 'chick flicks'. I like them quite a bit. I'll keep watching them.
I'm not interested in seeing Little Women. I don't find it appealing. I don't see any problem with me having a variety of preferences and I don't think it reflects in any way on my views on feminism or women for that matter.
The author of this article seems to be making a very large leap in argumentation with scant reasoning to support it.
26
My son is a junior in high school and at meet-the-teacher night his English teacher told the class parents that there were different required novel lists for boys and girls. I asked why and she said boys wouldn’t read a book about a girl. She did say students could opt to cross the gender divide. I am proud my son chose to read one of the “girl books” because he said it was better written!
4
@Kate I'm confused, how is the list of books required if the boys can opt out of reading those about a girl? Sounds like an optional reading list to me. Seriously, the point of an English class teacher is to require the students to read some books they would not because they are outside of their comfort zone. This is a core element of teaching.
5
There’s a big difference between equality and taste, which this comment ignores. Why simplify life to nothing? The complexities of our individual lives evade your sad, simple look at who we are.
8
I am a white male who is also a fan of Greta Gerwig's immense talent. I have not seen the film yet, but I will.
I'm sorry, but why am I as a man required to see Little Women?
I think I'd rather spend time at home with friends and family. Or see Star Wars, Jumanji, or Ford v Ferrari. Why am I a sexist if I'd rather watch a movie I'd enjoy?
23
Just saw this movie this morning, absolutely fantastic, did I say wonderful! Please give Greta Gerwig the Oscar now!
2
Little Women is a favorite among female readers and of no interest to most male readers. That does not prove anything but what we have always know, that many human activities are favorites of on gender or the other but not both.
7
I had an uncle - born in 1926 - who was a voracious reader. He adamantly refused to read anything written by a woman, no matter what the topic.
Why? "I just wouldn't like it". Kind of like a 2-year old refusing to try a new food, without having any experience to inform him of what the flavor might be.
He couldn't imagine that a woman could write anything of interest to him. I pity him for what he missed.
Too many people "know" what interests them and refuse to try anything that might challenge that understanding.
6
As a heterosexual man, I don't abide by many masculine edicts. I like musicals, cry often during movies, read plenty of female authors--I've read all of Jane Austen and Jane Eyre is one of my favorite novels. But, I've seen most of the previous Little Women films and, to my mind, there is absolutely no rush to see the latest iteration. For Pete's Sake, it's a young adult novel. It can definitely wait.
12
Little Women opened over the holiday competing with two premium action movies. Guys will almost always gravitate towards the action movies before almost any other genre. It’s perfectly fine if the sexes don’t all like the same stuff. Let the guys spend their money where they want to and the ladies can do the same.
8
The idea that I *have* to like (or dislike) something seems to be becoming the ugly underside of "woke" culture. As a man, I like plenty of films by and starring women (including Greta Gerwig's own "Lady Bird"). But as an individual with a mind of my own, I also get to pick and choose my interests and what movies I want to see. When did it become necessary for anyone - man, woman, whatever race or orientation - to justify their tastes?
17
Sixty-four year old male: The 1994 version of the film is one of my favorite movies. My son and I will probably be seeing this one together. Big fan of Greta Gerwig and all of her films. Sorry to hear that this version isn't being well received, but I'll withhold critical judgement until I see it for myself. Please stop making this so political, Ms. Eldredge. It doesn't do any good for anyone.
8
I guarantee "Little Women" will do better at the box office than any of my favorite movies this century, most of which spend a week or two in big cities and then disappear. It's a just a fact that people prefer films with violence and/or special effects.
2
Little Women hasn’t been released in Australia yet, but I will be taking my daughter to see it, probably with a group of female friends. I think people writing comments are missing the point of this article, which isn’t that loads of men have to see it and like it. The movie will find a large audience with women who are sick of Marvel and male-centric stories and some men who enjoy a movie with emotional depth and character development. The real issue is that the majority of people who decide how movies are awarded and recognised are men, who tend to see greater merit in work which is made by men, about men, for men. Therefore the artistic and literary cannon makes male experience the “universal” or “normal” experience, and marginalises “smaller” stories which focus on emotions, relationships, domesticity, social critique, and inner life which are just as much, if a part of the human condition. These stories don’t require amazing feats, blood, or blowing things up, but are probably harder to tell well because they require subtlety, nuance and the creation of emotional tension out of everyday life. What this means, I think, is that we need greater diversity among those who are responsible for giving awards (ie. more women and racial diversity) and a recognition that a broad range of experiences are equally important and worthy of recognition. This means that recognition of the male perspective will diminish but the breadth and depth of the human cannon will be enriched.
6
I'm intrigued by the phrase "unconscious bias". Barring extremists who wear their bias as a badge of pride, aren't all of our biases "unconscious"?
7
Well, here's one man who isn't dismissing "Little Women."
My wife and I saw it this afternoon and agree that it is deserving of all the accolades it has received, and more.
2
I'm a forty-one year-old man. I read the book as a child, and enjoyed both of the previous well-known film adaptations. I also read all of the Little House books as a child - multiple times in fact, but we lived far from good libraries and bookstores. I must say, the only place I've sensed any controversy is from people reporting that there is one. As this article points out, the most famous British writers of their era were women, writing women's stories. Which, I might add, were, and are, hugely popular with men. I would also note that the very real race/gender controversy regarding the last two Star Wars movies, still rupturing the internet years after it started, has been publicly deemed insignificant when compared to The Last Jedi's popularity, by that movie's director. I'm not sure there is anything to see here. The fact that Little Men continues to be forgotten by everybody is also telling.
5
If men are passing on the new "Little Women", it's their loss. I found it to be full of love and light and joy and life, both life's struggles and the victories. And even if I weren't interested in it simply because it is an important part of American literature, I would have been interested in it as a modern lens with which to view women's lives, which I am interested in because i have a heart and I'm interested in people other than just myself.
2
Uh...dismissing? It has a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes with a 92% audience score. That doesn't sound like much of anyone is dismissing it.
Also, Ms. Alcott herself seemed rather dismissive of the book. She did not write it because she liked writing it, she wrote it for money.
All that said, I probably will see the movie at some point (maybe not in theater), and I'm not trying to "dismiss" it.
People have different tastes. Sometimes tastes tend to coincide with gender, race, age etc. and that's OK. I don't hear anyone too upset that many women don't like a lot of superhero movies.
12
I agree with you. I’m an adult woman. I read Little Women for the first time last year (I’m a foreigner) and I could immediately perceive how the author was dismissive of her own creation. I profoundly disliked the fact that she refused Jo the same luck she herself had in life. She seemed harder on her characters than society was in relation to her in real life. Anyway, I totally agree with you that if we follow this article’s logic we should say that women in general are “dismissive” of super heroes’ movies.
4
@HLN Maybe she was 'harder' on Jo in the book because she wanted to illustrate the difficulty for women authors. Books and movies often make things seem harder than they really are, more dramatic for the audience. They might never go to a movie where everything was easy and uncomplicated, would they?
Because no one involved cares if women like those movies; they aren’t made to appeal to women, even those with women superheroes.
I have recently read both Middlemarch and Thackeray's Vanity Fair, so I make no prejudgement about 19th century female-centred domestic dramas. But Little Women does not seem that compelling. I may well go, but not quite sure what I am getting into.
3
Little Women was one of my favorite books growing up and I grew up in a red state. Fortunately I had a progressive mother who believed that real men are not scared of women.
2
I can't tell you how many movies I've sat through with close to all-male casts. I've enjoyed a lot of them. All-male is considered normal and no one comments on it.
The point is that there just have never been many movies made by women, starring women. When one comes out, most men decide it's not for them. Thanks guys!
It's like the cooties thing from third grade. It saddens and angers me that so many men define themselves by not liking anything female. Unfortunately, it often seems core to their sense of self.
6
As much as we might want the movies we love to instantly possess status and to be generally embraced and regarded, they begin as nothing more than entertainment products made for consumption as a niche part of the popular culture. One can't legislate, dictate, goose, cajole, sermonize or otherwise browbeat what is ultimately "popular." Popular is popular.
It exists beyond ethics, morality, decency, wokeness, misogyny or hipness. Whether it's Harry Potter, Little Women or Ninja Turtles, popular art will find its place in the popular culture, regardless of its most ardent supporters or vehement detractors. Its status may evolve over time as the culture evolves. Some films eventually reach the level of Fine Art. But that rarely influences their status as "popular."
5
Surprisingly, or not, I know several women who don't like Little Women at all. Most of them are women of color, although not all. If that means anything. Perhaps the novel and movie simply are not as compelling as the author of this article believes. I'm not certain a retelling of a 1868 novel about a group of women is particularly telling about male attitudes in 2019.
5
I read the book Little Women for the first time last year, as an adult woman with a major in Literature. I profoundly disliked it. I understand the era in which it was written very well, and I noticed how much Alcott despised her own creation. This is what made me dislike the book so much. Ot was really weird to see her treat her characters more harshly than society treated real people during that era. She even denied Jo the same kind of luck she herself had in life. The message she conveys is that women should conform to the rules and that was all there was in life. A soul had to be crushed for one to grow up. The movies changed that tone a lot.
3
I have recently read both Middlemarch and Thackeray's Vanity Fair, so I make no prejudgement about 19th century female-centred domestic dramas. But Little Women does not seem that compelling. I may well go, but not quite sure what I am getting into.
1
Have you read it?
I have recently read both Middlemarch and Thackeray's Vanity Fair, so I make no prejudgement about 19th century female-centred domestic dramas. But Little Women does not seem that compelling. I may well go, but not quite sure what I am getting into.
I saw it. Can we talk about the cinematography. Sub par. I lost count of how many shots missed focus. Acting felt stilted to me. Not Greta’s best work.
6
Won't see it, even with the A-cast and stellar performances. Saw the trailer, and to my mind the film is trying too hard to give 2019 perspective and political relevance to a Civil War-era novel that I loved for its Victorian voice as much as its nuance, lyricism and breadth.
7
I find it tiring whenever people want to raise an uproar because something they like isn't universally liked, for which they make up reasons to suit their own bias. I read the novel -- it is not 'beloved' to me. Rather, given my true tastes and interests, I found it a slog to get through with little payoff. I dislike many of the cast of this particular adaptation, as well. That's correct -- I dare say I find neither Saoirse Ronan's nor Emma Watson's poe-faced earnestness to be believable or compelling. And you know what? I have strong feelings also for male actors and directors, and I avoid many of their works, too, based on things like their source material, cast, how I feet today, how busy I am (opportunity cost, after all), where it can be seen (theaters vs. Netflix? I go to the cinema 5x a year max) etc. Welcome to equality. Love this film if you love it! You do you, while I'll do me.
14
Here's something interesting. The average critic score on Metacritic (Rotten Tomatoes scoring system seems biased toward the high end on all movies) for Little Women was 91 (n=54). The 39 male critics scored it 2 points higher than the 15 female critics. But that said, this is not a "date" movie, no matter how good the movie is and whatever the critics think about it.
3
My wife and a group of her female friends went as a group to see Lady Bird and did the same for Little Women. I would have liked to go, but it was clearly "their thing".
The audience demographics here are largely driven by men being (or at least feeling) uninvited and by women going to see a movie that really isn't compratively compelling in the marketplace, but they want to make a point of supporting it.
That's not anti-female bias. It's kind of the opposite, but we are used to the male version being more prominent in our society.
2
I can see the 'I'm just not interested' stance. Especially since the movie Little Women was been done and redone many times.
And the art experience IS subjective. We connect with what we identify with. So my male friends will have to understand when we women have to sit through yet another male-centric film and try not to disconnect. This is very hard to do because there have been so many of them.
But the issue of being ignored by the awards is one not as easily dismissed. My first thought when this was mentioned was of the film 'Lawrence of Arabia' which was nominated for 11 Academy Awards and won 8 all without one single women in the movie. OK there was a small group in a long distance shot while the men galloped out of the camp in one scene.
And yet we women sit through the movies and take in the POV and try to incorporate that POV into our experiences. It was a good film but it was up against To Kill a Mockingbird, The Days of Wine and Roses, The Music Man and The Manchurian Candidate. Hmm...
4
Really?
I’m a 57 year old man. I saw the movie with my wife, son, daughter and daughter’s boyfriend. We all thought the movie was horrible, notwithstanding the outstanding cast and what my wife described as an “outstanding book.” I don’t think this is a gender thing. The movie stunk.
15
I no longer go to Rotten Tomato since the research came out about the incredible imbalance in male vs female critics (mirrored in arts critics outside of RT). I noticed recently that the negative reviews for The Morning Show were primarily from male critics. All my female friends love the show. The best films I’ve seen this year were often penned but always directed by women but have been left out of awards season thus far (Queen and Slim, Honeyboy and Booksmart come to mind).
I hope we are finally becoming conscious of the war we are in against unconscious bias(and it’s inherent fear against losing power) in a system (patriarchal) that has defined cultural norms and values for millennium to NOT include women, their stories or their talents. If so, it’s about damn time.
6
I just saw this movie and it is FRIGGIN' AMAZING! Every aspect! Performances, screenplay, cinematography, music, everything kept me engaged, moved, sometimes laughing, occasional tears.
5
I’m not into Greta Gerwig. I loved Little Women as a child. But I hated Ladybird, which I saw with my mother. Both of us slept through it and didn’t see our relationship or ourselves in it, except when Ladybird’s mother is critical of her choices in the dressing room. I fear that if I see this movie I’ll find my beloved Jo, Beth, Amy and Meg made into universalized figures I’m supposed to empathize with and see myself in, instead of figures who live and breathe partly in my imagination, as characters in a book always do. All their loves and first kisses and struggles for independence and finding the person who makes it possible ... except for poor Beth ... who will always be a girl, not a woman ... they aren’t Greta Gerwig’s. They belong to each individual girl who reads that book and dreams of growing up one day.
8
I can’t wait to see it. When I was a kid I read both Little Women and Jo’s Boys and loved them. I just hope Ms. Herwig makes the latter.
1
Any man who rejects "Little Women" because it focuses on women is missing a great movie.
2
When I told my female friend Kellie that I was looking forward to seeing Little Women, she responded, "Why do you want to see that? It's a chick flick."
I loved the movie -- it's my favorite of the year. Glad I didn't dismiss it.
4
I'm a 70 year old male and I enjoyed the film. What is not to like about plot and character development which I will take any day over the same plot over and over again with things blowing up, on fire and gallons of blood in all the Marvel movies. Little Women was refreshing, I look forward to seeing it again.
8
Actually none of people of color that I know are bothering to see this movie. As one of my woman friends remarked...’another movie displaying white privileged masquerading as a story of repression. White women have no real idea what repression is.’ So yes, a male of color, I am also giving this one a miss.
6
Here is one man that found the movie most excellent. But then I find most woman narrative stories more thoughtful and thought provoking. I highly recommend this movie!
3
I am roping my husband and two sons into going. They aren’t opposed, just bemused. It’s not a familiar story to them - although my eldest has wanted to read it because it is so important to many of his friends. My youngest usually watches space opera (which I also love). So I am dragging them off to see something important to me.
It is hard to explain the plot, but finally settling on it as a story of how four very different girls grow up t0 become very different sorts of successful women, they were intrigued.
I also think it interesting that, while I love Jo - everyone loves Jo - we underestimate Meg’s growth as a person. Perhaps because she most fully embraces traditional ‘womanly’ virtues as an expression of her self. Frankly, I think undervaluing her search for happiness and quiet strength also reflects our valuing pursuits outside the home and individualistic interests over those whose work reflects caring, hard work, and service.
3
Here's a vantage point from an American, older gay man: we were TAUGHT that liking anything "feminine" was deplorable, "sissy-vying," and totally inappropriate for any boy. Can you visualize a boy growing up in Red State America proudly lugging around his copy of "Little Women" to school? He'd be beat up and ostracized. Homophobia plays as great a role, if not greater, than misogyny.
442
@Michael Gast: I absolutely understand your point, but as a woman I'll bet that misogyny plays a far greater role than homophobia in human history: more women are affected around the world, generation after generation. Overall, men and their actions are still seen as being more valuable/more worthy of attention than women.
And the men are, by and large, still far better paid!
74
@L
You both write about these issues as though
homophobia and misogyny weren't closely linked.
74
@Nathan: IMO, they are not closely linked, though you appear to have decided they are.
I write as a woman, and I *know* that misogyny has been persistent on this planet much longer than homophobia has - and if you consider that women make up *more than* half the population of the world, I also know that, in sheer numbers, far more women have been subjected to misogyny.
There has been acceptance, historically, of homosexuality across various cultures (ancient Greece, for example), whereas you will find that almost every culture you examine has treated women as "less than" in thousands of ways, both large and small. Many cultures consider women to be chattel: merely property owned by men.
Your argument would have been stronger if you'd cited slavery and misogyny, rather than homophobia and misogyny.
28
White woman here. I have: seen GG's movie, read GG's script, read LMA's novel.
I appreciated the craftsmanship in the movie. My overall take, though, was: pretty good. Just pretty good.
Of the present awards contenders, I've read better scripts, I've seen better cinematography, and witnessed stronger individual performances.
Is it possible that this very good movie got the smattering of nominations it did because of the strong field this year? Could it have been outperformed rather than underappreciated?
5
And a lot of women don't like "Huckleberry Finn," but so what?
I bet a lot of males didn't like the Nancy Drew books either. They are still a lot of fun for teen girls, and have been ever since they were written.
And I have never cared for horror movies either. The whole category is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. (The Shining is the one exception, of course.)
To each his or her own.
8
Ms. Eldredge is missing a very basic point. Men and women watch movies to be entertained, to escape from their day-to-day lives. They do not watch movies to have their consciences raised, to be lectured at, or to be proselytized.
Now if I am a man, which I am, there is a strong likelihood that a movie adaptation of "Little Women" released in 2019 will try to raise my conscience about something and send a subtle, or not subtle messaging that I as a man am part of a "bad" group.
Samuel Goldwyn had it right..."Pictures are entertainment, messages should be sent by Western Union." I have not seen the current release of "Little Women," and I am sure its a a great film. However, I am sticking with the 1949 version. It's the Holidays, I am taking two weeks off from work, and I want to be entertained.
9
Those modern women can be such scolds!
1
I'm female, and I read the book several times, startng in early childhood and sat through a couple of the adaptations.
I never liked the book because I found the characters overly compliant (even Jo!) and the whole tenor of it maudlin and treacly; the deificaiton of the mother and preoccupation with propriety turned me off even as a kid.
I myself was (and am) a rebel by nature and too much cooperation and righteousness give me the creeps. I agree that the issue of slavery was all but ignored, and the book was preoccupied with shallow social events, inconveniences, improprieties.
There was way too much kiss-upness, sweetness; shallowness --- even when confronting death.
Why would I read Little Women when there were Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, The Mill on the Floss, House of Mirth, the Brontes, anything by Kate Chopin and yes, Lady Chatterley's Lover, which I read at 11-years old and loved. (And not just for the racy parts.)
I think Louisa May Alcott had why a friend of mine called "the gift of the common touch" meaning easy accessibility and a talent for making people feel warm and good inside.
So i have no interest in it as literature or film, and I don't blame men for their lack of interest. Not at all.
16
What does this make, six or seven movie/tv adaptations of Little Women, with at least two just in the last few years? I've seen most of them and loved some of them, but I wonder what the case is for yet another one. Is it just that a large enough American audience is assumed to have never seen one?
4
@John D. I agree. I'm scratching my head why Pascal chose to plough some of her Spider-Man cash into yet another Little Woman remake. While the adaptation has some merits, it's no Mrs. Dalloway in terms of being innovative.
4
"Many men haven’t wanted to give it a chance because they don’t think it’s meant for them."
And yet my whole life I have been expected to watch movies about men, made exclusively by men, pay for the privilege, honor them for their talent, and be grateful for the privilege. Hmmm.
334
@Dawn Helene
Wow - who "expected" you to watch "Dumb and Dumber"?
32
@Dawn Helene
I understand what you mean by expected - the critical attention and general hype that some male-dominated movies, and some males stars get, is a strange societal pressure. "How could you not see this important movie?" Somewhere along the way I got tired of required viewing of movies that were/are considered canon but have few or no interesting women characters in them. My educational experience, my cultural experience overflowed with the aggrandizement of the experiences and creations of men. I actively pushed back against this - but guess what, men I call friends think nothing of the fact that they have not read major women authors - no Willa Cather, no Alice Munro, no Zora Neale Hurston or Alice Walker or Toni Morrison or Jhumpa Lahiri and on and on!
So I made a somewhat conscious choice not to pay to see these movies or these men anymore - (#Metoo might have had something to do with it - but not all of it). As an example, for this year, no "Irishman", No "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood," etc etc. I might watch these movies some time through a subscription service like Netflix or Amazon Prime but I might not - there are other ways I'd rather spend my time. The same goes for the fiction I read.
Conversely, I might make the effort to see "Little Women" in the theater, despite being familiar with the novel and previous movies, to support the women involved in making it.
Voting with my time and money.
41
@Dawn Helene goodness, then don't watch them? There are plenty of great books, hobbies, and sports, to get into. I don't really understand the "gun to your head" mentality in many of these posts. I'm no spring chicken and since I was born I could pick and choose what I wanted to select culturally. I've been to dozens if not hundreds of movies, most were selected by me or my friends. If I didn't like them, I moved on to another genre/director/actor.
21
I never liked the book or any movie associated with it, and I’m a woman.
9
I knew someone would write this article. Of course, it generalizes like crazy. I don't care men who delegate women with sweeping generalizations. . I also don't care for women who denigrate men with sweeping generalizations. I like the book, I liked the movie. Lots of guys did. Live with it.
11
Manufactured outrage. Modern men don't like boring story that their grandfathers found boring as well. I bet modern women would find "Tom Brown's Schooldays" boring. So would men, but they have nothing to prove. But boring is ok (Das Kapital?) if it's a learning experience.
12
@Susan writes: "More proof that the male gaze needs corrective lenses to see beyond its very self-absorbed interests."
But . . .this (female) columnist is urging men to go and gaze at a movie about women. How, exactly, are men supposed to gaze without "gazing"?
7
Is not going to the movies some sort of microaggression now? Can't I just see the film when it is available to stream? Has it ever occurred to the writer that maybe the reason this film isn't killing things at the box office is some combination of Star Wars, Jumanji, Frozen, and the fact that this is the 8th or 9th film/television adaptation of a 150 year old book? I always cringe when conservatives bemoan so-called "outrage culture," but when I read this pointless rant about why a particular movie isn't selling enough tickets I worry we are making it too easy for them.
23
The author here is taking a cheap shot. Alcott herself described the book as “moral pap for children,” and felt it was dull. Why must it be for reasons of misogyny if a man is critical of a woman produced film that just may not be the best? Yes, it was a good cast, but that script didn’t seem to stretch any of them and was filled with tired plot devices...the fall through the icy pond...Why must we always try to find some sinister motive? I didn’t much like the heralded Irishman film either. This piece is just too simplistic.
16
@Joe I completely agree. Geez must everything be viewed through the lens of power/oppression? It’s like the Marxist nonsense I hated 35 years ago, only now it’s all about white “cis-male” privilege.
It is also ironic that the author writes a humor blog.
6
Hate men much?
I don't read fiction, I read history. The chances of me reading "The Pretend Lives of People Who Never Were" is slim to none. The chances of me standing in line to watch a movie version are even smaller. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender.
Among the very best historians of all times is the late Barbara Tuchmann, Pulitzer Prize winner for her books The Guns of August and Stillwell and the American Experience in China. She also wrote The Proud Tower, A Distant Mirror, The March of Folly and The First Salute. If you haven't read even one of her books, you've missed a 20th century literary giant.
Did I mention her name is Barbara? Now, may I please be forgiven for skipping Little Women?
18
I'm a woman who read the book when I was young, have seen all the adaptations, and I think this movie is a miss. putting those modern words and preachy speeches in these 19th century girls/women is a huge miss. Yuck. If you modernize a book like this, modernize it all the way. It's not just men who are put off. It's a adolescent girl's story.
8
This column is no different in outlook from teenage boys who send spite comments at movie critics who don't like the latest Star Wars or Marvel or DC movie.
I don't want to see a movie adaptation of a 19th century novel for women. OK? Plenty of people do: the box office is fine. The author made money back in the day. So what's the problem?
Oh, you mean we don't all love exactly the same thing that you love? How's the gravity at the center of the universe?
9
Did the world really need YET ANOTHER remake of Little Women? The answer is no. Most men are born wise enough to know this, those who are not have had that wisdom thrust upon them by all the ludicrous, anachronistic hipsterism evident in the movie's ubiquitous trailers. That women are willing to line up lemminglike to fork over money every time a 'bold, new interpretation' of Pride and Prejudice or Little Women is released is their problem, not men's
6
@Alexandre Let's see, were there seven "Fast and Furious" movies?
There is something wrong with a society where men dismiss a movie adaptation of the book 'Little Women.'
Let's be serious here: anyone committed to justice now views their life in two parts. Before the 2019 movie adaptation of the book 'Little Women' and after the 2019 movie adaptation of the book 'Little Women.'
6
News flash: women don’t like this movie either.
It’s a boring, huggy, arrogant adaptation of a great book. My guess is it didn’t get a SAG nom (I’m a member) but it’s just not that good.
10
On the contrary, I feel this movie was excessively praised, mostly by male reviewers.
12
The advertising on the page above this article shows a couple dancing in clothing from that era, with the man sweeping the woman off her feet by offering her a diamond.
Which is it? Freedom or traditional romance? Forgive me if I experience a bit of a disconnect here.
3
Is it actually true that "men are dismissing" the film? The claim is apparently based on exactly one review in Vanity Fair and the speculations of a few other women who have a personal rooting interest in the film.
The male reviewers in the NYT and the WSJ both gave the film an enthusiastic thumbs up. I've personally yet to read a single negative review of the film.
That the film didn't garner a bushel of award nominations, well, that's tough. But it's hardly evidence of a mulish or dastardly male conspiracy. Dozens of well-crafted, deserving films get passed over every year.
By the way, the film had to deal with its own previous cinematic history. The original 1933 version of the film and the 1994 remake both received rave reviews. Were they over-hyped? Yes, almost certainly. They would hardly appear on anyone's list of top 200 films. Not surprising that film-goers (both male and female) might be willing to forego a holiday-release reprise.
Finally, holiday-release probably says it all. This film just hit the big screen in most outlets today where it's competing with all the other powerfully promoted, award-nominee wannabes. If it doesn't win the weekend sweepstakes, does that mean that it's a failure (doomed by male indifference or outright hostility)? Not at all.
Here's a prediction. The movie will be viewed, reviewed, and appreciated long after this silly, knee-jerk, polemical article is forgotten.
16
Saw the movie last night with my wife and teenage daughter.
I cried, laughed.
But our follow movie-goers did seem like the @npr and Rachel Maddow. And that’s fine.
Yesterday morning I saw Star Wars with my son.
We all had fun, none more than me.
Quality family time!
2
They shouldn't. If the film does well, they can always look forward to the sequel, Little Men.
8
I saw it, and it was a good film, but not as good as the 1994 adaptation in my mind. Why must men and people of color be shamed for not being enthusiastic about a film that is a good but not great version of a story that has been filmed too many times? Let's stop politicizing popular entertainment. This column reminds me of what's going on now as Democrats prepare for the first primaries. The far-left is always screaming "sexism" whenever Elizabeth Warren falters. Those same people never seem to claim the same when a centrist like Amy Klobuchar has low numbers. What's the difference? Is it possible that Klobuchar is not "left" enough to incite the most hard-core feminists?
15
@Mark, I totally agree. Of all the ones I've seen, the 1994 film with Winona Ryder was the best, including the two recent BBC productions. Just saw it again a year or so ago, and it's held up perfectly well, still a terrific adaptation.
I don't feel any compelling need to spend a wad of money at the theater for this one; when the library gets the DVD, I'll probably check it out.
1
I saw "Little Women" Chrismas day with my two daughters. They (at 13 and 19 years of age) groaned about going. Then we saw it and they enjoyed it so much! They talked about it and laughed the whole drive home. That's all you need to know about Little Women. It was lovely!
7
I didn't enjoy Black Panther, does that make me racist? No, because I don't like any superhero movies. That's okay. I am excited to see "Little Women" because I think it's interesting.
11
Women - I’m on your side. Don’t lose me by believing or supporting articles like this.
13
Avengers, Little Women, Star Wars ... all remakes or reshuffles. Where is the creativity?
6
Reading the comments on this article is certainly eye opening. I knew the American school system had gotten bad, but I had no idea that this is what it is producing now. People who have absolutely no desire to know anything of the past, people who reject classic literature because it doesn't speak to them PERSONALLY. People who are able to turn a Hollywood Movie and classic book into a racial war, and a bunch of men who are able to rant misogynistically about how they don't hate women. My hat is off to the readers of the NYT.
8
Reading this article, I have changed my mind! I am going to go with my wife to see this movie. If she is willing to go with me to see Ford vs. Ferrari (She was; we did.), then I will happily go to Little Women! Fair is fair.
4
This whole article, and many other arguments like it, can be refuted by one simple statement: equality doesn’t mean identity. Are men and women equal? Yes. Do we have identical interests/strengths/hobbies...? No, and that’s perfectly ok.
23
Thank you. Finally a rational response.
4
That fact doesn't fit with the author's agenda or outrage culture, though.
3
Women Are Dismissing "Die Hard." What a Surprise. This in, also Women are Dismissing "Rambo". What a Surprise.
17
So it's now a sign of sexism that men don't want to go to movies that reek of estrogen and frilly petticoats? Is this the natural progression from the Charlie's Angels "This movie is meant for women. Wait, why didn't men come see it?"
I don't think many men have a major attachment to the book, if they've read it at all. It's very much a woman's book, centering on the frustrations and issues of young women. It doesn't resonate with men. The same can be said of the movie.
Men and women like different things. That's okay. It's no more a problem that men don't rush out to see Little Women than it is that women don't rush out to see Transformers: Yes, We Let Michael Bay Make Another One.
14
Having read the book as a child--because it is a child's book--and seen a number of film adaptations, all I can think is did we really need another another version of this treacle? Would much rather see films that relate to the lives of modern women.
7
@theresa "Would much rather see films that relate to the lives of modern women." But it does.
2
The blank page awaits you. Get crackin’!
Hawthorne’s style is ponderous even if his story lines are innovative. He’s just a tad jealous. He’ll get over it. Oh, that’s right; he’s no longer on the scene, so no reason to beat a rather dead...
Gerwig is a great writer and a fabulous director. She’s getting awesome Hollywood attention and great notice in the hallowed halls of Europe. I can’t wait to see Little Women.
As for everybody else— Times writer and triggered readers— it’s almost January; just chill.
I'm a gay African American male and I'm going to see this movie. I've never read the book, but the previews look beautiful, I like history pieces, and it's refreshing to have a movie option that doesn't involve a super hero, a reboot, or a sequel.
7
I don't remember a movie being so overhyped and promoted as this one in several years. Drumming up interest in a novel that has been filmed so many times over decades must be a marketer's nightmare. All this "controversy" seems to be a publicist's attempt to keep the title in headlines. Enough already! If you want to see the movie, go see it. Otherwise, let it slide.
13
men write "literature" and women write "chick lit" because the experiences of half the population are declared invalid by men.
i don't read men anymore. i am no longer interested in what they have to say.
5
@No name
It seems the experiences of half the population has been declared invalid by you. Who do you think is going to be effected by that? Only you.
1
Not every woman loved “chick lit”—See the essay “Silly Novels by Lady Novelists” by George Eliot—whoops, I mean Mary Anne Evans!
1
I watched a screener of Little Women on Christmas Eve with four other male friends and all of us loved it. The movie is a gem, with amazing performances.
6
As an older white dude may I say that virtually every woman I have ever met was a human being. I loved Gerwig’s Little Women and I think she is an exceptionally gifted filmmaker. I think those who avoid film are denying themselves a genuinely pleasurable experience. This said I am becoming increasingly annoyed with these broadsides claiming essentially there is something wrong with those who don’t share your perspective. I read a piece from a woman of color who dismissed Little Women because the characters and the filmmakers are white. Does this thin parsing of interests bring us together or push us apart? It feels accusatory and I’m starting to think it doesn’t help.
15
People have a right to spend their leisure time and money on entertainment they think they will enjoy.
I stopped watching and attending professional male sports (except for US Open tennis which pays men and women well) years ago because I didn't want to support an industry that overpaid men and underpaid women in the same field for their accomplishments. Never missed following those sports because I filled my time with other entertainment. Watching women-focused stories in film/tv is one of them.
Women make up half the population. You don't have to go see male dominated or focused films if you don't want to either. Tell your husband, significant other or friend you'll meet him in the movie theatre lobby after his and and your movies end and you can grab a drink together.
6
Hmm. I’ve interacted with dozens of men of all ages since this movie came out. The majority didn’t mention any films, some talked about Star Wars and other movies, a few said they heard Little Women was good and they were interested in seeing it, and none dismissed or derided the film at all. In other words my personal experience doesn’t align with the (very weak) premise of this article.
18
@Richard
That's because the "sources" for this very weak article didn't include any actual living men. Per usual for this paper that a piece about the thoughts and motivations of men don't include the actual thoughts of any men, only women.
3
My wife and I just went to see "Harriett". Hadn't had the opportunity to see it earlier. Unfortunately for the author, there were a equal number of men and women watching.
Nothing beats history, and Harriett Tubman was a gift to the human race. All should go see it.
8
This isn’t misogyny, this is monotony. Little Women (2019) is the 19th adaptation of this work. I don’t see a lot of new ground being turned over here. It’s probably a passion project for Greta Gerwig, but I don’t have the time for another endless parade of sequels and retreads.
15
I’m no more bothered by men not being interested in these movies than women not being interested in playing Call of Duty or Red Dead Redemption games. Are we allowed to have personal preferences without being accused of harbouring a bias, even a subconscious one?
15
I'm a male and I will probably go see it. But I've learned a long time ago you can't force your cultural likes and dislikes on people. A recent column said that superhero movies are destroying cinema perhaps they are, but you can't tell people what they are going to watch.
4
What I've noticed is that this is maybe the fifth article in circulation that says exactly the same thing. You'll find it in Vanity Fair, the Guardian, Slate...yep, it's making the rounds.
(Don't be cynical, the movie's publicist is doing a good job and she deserves recognition too!)
15
@GMengel, exactly.
This article is a thinly sourced attempt to drive controversy, leading to clicks for the newspaper and buzz for the film.
Sure, it divides Americans over nonsense, but what’s the value of a healthy society when compared to the importance of making a profit?
4
Just because I am not interested in seeing the movie doesn't mean that I am hostile towards the film. It means that I would rather watch something that interests me. I have nothing against Jumanji either. Though I love board games, it is not for me.
10
Star Wars will outsell Tolstoy.
What's new?
5
I like good films and TV shows with compelling women in them. "Gentleman Jack" is a good example--great stuff. "Little Women" has always been far less compelling to me. As someone else here said, I'm just not interested in seeing it. That doesn't make me a misogynist.
3
It’s a refreshing movie with a story line that one should be able to relate to easily , if familiar with the era in which the story is set
As a middle aged male, I found it a refreshing change to go see a movie without any nudity or sex or violence. And the women were fully clothed , in beautiful dresses - the kind that women in my family of that era would have worn.
The climax scene of endless writing to complete the book, may not necessarily appeal to all. Our brains have been numbed by those VFXs, those explosions and car chases !!
6
My sister did not like the movie. She thought the acting was very good, but she felt the film jumped around and the story was not told well.
4
Men and women are different. Often they don't like the same things or have the same interests. It's really that simple.
14
To the women of color - you may write your own and it will be read. To men - you may write your own and it will be read. To the LGBTQ people - you may write your own and it will be read.
It is too easy to point. Therefore, do your best to write the right.
3
I “hate” group classification. I am a man, but I am like no other man. I am unique. Anyone who is reading these comments is unlike anyone else. Identical twins raised in the same household at the same time grow up to be different people, often vastly different people,
I deny the accusation that I am misogynistic if I don’t see this movie. The author of this piece knows NOTHING about me and wouldn’t know who I was if she tripped over me in the street. Yet she has the nerve to size me up and judge me while not knowing a thing about Mr. SAH.
Forget about groups for heavens sake. Judge people and their motives as individuals, because that’s exactly what they are!
11
Is there now a quota system for the awards season? It sure seems so. How about we stick solely to merit, when assisting films?
Wait...merit has never been the sole basis for these nominations or awards.
Oh, well. The only reason I watch the awards shows is to see what people are wearing, and in the hope that something outrageous will happen.
3
The holiday release of this nostalgic juvenile melodrama is aimed squarely at women who share the author’s misandry. The failure to attract male audiences is itself proof that men are bad and women are good. Thank you, Hollywood for affirming that. Here’s my $12.00.
8
Oh please. After the first hour I just had to leave out of boredom. My wife stayed, but bailed before the end for the same reason. It's so slow, jerky in time, stylized, predictable. I'd rather see "Harriet" again. It's not necessary to psychologize these reactions around gender bias unless you have a column to write and need some material.
9
This article is trying awfully hard to find a controversy out of a 19th century novel adaptation. You mean that after all this time men are still interested in their own stuff, and women too? Saints preserve us!
293
@Dan
Good one. :)
5
@Dan
Spoken like a true man!
5
The idea that there's something wrong with you if you don't like something is not going to help.
And please don't compare Moby Dick and Little Women. I've read both, and they are both great works of American literature.
I like Joseph Conrad but not so much Henry James. Does that mean there's something wrong with me?
166
@Talbot
On various levels - racism, colonialism - of revisionist history, Joseph Conrad - perhaps the first modern author - is thought to be quite toxic.
Later, for art...
2
@Pepe McOrlan Definitely cancel ‘Nostromo’ so that trenchant anticolonialist, antiwar narratives by white men can’t be found.
2
@Talbot,
A timely comment for this reader who laughed at a passage in a book, where a young man is courting the object of his love and admiration:
'Harvey, you are asleep. You will awake'.
'You will wake me, you will, - won't you'
'But we have to be noble, both of us, don't you think?'
'You mean wonderful, like people in Henry James?'...
Louisa May Alcott was taken aback by biographers' accounts at the tremendous success of her March family, which she privately grew to dislike and called her masterpiece 'The Pathetic Family'.
Be as it may, a neighbor and her husband, both playwrights, enjoyed this new production, and it is on the calendar for New Year's Eve, after securing a pop-up book of 'Moby-Dick' for an elderly relation, a favorite creation of his by the author of The Heart of Darkness.
More important, you are A+1 Okay, and The New York Times has just awarded you a stamp of approval.
2
I'll accept this argument from any Little Women fan who also rejects and despises Gone WIth The Wind. Because those novels tend to be read and loved by a lot of the same people. And Gone With The Wind might be the wickedest movie ever produced.
2
@SteveB
I’ve never seen Gone With The Wind. I will see Little Women, and my teenage son will accompany us.
@Steve B.: Gone With the Wind is beautifully written. Of course it's dated. Stop with the litmus tests.
5
Good movies are good movies, regardless of provenance or assumptions of who will enjoy them. If you saw ‘Little Women’ and you liked or loved it, pass on your praise. That may be all that is needed.
1
I'm a 78-year-old white Male and I thought the film was GREAT.
Unfortunately, I think it helped to know the story in advance.
1
What I find intriguing by this is that we almost have a sense of futility. We are caught between the old way and the new way. Along this journey, men have always said that they don't understand women; and (some) women have complained htat we do not understand them.
Yet, we do not try. This is a movie set in the past that attempts to help us understand women from their point of view. But the subculture of being a 'man' in America has really not changed. Sure. We seem more sensitive; we take better care of things like our skin and hair. But at the end of the day, we are still market to through the eyes of our chauvinistic past.
Sex. Guns. Violence. Everything directed toward us is done using those things. And when we like them; we are made to feel guilty for liking them.
What does this really mean? Personally, I think if we as a gender want to understand anyone better, we need to understand ourselves better -- through a different lens. Watch this movie not because it will help you understand women better, but because it will help you understand yourself and your place in humanity better.
Man or woman. This film will provide value to our existence and to our understanding of our place in the world.
In most ways, I don't care if men come to see this beautiful movie or not. It's doing very well at the box office and the people I know who've seen it, of several generations, have loved it, too.
The problem, however, is that since men in the industry ignore it, there are fewer awards and less money for the next set of movies that women will truly enjoy. The solution is for women to continue rising quickly in producing circles, so they'll finance movies like this and laugh all the way to the bank.
2
It's a story that has been rehashed half a dozen times already. Original stories are going to get more praise and interest. That's just the way the film going audience is going to look at it even if those original works are ultimately inferior. It's also important to take into account that much of the film going audience is younger, and probably not very interested in a period piece based on a book they have likely never read.
5
My husband and I (both men!) saw it on Christmas Day, and we'd been looking forward to it for months. Everything about the movie was superb and original and entertaining. But you can't force people to go to a movie, especially when they'll be able to see it on television a few months later for a lot less money.
5
I thought the movie contrived. The Marches living in “genteel” poverty? All the girls had more than enough clothing: food spreads were sumptuous—poverty?
Couldn’t buy the premise. The main characters were one dimensional. It served as a white -privilege flick.
My masculine side didn’t enjoy it. Too sugary. And all 4 girls were artists? C’mon.
I enjoyed most of the varied, comments here.
Yeah. Guys like football and action movies. Gals like romance films. Viva la difference.
11
I join the crowd in saying that it isn't bias to simply not be interested in a particular story. I love "Fleabag." It is smart and funny and fresh. But I am just not interested in the plot of "Little Women." I can't relate to it, and I see more attractive movies to spend my time with.
10
@Hal - who can legitimately relate to a movie set in mid-19th century New England?
1
I can't imagine that one would make "Little Women" into a film with an expectation that it would be a huge hit with male audiences? I can't imagine a film like "The Great Gatsby", for example, was a massive success with male audiences either...
2
I was excited about seeing Greta Gerwig’s latest creation. I attended the first screening on Christmas day at 10 am. The audience was about one third men. The movie is engaging, insightful, and delightful. I started rereading the book to recall more of the details that did not make it into the movie. I did not even think that there was some sort of gender-based bias toward this movie until this male-bashing headline suggested it. Why categorize all men as having some inherent bias? That is blatantly sexist, insulting, and definitely not “woke.” Why perpetuate gender stereotypes against men? What purpose does that serve?
11
As I constantly ask my wife ( when we watch "Where's the Midwife") "What's the score?" It's hard for a guy to know who's winning in these kind of dramas, and they don't provide a metric (scoreboard).
They make some movies for men, some for women, and every once in awhile they make one that appeals to both. This might be one of those, but the title clearly identifies it as being in the made-for-women category. If it turns out to appeal to both, then the word will get around and more men will show up to see it.
4
If you really want to produce a movie and make megabucks from an old classic, the one to choose would be Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, as todays society has a deep resentment of childless, intelligent, woman who own their own homes, and that is by both men and woman. A modern world audience, would love the catharsis that the character Miss Havisham would bring into their discontented world.
3
Oh please, most men have interests that simply lie in other areas if they are going to spend 2 hours and roughly $25 at a movie . Can we please stop with this constant shaming of men who have done nothing other than having made a choice? If the shoe was on the other foot, the eye rolling would be audible.
23
The shoe cannot be on the other foot- that is the crux of sexism. Sorry to disappoint, but men cannot know what it is like to stand in those shoes. It’s not a character indictment; it’s a fact. They will just have to exercise their empathy and imagine.
Having said that, maybe the disinterest in Little Women isn’t just coming from men who don’t care. I was required to read the book in school and have seen one of the film adaptations. I’ve been treated to plenty of iterations of an intrepid white woman making a living in young America, and I’m a tad fatigued with the premise. That doesn’t make me sexist either. I am also fatigued with white-man-does-gangster (sorry, Irishman), white-man-gets-away-with-large-scale-criminal-enterprise (sorry, Wolf of Wall Street and Big Short), and white-man-is-enlightened-by-colored-people (sorry, Driving Ms. Daisy reboot).
2
@Kaila Brown-Davis How about everyone just enjoy the genres that appeal to them without crying about not being represented sufficiently?
6
The editorial writer may be right about the sexual politics (and the commenters about the racial and racial politics) of the reactions to the film. But in the interest of factual accuracy someone ought to point out that Jane Austen and Fanny Burney were long since dead by the time Alcott wrote and published Little Women. The more appropriate counterparts would be Marianne Evans (George Eliot), the Brontes, and perhaps Elizabeth Gaskell. Having them in the picture might provide a more accurate (and useful) historical context for the writer’s remarks. (No African Americans there, but lots of insights into the roles of women and marriage in the nineteenth century.)
6
Well, all I can tell you is that when I read this headline to my husband just now, he said, “Well, *I* want to see it!” and I am the one who is lukewarm. Never got into the series when I was the target age. But because I like Greta Gerwig, we’ll both go.
2
What exactly is the point of this piece? Men are rejecting this movie. Except they aren't. But maybe they will. Then again, male critics like it. So maybe men will go see it. But they're not going right now. OK. There's no doubt the book appeals to girls. That was its target audience. The various film versions have reflected the eras in which they were made, perhaps none more so than this one. That men might not rush out to see it as excitedly as some women doesn't mean that a fair number won't see it. Different films appeal to different audiences. I don't see that as evidence of anything worth comment. And certainly not disapproval.
11
I read the book as a young girl and was never all that excited by it...I guess it's just so , oh dare I say...girly. Everyone is just so good in it, even Amy. The March girls always have annoyed me, maybe because of their storybook perfection. My husband and I went to see the other day, I was hoping Gerwig really would do something different here, but for me it was meh. But my husband, cinophile that he is, loved it.
7
Mixed group: saw this movie qua movie.
Loved it.
1
Meryl Streep is the problem. Too many roles. Too many awards. She outta make room for somebody else.
5
Seven versions (of which I've seen two), and it's my sexism that makes me not want to see a third? I have a social responsibility to go to the movie theater and hear popcorn crunched and wrappers unraveled while I try to listen?
16
It's not an unconscious bias. It's a conscious one. The men I know--progressives, who read NYT, NY Review of books, and similar publications--feel saturated with women's issues and pronoun control and identity politics and it's not their idea of recreation to go out and see a movie about more of the same. That's about it.
Or they just say "I'll wait till I can stream it."
22
Judging from the trailer (they exist to entice you too see the film-or not) I won't be seeing this film. It is so over-concerned with being "of-the-moment" that it amounts to feminist (redux) propaganda. Just having to hear that "inclusive" soundtrack would be intolerable to me. Of course, making the men appear foolish is still a very popular thing; but where is the (seemingly mandatory) "strong, black, female lead who saves the world?"
Such an omission will keep it from winning the Oscar.
7
@Allen : The inclusive soundtrack comprising Beethoven?
All the more reason for me to go see the movie. What are we going to do with all these “little men” ? (apologies to Ms. Alcott)
1
This obsessive need to find fault with men who, based on flimsy evidence, don't race en masse to embrace a a movie that validates women is really growing tiresome. In my book, it's fine to respond to or not be reached by a movie. It's a matter of choice and appetite. Anyway, this is just a movie! It's not holy writ. What I do find worthy of criticism is Hollywood's prevailing practice of failing to nurture the writing of original narratives, rather than rehashes of already twice- or thrice-told tales.
15
If misogyny is the problem, how does one explain the recent critical success of Russian Doll, Killing Eve, Fleabag, and Girls? All of those are contemporary. Perhaps period pieces don't spark the same enthusiasm across the board.
9
I saw the most recent Star Wars movie the other night.
I wouldn't recommend it. The audience was
“overwhelmingly comprised of men.”
1
Seriously? I love the Times, but ANOTHER one of these pieces? As if this world needs another iota of trendy Us-versus-Them posturing.
When I was a girl, I loved Little Women (and The Secret Garden). I read it many, many times. I couldn't decide if I wanted to be Jo or the doomed, saintly Beth more. Nevertheless, I simply have no interest in seeing the film. But I'm a woman, so maybe that can be deemed an acceptable position to take?
My son is 21. I have made a point of teaching him to be unfailingly respectful to women, and to treat the women with whom he becomes involved kindly and as equals. I would smack him upside the head (in a figurative sense) if I noticed that he was behaving otherwise. And honestly, I think he'd assume that that's the way things should be done anyway, and that we are ALL equals, regardless of my drilling it into him. The assumption that, as a man, he would be otherwise, annoys me no end.
Frankly, this daily onslaught of op-eds examining The Evil Patriarchy under yet another light almost starts to make me lose respect for my own gender. For one thing, there are women AND men all over the world (and perhaps just outside one's apartment building, with empty cups and ragged clothes) who are suffering in truly horrific ways. Not only men are responsible for this--we all are. I would feel very selfish spending so much waking time digging up various examples of how I and my kind have somehow been wronged, when people are sleeping outside in winter, etc.
8
I’ve never been interested in seeing a Star Wars movie. I must have an unconscious bias, but I don’t what it’s against.
7
I may be the only person in the world who disliked Alcott's writing style and felt the characters were precious. As for the film remakes, I preferred the 1949 version of Little Women. The picture felt warm, rich, and the color deep. Even the artificial snow felt warm. The stars were so well known they felt like friends. A perfect film to watch on a cold, snowy day with hot chocolate and scones.
5
Not interested in re-hashed storylines that do not keep true to the original storyline of the original book. Read the book and not interested in the movie. Meanwhile back in the real world I am more interested in the value of the original book and other vintage books! lol!
3
Way back in Time when I was in Junior High in Cleveland, Ohio I had heard about this book and went to the library and asked the Woman Librarian if I could get a copy to read.
Her answer was --- "MEN ( I assume real men not me) don't read this book it is for girls not boys"
We are taught prejudice throughout our lives and obviously we still are.
5
So what's the evidence that men are shunning "Little Women?" The author cites an anecdotal claim by another media outlet and a couple of Tweets. But hard box office data has the movie opening take surpassed only by two Hollywood holiday blockbusters. Not bad for a movie supposedly disliked by half the population. I'd say that means the "men problem" is largely imaginary. To the extent it's real, I'd say it's because men see the story as one meant for 13-year-old girls. And adult women are nostalgic, having read the book when they were 13, and want to take their daughters to see it.
13
I saw the previous version and loved it. Do I feel particularly impelled to see yet another version? No. Nor do I want to watch Star Wars IX. Or the film version of Cats .... or the new Toy Story when it comes out.
4
Wow. Touch a nerve, did this article? I will give the same advice to all those football and fight club guys' guys. Don't read it if it bugs you. You sure seem to spend a lot of time reading stuff that bugs the hell out of you. Maybe the overly sensitive right should grow that thicker hide they are always pontificating about. Also, don't pull that "the left's sanctimony will get Trump re-elected nonsense." If people in a few states vote their annoyance at liberals over their regard for decency, rule of law, and sanity, well then, the greatest con job will continue.
3
@Mary
Could it be that because misogyny is a serious thing and decent people take it seriously, that they resent another ridiculous op-ed that so frivolously throws the charge around?
And yes, this all feeds into Trump and Trumpism, which is entirely a backlash to this kind of endless negativity and identity-based hatred posing as liberalism.
7
I'm a gay male that doesn't like fight clubs or sports, but I also don't care about yet another tired remake of material that's aimed at a particular audience. As others have noticed, this article is forcing an issue that other media are pushing in regard to the film. If that sounds familiar it should. Similar articles filled media and were attacking those who criticized or were uninterested in the awful female led 2016 "Ghostbusters" remake. The publicists and creators fanned the accusations of sexism and embraced the outrage during interviews in an attempt to drive people to see the (bad) movie. It seems you and others are eager to fall for it again. The studio must be thrilled.
2
This is exactly the crux of the horror of this behavior. Nothing will change. It’s a self perpetuating hate cycle. More hate and more Trump.
Keep going, crazy feminists. You are hurting no-one but yourselves, and your male supporters.
1
Misogyny may be at play. However, the title of the book - and the movie - is flat.
1
Poor modern women. I’m so glad they are outraged that in our colleges and universities today women outnumber men 57-43%. Better to be outraged about completely subjective movie awards.
12
@Shamrock
It’s a war on men!!
I really can't agree with the author about how men feel about women's literary and cinematic works; it isn't the truth. When I was a boy and could read anything I wanted to the first books I read were contained in a bookcase on the wall of the stairs leading to the basement of our two family house in Bayside, Queens, New York. There were books of almost all genre's that I loved, The Dream Merchants, The Caine Mutiny , Captain from Castile, Green Dolphin Street, and my favorite book, one that told the story of my favorite character of all the books I have read, Francie Nolan, called A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith. My feelings for her as a character eclipse even those I have for Pedro de Vargas, Willie Keith, and even Augie March.
How is it possible that a boy could feel so much for a girl from a family where the father is an alcoholic, her mother is a bitter scrub woman, has an aunt who is a floosie, and a disinterested brother. I'll tell you, because it speaks a truth that transcends sexuality. Anyone can understand the mighty character Francie Nolan is, both men and women.
Woman were prevented from producing great art until the 20th century, but since they were freed over 1/2 a century ago they have produced great musicians, artists, writers, actors and directors of all genre. Soon, as women haters die out they will be recognized for their work equally with men.
5
@Joel Friedlander
OK, but don't overlook Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, Emily Dickinson, Edith Wharton . . .
2
It is sad that todays youth cannot write great literature and have to adapt story lines so they are no longer recognisable and not intended for the audience they were written for. Same goes for the music industry - nothing original coming out these days and probably why the world is in the terrible state it is in. No originality and probably caused by the way people are schooled and educated these days.
3
I am male and won't see this film. Does that mean I am hostile towards women? Or perhaps I don't see the need to watch yet another retelling. I didn't see Aladdin or Lion King either, and after JJ Abrams decided that Star Wars VII should just be a remake of the story from IV, I'm done with that series too. Conversely I happily took my daughter to Frozen 2, a decidedly female centric movie, and enjoyed it enough (of course, it cannot stack up to Frozen 1, a truly outstanding children's movie, but at least it was different). I'm on board with the idea that we need greater representation of women in the higher rungs of Hollywood, but I don't see why my disinterest in seeing yet another remake has to be interpreted as hostile to anything apart from Hollywood's business model of unoriginality.
12
Not all men! My wife and I just saw film, and both of us thought it was fantastic! The film highlights the relationships among all the March women, and that may be a reason that men find the film less satisfying than women do. In any case it is a great film and congratulations to Greta Gerwig and a great cast.
7
A period drama is lagging Star Wars at the box office? ... Sigh, when will men ever evolve?
9
Lack of specifics discredits the article and the author.
Exactly which "Men Are Dismissing Little Women" and what are they actually saying?
This article cites no living men by name and only one comment by an un-named living man. The only man named and quoted is Nathaniel Hawthorn, from 1855—164 years out of date.
The only other men referenced are cited by the author's friend, Jane Maslin, who perceives "active hostility about 'Little Women' from men I know, love and respect" on Twitter. About the movie's "problem with men", the only quote from a man that Ms. Maslin offers is “It’s not a ‘problem.’ We just don’t care.” which hardly counts as active hostility.
This is not "Men" "Dismissing Little Women." It's hearsay through Twitter, and really, no-one should rely on Twitter.
If we knew of specific men saying specific things, we could do something specific in response—take positive, concrete action. But relying on vast and vague generalizations disallows real action, gets us nowhere, and undermines the project of feminism, not to mention journalism.
24
Regarding "Opinion," "Little Women" is a great book for a ten year old to read in 1955. Relatable. Still, Louisa May Alcott thought it her worst writing. Seeing more than is there, projecting imagined realities, layering on contemporary cultural fixations means in this case that critical thinking is compromised by bias.
7
I love the book but honestly the film and the book were about white folks and their ultimate goodness. It is a narrative that needs repeating and indeed has been constructed and repeated at the cost of rendering other cultures and communities and narratives invisible. All the smiling angelic faces are white actors. Yawn.
3
@Apps: The Alcotts were deeply committed abolitionists. I know I'll get bleats of "white privilege" in reply, but it's simplistic presentism to dismiss the diligence and bravery of their good works.
3
Nice quote from WaPo: "Alcott’s most famous work, “Little Women,” was...a light, juvenile novel focused on sisterly love and domestic peace. And though it was semi-autobiographical, she hated it."
6
For anyone looking for another film that insists on the reality of women's drive to express their minds and genius, whatever it may be, and the reality of their human gifts and capacity for contribution across multiple domains: Where'd You Go, Bernadette.
1
Don't be too harsh. During these changing times, we men are feeling vulnerable.
1
Oh whatever. I never cared for the book and do not have particular interest in this film. And I'm female.
11
Male here, very much looking forward to seeing LW this weekend, far more than Star Wars or Cats. Luminous acting by inspiring women is more powerful than any CGI schlockfest, after all.
I was only very recently aware of the film’s existence, since the season’s blockbusters have sucked up so much bandwidth. Perhaps the lack of interest by men like me is just lack of awareness that it’s out? This is it’s own criticism - we get catered to so much that we don’t need to seek out worthy, representative films - but it’s less attributable to malicious prejudice, and more to lazy ignorance. I work to correct this habit, but I think for me it will be a lifelong battle with my biases.
1
The whining from men that this op-Ed has engendered is absolutely delicious. The author rests her case.
1
@AC
If you care to investigate, you'll see that just as many women in these comments have been critical of this piece and find it to be nonsense. But reality wouldn't be as "delicious," would it?
7
Fake news! I really enjoyed it
4
As tempting as it might be to tune out present day politics and the daily grind, I have no intention or desire to see the umpteenth adaptation of 'Little Women', thank you.
And not just because it involves only white women in a world long ago and far, far away -- it's just that no A-list of actors could ever make it relevant if it doesn't involve a more diverse cast, or at least something that looks a bit more like today...or New York.
2
Just wondering why a novel set in the mid- to-late 1800s in Concord, Massachusetts has to look like New York City 2019...?
3
I think it is silly to scold men for not watching Little Woman. I don’t like boxing or football. I don’t like rap music or prime rib. Does that make me sexist or out of touch? Let’s stop hounding men so much. My husband was not really interested in seeing Little Woman so I accepted that and decided to go with female friends. Then in passing I told him it got very good reviews. That piqued his interest somewhat so now he is more open to it. He did go to Bombshell with me a few days ago and thought it was an interesting story(about sexual harassment at Fox News.) There are many guy movies I’m not interested in so the main point I’m making is So What??
19
Yes...it opened third, far behind a new Star Wars saga that features a woman as its central and most powerful character, who throws men around like rag dolls.
It’s not women, it’s that “Little Women” is boring as heck no matter how many times it’s remade.
13
Such cranky comments from men. Chillax, already! At least that’s what I’ve done when I’ve gone to see action movies like Star Wars and Dunkirk.
I’ve had loads of opportunities in my 51 years of movie-going and/or watching to see myself in male characters. You might see yourself through the eyes of a female character.
You’ll be fine; you won’t turn gay. You might be introduced to something new.
5
@Lissa
Women tend to get "cranky" when someone is being condescending and stereotyping them. Men are not any different. It's a human thing.
4
How about everybody see the films they wish to see and no one pressures people to spend a lot of money and time on something they have no interest in? Who forced you to see movies like Dunkirk if you didn’t want to go? Life’s too short to sit and watch anything you don’t want to watch.
Umm I wonder why my wife didn’t want to go with me to see fight club? Any thoughts?
10
@J Clark You do not talk about Fight Club ;)
4
About fifteen years ago I taught at a gritty NYC-area inner city school (I was the only non-Hispanic white in the school.) A generous patron paid for me to take my class into the City to see the Broadway musical "Little Women." My beloved students were a tough crowd, middle-schoolers, with all-too-common domestic issues.
On stage, the talented actresses flouted about in crinolines, petticoats and straw bonnets, pausing from time to time to sing "Massachusetts," as my students watched.
As far as my students were concerned they might as well have been watching a documentary about ocean life in the Marianas Trench. The whole thing seemed silly to a degree. When your father beats you with a canister vacuum cleaner (as happened to one of my students) the world of Alcott is utterly alien.
It was a lovely novel when the president was Rutherford B. Hayes. Now, it is just affectation.
No wonder boys don't like the movie.
8
We’re in a golden age of TV and film with streaming giving us ever more options. Why would I prioritize this when I still haven’t had a chance to watch the Joker, Avengers Infinity War, or The Witcher?
5
I watch very few movies in the theater. I watch them on Blu-ray or streaming. My wife and I will watch this movie the moment it comes out on Blu-ray. However, she and her friend may go see it in the theater.
4
So it's the white male misogynist strikes again! This is a good example of the progressive 'cancel culture' Bret Stevens and other journalists are warning the progressive left about.
Some female writer in Brooklyn who is also apparently a film critic--and somehow has the ability to channel all mankind's insight and opinion about a movie that maybe-just maybe-with the holidays and other streaming or theater release options---we just really 'aren't that into'...and it's poor Greta.
And she gets a front page Times article out of it? ...
Whatever.
21
Let’s face it. The whole country, including both men and women, has been dumbed down. And Hollywood should take most of the blame for it’s own inevitable demise.
3
In a similar vein, I've always believed that if the book "The Help" had been about anything other than "colored" domestics, it would have won all the prizes!! It was powerful, gripping, and inspiring, but the subjects were just the wrong sex and the wrong color.
2
I'm a woman and seriously cannot stand these kind of male bashing essays. Also, I have no interest in seeing this movie.
29
@V
I hope you've at least read the book. If not, you're missing something.
I don't care for the male bashing either, but it's better than the days when we'd be constantly dismissed and reminded that our role is just to smile and be pretty, don't you think? Or, maybe you're just not old enough to know what it was like.
2
Enough of this endless barrage of identity politics. The movie is getting a fine reception. In 2019, that any literary film would come in third at the box office is a miracle.
22
This sentiment, from an undoubtedly born-rich white woman, is the stuff Trump's reelection is made of.
18
My politics are left but I have to say liberals are such a tiresome sanctimonious humorless bunch so much of the time.Stop looking for ways to criticize men all the time it's so boring and counter productiive. If you want to go see the movie fine and it you don't fine.
27
Watched "The Irishman" and "The Marriage Story" in the comfort of my living room. Loved both. I was not distracted by the constant chatter of other patron. I have no intention of seeing this chick flick until I can watch is in the quiet of my living room.
4
@MA Harry, I agree with watching movies in the quiet, and pausable living room. I've found that the audiences at movies are far too rude for my enjoyment of the film experience.
However, I have loved being part of a movie experience when the audience reacts to the movie. Such as when Spock walked onto the bridge of the Enterprise in the first movie.
These days, it's a mixed bag experience.
2
It’s not a chick-flick! Just saying that shows you didn’t get the article, and wouldn’t get the movie...or the book for that matter. An all-female cast does not make it so. The point is that men won’t see movies made by and starring women and as a society we have a problem. It’s staring us in the face...
1
seeing some original material would be great. so far, it's all gender flipping old movies or remaking standards. why doesn't Greta Gerwhig direct something written by women from today? an Ann Patchett film would be neat. The Commonwealth has wonderful characters, both female and male. also, it's not just the balance of gender power on paper that matters. the product has to be good! for instance, Ghostbusters was bad. am I supposed to pretend that it wasn't funny? that the immense talents of the actors were wasted??
There's no doubt sexism alive and well. I truly hope my daughter experiences less of it than my wife and mother.
That said, stereotypes and generalizations of men will not solve the problem. I am a man. I saw the film. I rather enjoyed it.
7
"Who wouldn’t write a book for money?"
Melville, who could have kept churning out popular South seas romances, but chose instead to create a masterpiece, and after the failure of his subsequent novel, wasted his most productive years working in the customs office.
6
Balderdash to all who complain about "Little Women" for various reasons: male, not white, too many versions made, and so forth. Greta wanted to do it, had the moola, did it, and while I will not go to a metroplex to see it, I would like to view it. I loved it when I was a young girl, along w/Nancy Drew, and I still favor it to the nth degree over the loud, violent, stupid futuristic/dystopian Spam served up for males. Or do females like those flics too? I'm an old white chick and like movies that show our humanity, perhaps our inhumanity, but in some sort of dramatic way sans noise, war-materiel, and horror so that that is saved for the real world with its many battlefields--Iraq, Yemen, Syria--and the wrenching sight of tents for refugees everwhere.
4
Girlie movies, chick lit not interesting me.
2
The fact that Star Wars (a female led movie) beat this movie isn't a sign of sexism run amok. It's a sign that Star Wars is popular.
7
i was def planning to see it. period society pieces are a welcomed variety for this film aficionado.
based on this article i am worried it is “ innovative” or outright carrying a message for us not woke enough. hope not, but reducing my expectation.
3
A whole lot of women dismiss football. No surprise.
7
Isn't it possible that some of the lack of interest has something to do with the fact that Little Women has been adapted for TV 12 times, and remade almost every decade since the silent era?
Am I wrong to say that men went to see Erin Brockovich, Thelma and Louise, Norma Rae, Hannah and Her Sisters, Black Swan, Gone Girl, Working Girl, There Colours-Blue-red and White, Amelie, Silkwood, Run Lola Run...etc, etc, etc.... ???
10
I for one understand why men just aren’t interested in this story. Just like I gag when they go on and on about the cornball “Field of Dreams”.
3
@RVB: I have a high sentimentality threshold...and even I couldn't take "Field of Dreams."
1
As the father of three daughters in their 20s, each unique but clearly related, and who clearly love each other, all involved in the arts but each with their own unique focus, who discuss art and politics and life with each other, I am thrilled by the Little Women trailer and cant wait to see it.
4
My wife and I, boomers both, love great films of all sorts. From anywhere. Recommended Little Women to my millenial daughter and son as a fine film, without even thinking of qualifying it ('... by a female director about...females."). Didn't even think of this as a chick flick until I read this article. I also laughed a lot at Bridesmaids. Looking forward to 1917 as is my wife. Is this really headline stuff? Hold the presses.
2
I never read the book because the plot just didn't sound interesting. I haven't seen any of the movies spawned by the book either. Even as a tomboy, science nerd girl Little Women held no interest for me. I also haven't read Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Fried Green Tomatoes or the Color Purple.
Come to think of it I don't read much fiction at all because I prefer non-fiction. I was much more interested in biographies of Madam Curie or science journals. Those were the inspiration for this female to take on a male dominated areas of study and feel comfortable there.
Just because a movie gets good reviews and then comes up short in awards nominations doesn't mean anything more than other films had a better 'vote for me' campaign (because that's what it comes down to, right?). Besides, we hear the laments every year - that worthy films were shut out of awards or slighted by not being nominated at all.
2
I love Little Women and am eager to take my mom to see it. I will leave my teen son home. He has zero interest in the movie and I am not going to pay the ridiculous ticket prices to force march a kid to see what he doesn’t want to see.
Why is it that some of us are encouraged to follow our interests and inclinations wherever they may lead us no matter how ridiculous, counter cultural, etc. whereas others of us MUST eat our peas no matter what. If a guy doesn’t want to watch a movie or read a book why is it somehow incumbent upon him to do so anyway in support of the sisterhood? If the movie is good enough and universally appealing enough, it will attract men and women and non-binary persons, etc. If not, it will attract those who CHOOSE to see it. We like choice, don’t we?
10
what if men don't like it because this version is badly written and the last version with Susan Sarandon was beautiful
8
Why is there a need for male approval of this performance? Or even to see it?
The author seems to write in a desperate tone——like anyone really needs to taut the powerful, amazing actors in this movie?
Relax, its entertainment— people will see it if they want to.
8
"It may be that on its surface, 'Little Women' doesn’t seem as fresh and progressive, comparatively. Maybe men feel it’s too familiar . . ."
Yet we embrace and praise The Irishman, yet another aging gangster drama. I don't think it's that Little Women feels too familiar. Human beings like 'familiar,' to a fault. It's confronting our own conditioning that we're uncomfortable with.
2
I saw it and didn’t love it. I couldn’t suspend my disbelief that a respectable young woman would stay in a co-ed boardinghouse in 1870s New York—and other anachronisms. There was too much swirling activity and not a moment of quiet, which seems the way movies are, more and more — although this is mostly a story of 19th century small town/country living. I never read the book, and maybe familiar scenes would be more evocative for those who have. The characters were for me flat, underdeveloped.
6
My Mom gave me this book 77 years ago. As a very normal 7 year old boy, I treasured it then, and it’s still on my bookshelf now, at age 84, along with many other books more recently acquired.
I think the comparison with other stories like Moby Dick is absurd. Must we endlessly analyze opportunities for women back then? Or could we not simply treasure the contributions of each author as they came along.
After all, the Bronte sisters turned out some pretty good tales in their time — and along with Alcott enriched the lives of many young readers, boys and girls alike.
11
I liked "Anna" way more.
Some women, like myself, have a Greta Gerwig problem. When a woman defends Woody Allen (with Saoirise Ronan nodding along silently at her side as I remember), it’s hard to look at them the same way again. The term ‘bad feminist’ is controversial, but the fact that Greta Gerwig might be one should be considered before we chalk her movie’s failures up to her womanhood.
1
@KS
why not defend Woody Allen of unfounded allegations that have been thoroughly investigated?
1
First of all, it's completely fine if many or even most men don't like a certain type of film/novel/play. Just as it's completely fine if most women do not like a certain type of film/novel/play. Why do we need to change people's tastes and opinions?
Second, it's just a movie. Surely we all have something better to do than devote precious time to griping about certain groups movie tastes. There are half a million homeless Americans right now in and around our major cities. Maybe that's a more valuable place to focus our energies.
10
Saw Little Women yesterday with my brother and my son, both of whom thought it was great.
3
So help me understand this. There are only so many hours in the day and so many years in a given life, so I have to make some choices. Option 1: Search through the literature to find out if there are any gender differences among those determinants of risk factors related to excess morbidity and early mortality in persons with severe psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia; Option 2: Consider what are some options to respond more effectively to the grossly disproportionately high numbers of Aboriginal/First Nations women - and girls - living on the streets in my community; Option 3: fret about poor reception by Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild for a film that 'objectively' deserves more award nominations because it possesses the qualities that voters look for, e.g., an A-list cast (though I cannot tolerate one of those cast members) it is directed by someone whose qualifications as a director stem from the fact that she was once an actress, and the source material is beloved - by some. Well, there we have it - all the facts, so if the film is not better received, it must be because of prejudice. I cannot applaud or dismiss the film because I have not see it. I can dismiss the opinion piece, which I read, if for no other reason than it casts an intellectually effete shadow across a very real set of issues.
Or stated in slightly different terms - given what is going on in the world these days, who really cares about the reception of this film?
11
@Little Albert
I wish you would expand on "intellectually effete."
I saw this movie yesterday, and while it was well done and the actors were wonderful I still fell asleep.
My wife enjoyed it and sometimes that's all that matters but I do wish I stayed home and finished watching The Witcher on netflix.
I don't have a lot of free time to spend on a movie or series so I have to choose something that I will find enjoyable. Even if it is poorly reviewed.
7
A vast majority of both men and women have chosen not to see this movie. But only those men who've chosen not to see it are the target of the columnist's contempt.
If she peels the demographic onion back one more layer to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, I'd imagine she'd realize how condescending her stereotyping and criticism actually is. Or would she tell any other slice that under-indexes what they should think and like?
Art isn't for everyone. And that's OK.
15
I'm sure men will find the movie frightening; it was written in an area when men were the bread earners and took responsibility for their own children.
7
If I hadn't thought to see it before, I do now.
Seems to me there are people who would rather lose an arm than see a woman in the White House or head of something deemed important. Anyone but a woman. It's as if females aren't perceived as fully human. The female experience appears denigrated. It's the elephant in the room that is denied. If transgenderism was an issue when I was growing up in a midwest male dominated household, I wonder if I would have considered jumping at the brass ring to shed the perceived lesser role of female. I'm glad to be me and looking forward to the movie.
1
[[One of its producers, Amy Pascal, told the magazine she believes many male voters have avoided it because of an “unconscious bias.”]]
No. It's a conscious bias, but not against women.
A costume period movie in which people talk (endlessly) about their feelings and dreams? The only way you're getting a man to the theater is at gunpoint, and even then he'd probably rather take a bullet.
[[In some ways, we live in a different, more progressive era where recent onscreen stories by and about women have been highly regarded: the Emmy-winning “Fleabag”; the crowd-pleasing “Hustlers”...]]
Is "crowd-pleasing" an insult? Hustlers is sexy, exciting and modern. What about the complaint that older women can't get a foot in the door in Hollywood? There's JLo at 50 (!). Isn't that a victory for women? And what about the lack of diversity in Hollywood? Isn't Hustlers a victory for women of color?
[[If many men haven’t wanted to give it a chance because they don’t think it’s meant for them, we still have a way to go in considering all kinds of narratives about women to be deserving of thoughtful attention.]]
You sound like you're woman-splaining to men that they're not bright enough to know what they want.
Not everything means everything. Sometimes something means nothing. When Little Women flops out of the theaters, it won't be because of some unconscious bias. It will be because it's out of step with what people want.
Period. Peace out.
8
Victimhood is a powerful thing, and it shines through this piece of hand-picked grievances, both racist and sexist.
The charges of "unconscious bias" that appear are attacks that can't be defended against; whether the "bias" is real or not is a matter of opinion and motive. It suits the author's objectives here, though.
I'm the father of two daughters and I want them to be happy and unconstrained by custom, tradition, prejudice, etc. But, sexual dimorphism is real. None of us would be here without it. Everybody is different, but generally, men and women make different choices.
This version of "Little Women" is very highly rated and I'd like to see it, but this piece gives me second thoughts. Is this movie a paean to 21st century political correctness, racism against "white" people, and misandry?
13
At the end of "The Irishman" I felt as many men feel about "Little Women." I don't think there is a phrase for movies about men and their worlds that is analogous to "chick flick." it's a mark of where we are in our culture that exclusively male movies can be blockbusters but ones that are just about women are often marginalized, trivialized and seen mostly by females.
5
@ElizabethKeller
**I don't think there is a phrase for movies about men and their worlds that is analogous to "chick flick."**
There isn't one because most movies are about men and their world, how they see the world or what they want to see. "Chick flicks" are the exception therefore the need to point at them (if only to avoid men watching them by mistake).
2
You've got to be kidding me! Men can like what they like and women can do the same. The author is inventing drama that doesn't exist. As a woman who works in a male-dominated field, I fully embrace all of the positive changes that are happening in the modern era, but to imply that men being dismissive of Little Women equates to some sort of misogyny is ridiculous. I don't think anyone would label me as anti-male because I have zero interest in watching Blade, Die Hard, Rambo, etc. Men should be given the same benefit of the doubt.
15
As someone who has supported women candidates, fought for feminist priorities, and promoted women in the workplace, I am fed up with the lazy man-bashing, knee-jerk angry man-blaming, and faux feminist denials of women's OWN contributions to current social problems, that I am beginning to understand what was once unfathomable: The support for the miserable Donald Trump. That is not to say I would ever support Trump, but I do now better understand why some identify with him as a means of opposition to this ridiculous stream of misandry.
13
Why does this work of art keep resonating? Not for all of us. I am tried of the eternal list of "coming of age" stories of little girls. Yes, I was a little girl but I am now a grown woman and still stuck with these little girl movies and books. Maybe more books movies, etc., would gain approval from men . Of course all they seem to care about is athletes and men of action. Silly adolescent humor continues to keep them "pacified". Is society at large keeping us in our infantile, childish parts of life. There is a lot more out here and much more interesting than little girls clinging to Mama.
2
The producers of "Little Women" love this article: any publicity is good publicity because it keeps the film in the forefront when considering what films to see.
1
Why in heavens' name do you refer to it as an "unconscious bias" when it is not unconscious at all?
7
Many film critics get caught in cultural undercurrent of political correctness. Little Women, like the film, Lady Bird are films that fall into this category.
3
This article really sounds like sour grapes to me, ‘my movie did not get nominated, therefore I blame men’.
Just because your favorite movie of the year was not a hit with the guys and gals who hand out awards, does not make it a bad movie, or a snubbed good movie. Or a reason to blame men.
In every race, there’s losers, yours is one of them. Live with it and move on. Trust me, in real life, there are no trophies for showing up, and no, not every one goes home with a trophy and a juice box.
8
I watched movie and felt it is too Jane Austeny.
@Ugly and Fat Git
Which in my book is always a good thing. Now I want to see it more.
I remember business parties back in the 80's where the men were sneering about "chick flicks".
Since those men had no other opinion except for the glory of "Hooters", I always checked out the ones they were sneering at.
Sorry that things haven't changed since the 80's in this country. Those were creepy times and filled with creepy men.
Today, those men are largely gone: obese, hooked on their meds or booze (still), divorced and their children still don't like them. And, neither do their nurses at the old folks home.
Don't listen to such men.
And, I understand there's a whole new batch out there?
Well, of course there are.
They are the children of the men I just wrote about.
Apples and trees...?
See the movie, read the book.
Have a better new year.
5
On the contrary, I blame Greta Gerwig and Columbia Pictures for running an exclusionary and marginalising ad campaign which made no effort to make ‘Little Women’ appealing to all the men Ms. Eldredge accuses of ‘dismissing’ the movie. No, Ms. Eldredge, men are not dismissing the movie. Men have been shut out of it altogether!
I watched the trailer, Ms. Eldredge. I could count the number of explosions on the fingers of one hand. When I scan the cast list on IMDB, do I see Joe Pesci? No I do not. I search in vain for Tom Hardy, Jason Statham, and even a wordless cameo from Dan Bilzerian, but again and again I am bitterly disappointed. It’s almost like I’m not part of the movie’s intended audience.
While Mses. Pugh, Ronan, Scanlan and Watson are all gifted actresses, at no point in ‘Little Women’ are they called upon to defuse a bomb, wield a sniper rifle, or even crush so much as a single Irish gangster’s head in a vice. Why not? Why is this movie so bereft of elements I find entertaining?
I can only conclude this is a deliberate ploy to “other” men such as myself who don’t really enjoy period dramas. Otherwise, we’d surely have turned up in droves!
Shame on all involved!
Edit: Turns out Bilzerian is in it.
4
Women faced purity tests in Alcott’s day. I guess we haven’t evolved much if men are “canceled” when not “woke” enough to like this movie.
9
Actually, apparently Louisa May Alcott rejected "Little Women" and thought it mindless "pap". I found "Ladybird" unwatchable and I have no intention of trying "Little Women". Maybe it is the fact that it's not a worthwhile story that makes some people not like it...
3
Not sure what the point of this article is. Did the author think men were the target audience for this production? Men haven't flocked to see Little Women. So what. Seriously, just once I'd like to see an opinion piece in the NYTs written by a man with the theme, "The problem with women is.." Now THAT would be woke.
5
So tiresome. Barely ever go to the movies any more because it's an expensive unpleasant experience. When I DO go, I never watch westerns. Don't usually watch love stories, if that's all they're about. Can't stand movies based on driving too fast and shooting people. I don't go to these movies because they don't interest me.
Ironically, having seen the Katharine Hepburn version -- and having enjoyed it -- I was considering maybe seeing Little Women now that I have a little time off. Now I realize it's my sacred duty to go, and to love it and accept it uncritically. Giving it a 73% can only mean one thing: I'm a bigot.
I wonder if Kristy Eldredge likes football or if she hates men?
So tiresome.
8
Can I please be disinterested in this movie without being accused of being a horrible person? I could also care less about all of the action hero movies, if that makes you feel better.
8
Really? Is the author that surprised that a quintessential chick flick made from THE quintessential chick lit fails to muster up much enthusiasm from teenage fanboys? She shouldn’t be.
As to the male-centric Academy and foreign press slighting what by all accounts are strong performances and a talented director, well welcome to the monkeyhouse. Until those organizations revamp their membership and voting rules, that will continue.
3
What a silly article. People have tastes.
This man loved watching the grit of Sigourney Weaver fighting Aliens, the power of Cersei in Westeros, and the lethal acrobatic skill of the Black Widow. I could go on. And I love the male versions of these heroes as well. Those are my movie tastes - call it popcorn escapism. But I don’t resent anyone watching different genres. I don’t call out women (or men) for watching them or not. Watch the movie and share your enthusiasm. Celebrate it. People will come (or won’t, you can’t control them and shouldn’t try).
When it comes to literature - I wrote a thesis on Virginia Woolf. She was simply the best author I had read up until that time. Didn’t matter to me that there were no aliens, guns or evil plots. She was simply an eye opener at the time. People have tastes.
But for themes which need energy and real debate in the NYT - surely the decline of representative democracy, the fracturing of the world economic system established since WW2, and the acceleration of Climate Change are more important topics than whether enough men want to watch a particular genre of movie.
I think (hopefully right) that the vast majority of NYT readers are not engaged in a war of the sexes. It really isn’t the demographic. Even the atheists here are probably praying for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health!
Rising seas will swamp us all. A partisan Supreme Court will set us back an age. Movies will get an award or not. Two of these things really matter.
10
Leave Little Women alone and stop trying to stuff your political correctness down our throats!
My favorite version (true to the book) is the one with Elizabeth Taylor as Amy (a selfish little minx just as the book describes her), etc.
IF I have to watch a newer version, the one with Susan Sanandon as Marmee is tolerable.
I do not want dialog added to a file that Alcott did not write - go make up a new movie if that is what you want to preach.
8
It would be far more interesting for us to read a positive piece about the value of Gerwig's work, which I personally have trouble grasping, than to sit there on your moral high horse and blame others for what you perceive as failure. Further to this point, Little Women is no more "about women only" than Moonlight is "about gay black men only". Stories are for everyone to share in, and we find our humanity in the identifiable conflict we see on screen -- irregardless of the specificity of the object, be it a robot, a little woman, a man, a spider or a goose -- stories work when they work because they work. Weaponizing righteous identity politics into a bullet of blame makes an otherwise important cause seem like a pathetic divisive whine and is bad for the cause of humanity rather than good.
Who cares about this blame? Is it worth the anger and division it engenders? Has it helped NYT get attention?
I hope Gerwig succeeds wildly in the future on her works merits.
2
I believe I’m a good, red-blooded American male, and I didn’t see Fast and Furious, Rambo, or many other male-themed, adrenaline-rush movies, and no one is writing what a travesty that is.
8
I hope woman have progressed far enough that they no longer go to a movie they don't want to see because their male companion picked it out and that they don't insist their male companions go see a movie they don't want to see. Little Women is a women's movie why would you expect a male audience. If you want a male audience make an action film try Little Women Ninjas and blow up a lot of things kill a lot of people but don't harm any animals.
An aside, how many little girls wanted to see Sgt. Stubby: An American Hero instead of Frozen.
I'll probably go see it. But I do wonder why Hollywood and other film industry centers keep remaking classic literature. I realize it's because it's a business and remakes of successful movies usually make money. There's so much good and even great literature out there that hasn't been done over and over again on the screen. I'd like to see more of that. Maybe the filmmakers are just not all that imaginative. Maybe it's too much work do put literature on the screen. Maybe it's too risky with the big money it takes to do it.
5
My sister is a lifetime Little Women fan, but she also did not like this version. A film that needs too much explanation (endless complex interviews on tv ahead of the opening) has a problem not related to gender.
7
Once again, I am lumped in with the mythical monolith "men". I saw Little Women yesterday with my wife and another couple. All four of us, yes including the "men" thought the movie fantastic. I enjoyed all of Ms. Gerwig's story choices, including the modernized ending. I grow very weary of an entire gender being judged and categorized like this. It's true this movie will appeal to more women than men. So what. When can we just be allowed to satisfy our own, individual tastes?
7
So if a woman dismisses an action film should we dismiss her opinion?
10
Increasingly it seems that movies are made for young males. Most women my age wouldn't spend ten cents to sit through a super hero adventure or car crash extravaganza.
I don't think what can be most accurately described as moviegoers' personal preferences demands cultural analysis or criticism of one particular segment of society for lack of interest in a story that just doesn't appeal to them.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is THE explanation.
5
@Patricia
Most women my age wouldn't spend ten cents to sit through a super hero adventure or car crash extravaganza
I am a man, and I did not sit for these kind of movies when I was a young man. Please don't generalize. It is true that movie business is about money, and they target an audience (young women too!), but you should take into account individual preferences.
1
On Christmas Day, in a crowded multiplex, I watched this movie alongside a middleaged husband whose wife was sitting on his other side. As the movie unrolled I could feel him getting restless. Finally, when it's revealed that Laurie has married Jo's sister Amy (who earlier almost drowns in a skating pond), he said, quietly but clearly, to his wife, "She shoulda left her sister under the ice." His remark was so clearly heartfelt, I had to laugh. I wasn't a huge fan of the movie (like many commenters, I prefer the Gillian Armstrong version), and I particularly didn't like Florence Pugh as Amy, but IMO no woman would ever have said anything as straightforward and--don't sue me--male as this guy's comment.
4
While I am always curious what Greta Gerwig is up to, and made it a point to see "Lady Bird" in a theater shortly after its release, count me among the humans of any gender who are exhausted by the rehashing and rebranding of easily-recognizable brand names when it comes to cinema.
I'm not gonna go see a remake. I'm not gonna go see an unnecessary expansion of some "universe" I care nothing about. Finally, I'm not gonna go see an adapation of a popular piece of literature that was just adapted 20 years ago.
I trust that it's a perfectly fine film, but I just don't care about another remake or revised adaptation.
6
I thought I'd take a miss on Frozen 2, a clear case of reverse ageism.
It's this sort of opinion piece that makes me want to stand on principle and not see this movie even though I was happily intending to do so with my wife.
As for the awards, could it be that this remake, however well done, has little relevance or import in today's environment, where writers, starved of something worth saying, do their best to make a name for themselves by exploiting reasonable divisions of interest, creating divisive paradigms where none need be.
5
Little Women was my favorite book during my childhood in the 1950's. It was the first book I read which took me on an emotional journey; I became outraged when Laurie married Amy, instead of Jo, for instance. Growing up, I watched two film versions of this book on television: The one with Katharine Hepburn and the other starring June Allyson. My favorite version is the one starring Wynona Ryder, because it humanizes Amy and allows you to root for her and Laurie. I even own the DVD, which I've watched numerous times. So, I have no plans to go see this latest version, because, to be honest, I really don't see the point in visiting this story yet again. In addition, I don't feel a person doesn't want to see a movie, based on their gender. Sometimes, it's just because they're not interested in a particular story. Period.
8
"if Twitter is any indication" -- there's the problem with modern journalism in a nutshell. Twitter is often the only indication. I don't, in fact, see anything in this article that really makes the case that there is more male hostility/indifference to Little Women than to other similar movies. There's a reason that there's a genre called chick flicks, and that's because they're made and marketed to women.
Having only seen the trailer, I know there's one thing that bugged the heck out of me. The music for a 1860s dance should not be by Dvořák!
7
who cares?
8
@Wonder Boy There have now been nearly 900 comments and counting. Talk about an unintentionally funny comment!
Here's a "Times Pick" comment in its entirety:
"More proof that the male gaze needs corrective lenses to see beyond its very self-absorbed interests."
If that is not blatant, ugly sexism; what is! What has happened to this newspaper?
18
It's a brilliant movie, deserving all the plaudits it has received. On the other hand, I am not interested at all in going to see any of the megaMarvel type things. So long as movies offer a plurality of viewing experiences overall, with different perspectives, then that's OK with me. But let's enjoy this one for what it is: a fresh take with terrific performances in a first-class production. No one is forced to watch anything.
3
of course men go to see hustlers. Jennifer Lopez pole dancing, lesbians, lap dancing...reminds me of the popularity of Pretty Woman in its day. 🤔
4
When I had no desire to see Brokeback Mountain I was actually accused of being homophobic by people who know me better, it just did not interest me (not big on love stories). When I go camping or canoeing with some friends, as I have for forty years, the women I tell this about generally smile knowingly and mumble something about male bonding even though the male(s) I go with are men I have known for decades, long since bonded and unbonded then back again etc. Now I'm being again grouped into that group of what my ex called "male jerks" because I have no desire to see this flick (possibly in part because every time I turned on NPR it seemed Ms Gerwig was discussing this movie). Hey, I LOVE Fried Green Tomatoes and think LadyBird was terrific but the fact is, if I'm going to spend a fortune to see a movie it'll be a movie you kind of need to see in the movies, maybe Midway (yeah, war and bombs and spectacle!). I can catch this on tv one of these days, nothing pressing or compelling about it to me, but hey, I'm just a man, or is it male jerk, so what do I know?
5
Going to the movies anymore is a pain in the rear. Cost alone makes you choose carefully. Old material even done in new ways is a hard sell. You can’t make people like something. Everyone that has seen this story has their favorite version and will judge this against that. It’s like trying to make everybody root for one sports team. Give it a rest already.
3
Because a lot of us read the book in college. And it sucked. Austin herself panned it as sappy moralism.
4
@A2Sparty . . . Searle didn't love it either.
The comments about men preferring lots of action in movies reminds me of a statement printed on a crew member's T-shirt in the early 1980s cult classic, "The Stunt Man."
It read:
"To Hell With Dialogue. Let's Blow Something Up!"
2
It’s so frustrating that there is an implicit need for male approval before something is deemed successful. Men don’t like it? Well, that sure sucks for them. Do we really need white males to bestow accolades upon women? No, we don’t. We ought to build our own pantheon.
8
I am highly sympathetic to the arguments in this article, but I think it is premature until there is more data on box office performance and who is seeing the movie. If you want to go with anecdotes, there were plenty of men in the theater when I saw it. I am sure more women than men will see it, but I don’t know if the difference will be so extreme that it indicates hostility.
Also, the Golden Globes are a joke. That’s a shame about SAG though. Maybe the movie suffered from having an ensemble cast, though Ronan was excellent in the lead.
I loved the movie, FWIW.
1
Oh, please. Another divisive article from the Times blaming poor (fill in the blanks: reviews; acclaim; attendance; sales) on (fill in the blanks: sexism, racism; class differences; wealth discrepancy.) Sometimes a piece of work can just be bad on its own merits.
12
I think it is being overlooked because it is trite and cloying. The only thing going for it is a wonderful source novel and great acting talent. The script and directing is awful. The sisters together with their hand holding, skipping, pillow fighting and giggling are about as stereotyped as girls can get ..... talk about an anti woman bias!!!! Chalamet, a great actor, is once again begging for love with his half teary bedroom eyes ... as he does in EVERY movie he has ever been in!!! This story should have been updated for the modern world with real characters and development rather than just rehashing the same story that has been done a dozen times already. Not a terrible movie experience overall.... but hardly and award winner!
6
De gustibus non disputandum est, waddayagonnado?
3
I’m sure it’s a lovely film. Maybe when it hits Netflix or Amazon Prime I’ll watch it. But I’m *just not interested* in seeing it. Can’t that be OK, rather than a flaw in the male psyche?
336
@Matt If it were one man, and one film, it would be no big deal. But it's the whole film industry, where men dominate the positions of power.
45
@Blonde Guy
But you must concede that the film industry, regardless of who dominates it, is driven by the pursuit of profit. They'll chase it wherever they think it is to be found.
16
@Matt Go see it; it will change the way you think about women and their stories. You will be "woke."
13
All the gay men I know are simply dying to see it! No problem for us.
5
As a male planning to see this, I wonder if the author’s specific argument doesn’t subvert her larger intentions.
Ms. Eldredge dichotomizes 19th century stories into men confronting the wilderness, or women’s love triangles and domestic dramas. Perhaps, although I’m uncertain where to fit writers from Hawthorne and Ibsen through Tolstoy, Dickens, and James.
But even if one accepts the dichotomy, why does it have to structure the rest of the author’s argument? Eg, we 21st century men don’t appreciate domestic drama. We don’t appreciate these characters’ intellectual curiosity. We don’t enjoy narratives about what it is to be human.
Perhaps. However, Hollywood and Broadway were built on domestic dramas that melded a crisis or a bit of offstage action to propel the action. Go rewatch “Grapes of Wrath,” or “Gone with the Wind.”
More salient is that Ms. Eldredge’s dichotomy negates Hollywood’s female confrontations with physical danger, with the wild. Meryl Streep, Emma Watson and Saoirse Ronan might take exception. (As might Charlize Theron.)
Her dichotomy, like the novel, requires female characters’ intellectual fulfillment to be satisfied by the arts. Which ultimately reinforces Victorian stereotypes about women being guardians of civilization, the innately aesthetic sex.
So I embrace Ms. Eldredge’s POV, but I worry she shoots her argument in the foot. Just go see the movie, with its superb actors and direction. Don’t burden it with questionable meta-narratives.
3
I am a feminist, a female author and a filmmaker.
I walked out of this film. It is truly awful. It is nauseatingly sugary and stupid.
20
@Rax
... and a filmmaker.
I would appreciate if you could give a more detailed critique of this movie purely as a film, ignoring any of sociological concept.
2
@Rax I completely agree. I went there expecting something good - i walked out also. Completely superficial, it never comes alive and seems like an outdated cartoon from the start.
2
The issue of male and female perspectives on being human sometimes perplexes me. Are there not universal themes we can all share? While I concede Moby Dick is a great novel that requires multiple readings to absorb its breadth and depth, and Little Women is not, I, for one, love them both.
That said, perhaps my being a woman shows up in the fact that even after closely studying Moby Dick with a (male) Moby Dick scholar, I remained firmly on the side of the whale.
3
@Emile
Maybe you need to be an old man to know really what the whale represents.
@Emile
**Are there not universal themes we can all share?**
No, women are supposed to share/be interested on/study male themes. Or themes that interest men. But female themes or themes that interest women are dismissed as unimportant, uninteresting or non-existing.
1
Women are dimssing men's college football and Nascar races. Quit call the self appointed PC police. Americans are exercising their freedom.
10
Why not wait to stream it? Is this a big screen must see?
It's a MAH-VELOUS movie. The acting, the writing, the music, the costuming are all first rate. You care about the characters. It presents the very real obstacles women had (have) pursuing their dreams; how limiting life's choices can be for women.
3
I’m a man who saw it and loved it. I will confess that the opening scenes gave me a sinking feeling—like I had stepped into the wrong restroom. But the feeling went away as the story took off.
3
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
12
Little Storm in a Teacup.
7
A suggestion for changing your title; "Some men...".
Don't tar us all for the sins of a few.
4
@Emeritus Bean
"and some women ..." Women are not a monolith, either.
People still go to movie theaters?
4
Maybe we should just let people see what they want to see and not get all bent out of shape about why dudes don't want to spend 2+ hours watching a chick flick - well acted and beautiful as it may be. I am a vocal feminist. I don't need men to like this movie. Time is precious, if people want to spend their limited liesure hours not at this movie I don't blame them. How about if we start conceptualizing equality as being more accepting of others choices and leaving eachother be?
9
I daresay there are many men who think "Little Women", and its "plea for women to treated as human beings", might have been a thought-provoking or even necessary work of literature in 19th and 20th Century America, but in these days of gender equity and the MeToo Movement it and its screen adaptations are dated, irrelevant and tiresome. I'd go even further to say that within this last bastion of believers in male supremacy and superiority are men who think similarly about the irrelevance of "Uncle Tom's Cabin". However loathe we are to admit it, the fact is that the terrible discriminatory treatment and psychological abuse that women and black Americans suffered at the hands of white male America has still not ended. So it should not be surprising that white male Americans do not enjoy being reminded of the rebarbative behavior of their forbears, whether in books or op-eds, on TV and film screens, or by rare, honest and courageous politicians. This discomfort might account for at least some of the lack of enthusiasm for this film or those of Tarantino, Spielberg, Duvernay and others about the history of women and blacks in America.
1
Did the author of this article also right its title? There is not a single quote in it and which any man dismisses the movie in anyway whatsoever
7
No man problem here. I went, I saw, I crowed. Excellent. Five stars. Recommended highly. Four strong, intelligent, and yes beautiful women, making their varied ways in a less-than-ideal world — what’s not to like? (& what must be wrong with me?)
3
@Chuck Fager
... strong, intelligent, and yes beautiful women.
women that are not beautiful don't star in Hollywood movies, feminist or not.
1
I don't have any interest in going to the theater for this film though it's possible I'll catch it on cable. Being from the area where it was filmed I'd be curious to see how well time and place are evoked.
My wife has no interest at all in seeing 1917 so I'll see that in the theater by myself.
We're both fine with that. Neither of us feels negatively judged by the other. Nobody's value or existence is being erased.
That this movie is drawing more attention, on average, from women than men is neither surprising nor problematic.
4
Having not yet seen the recent movie treatment of "Little Women" I can't really comment on its approach to the book.
However, one thing about this article that struck a chord was a sense that the writer is seeking out male approval for the film. It's as though we, as women, can't really have full enjoyment of our successes or claims to life unless we are given male permission of some sort--as though we're not fully formed as adult women.
Seeking to do or say or write or create on our own terms gives much more authenticity to our lives as women, something which it sounds like the character Joe was trying to explain in her wish to have been born a boy--men seem to be unburdened from a need for approval from women, one aspect of being free that Joe may have wanted in her own life.
6
To be fair—I, a woman, am not interested in most movies that are implicitly or explicitly marketed toward a male audience (e.g., Marvel). What we need is fair representation across all groups, including women and minorities, in voting bodies like the Academy. I think that would do a better job of ensuring that films marketed to all audiences, not just white and male audiences, receive a fair shake during awards season.
6
I am 73. My sister and I were raised by our single working mother. As a young person I knew and often had to declare
that women are people.
4
Once you convince yourself that misogyny is everywhere, you see it everywhere. It becomes your "unconscious bias," and you become so convinced of it that, at the same time you're shaming other people about not examining their biases, you never have to examine yours.
It works beautifully.
17
Yep.
2
I'm a straight, middle-aged, married man. I wasn't "dragged" to see this, but was encouraged by the great reviews. And those reviews were entirely well-deserved. I see movies about gay men, adventurers, aliens, super heroes, average Joes, and, gasp, women -- I identify with only one of those categories personally, but I can enjoy, be entertained by, and learn from all of them. Men afraid of seeing this, or simply thinking they'll be bored, are simply making a mistake. And guys, bring some tissues with you.
4
Better questions yield better answers. Alcott was not a great writer, but she worked hard at it and deserves credit. She rightly disliked "Little Women" for being boring and bourgeois. But the book, and esp. the movie had an intimacy and intrepidity about it that tracked the various young women's responses to the conditions that women generally found themselves in. I was moved by their closeness and their attempt to make it in their own ways.
But the Alcott family was part of a great transcendentalist radical tradition and this effort is NOT radical. This family was forced to move continuously because of their political philosophy and radical orientation. They strongly believed in deep education for women and were powerful voices against slavery and economic injustice, esp toward women and people of color. In this they joined the Emersons, Thoreau's, etc.
Luisa May was against marriage because it forced women to be chattel--her possible bi-sexuality further involves the radical politics- The director tries to finesse all this; I'm not really blaming her--she made a beautiful story and keeps dignity intact. But their isn't enough of the fire for living up to what America might have been. That the Patriarchy was alive and well is obvious in "Little Women." But that it still runs America is not. Art is always about the present. The radical spirit of the Alcott's is still needed, more than ever, not transcendental, but immanent: ECOSYSTEMIC and DEMOCRATIC.
1
Saw this wonderful movie on Christmas Day with my daughter and, shockingly, my husband, who is normally all Clint Eastwood/ Die Hard type of movie person. He really liked it. I heard him snorting with laughter at all the right parts.
Go see it guys!
5
Tell you what: I won't berate the women who didn't dig the male bonding in Tarantino's latest, and you leave us males alone for not wanting to see this chick flick.
10
Your choice, but take responsibility for it: you don’t want to see movies with woman leads. Period. If this is how you feel, why do you care if people call you out?
Seriously, settle down. Dudes are so emotional.
1
@Steve
Some women (like myself) didn't di Taratino's latest because he abuses women. If you or someone else is reading this don't know what I'm talking about, google what he did to Uma Thurman.
I also don't go to see movies made by Woody Allen or Roman Polanski.
But unlike most men who would be embarrassed to be caught entering to the theater to see "Little Women" alone, I have no problem going to see all the Avengers, Mission Impossible, Bourne, etc. movies. Even if I'm alone.
1
Oh my... men aren't interested in a dated story and concept. What a surprise.
Are men supposed to fawn at anything that has women in it?
As I recall, more than a few (mostly female) critics panned Dunkirk because it featured almost only men. Yeah, historical facts are sexist. There was also criticism of Joker because it dared to explore the experience of a mentally ill man.
Please stop. I'm not going to be guilted into seeing a movie. Likewise, I don't demand women go to any film, or read any book just because.....
9
‘Dated story and concept’? I trust you will not be partaking in ‘The Rise of Skywalker’.
@Lissa you are correct. The original trilogy was solid. The prequels were terribly done but original.
The current crop of Disney Era films are poor facsimiles of the first two movies. I only saw those because my son wanted to go.
At any rate, if you don't see the latest film, I won't blame you or complain that women don't go to certain films.
Little Women is a chick flick. Guys don’t want to see chick flicks. Simple.
6
Let's not confuse gender and taste. Men who need space battles to be interested in a movie have no taste for subtler films. Art is not gendered. I'm a male and think Gerwig's "Little Women" is a revelation. She re-imagines the book to give it new life and energy. She brilliantly imagines genteel life in mid-19th century New England. She and her team recreate the look of a period, drawing on Winslow Homer (the luscious beach scene), John Singer Sargent portraits, and Seurat and Caillebotte for visualizing Paris. The sum of all of this is a movie that is beautiful and storytelling that is moving.
7
I am a woman of color, and I definitively feel that this movie is not for me. It should be called "Little White Women," which would avoid the false universalization of white experience. It is set at a time when black women were systematically raped and tortured under the institution of slavery--in this context, Jo's frustration at not being taken seriously as an author can hardly be understood as the most urgent instance of women being denied minds and souls.
I understand that all we have to work with Alcott's text, but why tell this story now? And how can this review be so blind to the racial politics of the story as to treat it as only about gender? And to leave out work that does take seriously black women's suffering--not only Stowe's UTC, which is briefly mentioned, but Harriet Jacobs Life of a Slave Girl, which has a lot to say about the different constraints of black and white women.
Or maybe Little Women continues to be produced because it offers white women the moral authority of victimization while keeping them at the center of everything?
586
@nes
Not every book, or movie, or poem, can be about everything.
Mr. March has given away his inheritance to help those less fortunate than he, including former slaves who have come north. The March family is about as enlightened as any family at that time.
And every person's story is worth telling.
423
@nes I run an elementary school library with a very diverse student population. Within the last year, I added two books to the shelves: a graphic novel called Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy: a Modern Retelling of Little Women by Rey Tercerio and a novel called More to the Story by Hena Khan.
Both books are set in modern America. In the graphic novel, the family is a blended multi-racial one and Jo comes out as gay. In More to the Story, the family is Muslim American of Pakistani origin.
Both books are popular among students. The original is not.
55
@nes
Or maybe suffering and struggling to overcome predjudices is universal.
154
I'm not sure which is more cliched, this op ed or the responses to it. Each one shows a person projecting his or her own biases into an argument that at the end of the day is irrelevant. Money is money, so if the movie is good and is making money, who cares who watches it? Based on the critical response to this version of "Little Women" I'm far more concerned with the award snubs than with the gender breakdown of audiences.
2
I have no idea why so many women are obsessed with Meryl Streep
4
Maybe the NYT should write an article about Rambo’s woman problem.
Everything doesn’t have to be for everybody.
18
Women are more interested in the latest "Star Wars" installment.
This article is based on very slim reeds, indeed. It cites two women who claim hostility. No survey of male viewers -- of course, why be fact-based when you can be identity-focused?
In fact, what this article appears to be is a not-so-subtle "look at me and don't you dare not nominate me" ad, aimed at the ever-malleable and ever-so-woke Hollywood crowd.
14
Could it possibly be that Hustlers and Fleabag are recognized by the male establishment more swiftly because they include more explicit sexual behavior and images? An actree has to play a stripper in order to achieve critical acclaim. Again, what a surprise.
6
@Artemisia Why do more women want to see movies starring Hugh Grant than William H. Macy? Could it be that women tend to be drawn more by superficial physical appeal? Macy is one of the world's best actors, after all. Could it be that women too have base interests? Oh wait, no, it couldn't be that because it wouldn't be consistent with the new moral authority claimed exclusively by women.
7
All movies matter! Oh wait, nope.
5
Reason Trump Wins #342, and I bet he won’t go see this film: I was inclined to go see the movie for a million reasons, including my interest in classic literature, film, etc. I lean a bit left. I was in favor of same sex marriage and blah blah blah progressive me... Bit there is still a little dude in me, and that dude feels that this opinion piece is wagging it’s disapproving finger at me and “my kind,” which leads to a bit of hostility on my part towards the film. Yes, I am fully aware that that’s childish, but if lefty me feels the sanctimony in the opinion, imagine how the deplorables would feel if they were forced to read it!
9
Another article starting with : “Men are...”. I am a man and had absolutely no bias or opinion about this topic the author seems to think all men have certain feelings towards. As soon as I saw the title, it made me not want to read the article. Why is it still acceptable to speak like that. “Men are...” “women are...” “blacks are...” “whites are...” it is horrible!
I will keep refusing to engage intellectually with people who think it’s ok to generalise like this in the 21st century. Our societies are much smarter than they were partly thanks to technological revolutions that have swept our landscape in recent decades. It is time for op-Ed writers to catch up!
13
It’s just men hating women. They just want to control women’s bodies. It’s because Trump is in the White House and he tells men it is okay to be this way. Don’t you see?
4
Is it possible that the timeless war horse "Little Women" was at least in part chosen for remake by Ms. Gerwig and her producers because of the very predictable tempest-in-a-teapot publicity that this article exemplifies??
Think beyond the obvious, folks. Hollywood, above all, is a money-making business. I don't see that angle covered in this article.
Hey journalists and your employers: You're witlessly playing right into Hollywood's publicity of cultural "tensions" -- which is quite profitable - when you run stereotypical, umbrage-inducing assessments like this simple-minded article.
7
Another ‘men are bad, because’ piece in the Times. What a surprise.
11
I haven't seen the movie yet, but in the name of domestic harmony, I probably will soon. But in the world I live in, men who treat women like (I've heard) they do in the movie are considered boorish and unwoke. The world has changed enough so the idea of seeing women deal with something that used to be a problem doesn't really interest me.
Then there's the unspoken implication that I might be like those men if I don't like it. If what I like to watch or not is a measure of my wokeness, you just found my limit. I'll go with an open mind and either enjoy it or endure it in good spirit, and if my lady friend can't tell the difference, maybe she could use some more wokeness too.
4
The problematizing of this is only going to problematize it further. Because humans.
1
Women did not line up to see "Ford vs Ferrari." Why hasn't that shocking fact been explored in the New York Times?
11
Didn't read the article. Did read the book. Not spending any more time on that shallow and vapid story.
3
Dismissing a film, which at least by some reports has messed up a classic story, is hardly the same as dismissing the classic work itself. NY Times headline fail, per usual.
7
@Sage
It's not a fail at all. It did exactly what it was intended to do - it got us to click, read, and engage by leaving a comment.
That's what it has come to. That's now the definition of success.
@Sage
It's not a fail at all. It did exactly what it was intended to do - it got us to click, read, and engage by leaving a comment.
That's what it has come to. That's now the definition of success.
Your note describes Kristy Eldredge as “a writer based in Brooklyn.” That is of course redundant, since all writers are required to live in Brooklyn.
5
@Charlierf
Where a tree grows.
Bunch of whiny dudes getting triggered by an article about the well known phenomenon that men dismiss “women” things and that there is a patriarchy. It happens. Get over it. If you’re not one of those dudes who does that, you wouldn’t get so triggered. If you are, and you feel heat when you read this, maybe a little introspection is in order. Not screaming and whinging about “Caucasian male bashing”.
4
@Diego See the point above regarding how this is not a movie about women, but white women, during the time of slavery. The idea that this movie is representative of all women is silly. It's a remake of a very old novel. I wouldn't go see Gone With the Wind either.
Kristy Eldredge wrote: "One of its producers, Amy Pascal, told the magazine she believes many male voters have avoided it because of an unconscious bias."
^ Right, so Elredge depicts Amy Pascal as a feminist without mentioning:
- Pascal's defense of the gender pay gap:
https://thinkprogress.org/sony-executive-blames-female-actresses-for-their-own-unequal-pay-dbee01cd49c9/
- Pascal's leaked racist emails about Obama:
https://variety.com/2014/film/news/sonys-amy-pascal-apologizes-for-obama-emails-not-who-i-am-1201377177/
- Pascal's Palin-esque views on reproductive choice, Pascal's anti-feminist, anti-progressive statements. Etcetera.
I'd just like to know:
Why is it that Elredge can mention Pascal in a positive and flattering way but our less-than-positive comments — with citation links to the news articles — are not permitted?
8
It seems like you started out this article with your mind made up that men were ruining Little Women, did your research as you went along writing it, realized your original premise was wrong, then you shrugged your shoulders and published anyway because it seemed like such a shame to throw away so many words which were factually inaccurate but morally right.
9
"Men Are Dismissing 'Little Women.' What a Surprise." says the NY TImes headline. Get snarky much? Another attempt at "click-bait"? The essay was actually better than that, although I find it hard to believe that the author has a "humor blog." (Snark right back atcha.) But a newspaper that spends a fair amount of time lamenting the tone of public discourse should do better by its writers and readers.
6
To use the absurd logic of Times own Manohla Dargis, men tend to avoid titles like "Little Women" because they are about women dealing with the complications of femininity while "marginalizing men", thus Little Women is highly problematic.
This is the result of the zero sum game of Identity Politics practised by the modern Left/Progressives.
Why is anyone least bit surprised ?
2
"Identity" here <------ this will tell you if my opinion is valid or not.
"Men Are Dismissing ‘Little Women.’ What a Surprise."
We can all do without this paper's inciting petty scuffles with inflammatory complaints like this one.
And oddly enough, sarcasm is not supposed to be used in comment posts, but apparently it's OK in a headline.
7
It makes sense that a proto-femalist book would be so popular and so loved the movie, better than did my wife. Part of her issue is that she loves another version, better overall pace/slower, more quiet and emotional acting she says. Regardless, I love the love of all things female, not feminine, but passions, responsibility, caring, heart, rigor, life and death, the real concerns of humankind that the book and movie portray. The insertion of biography was wonderful, creating the contrived ending to ‘sell’ the book and break with the biographical threads. So as a guy who has tried to learn that ‘little women’ brings so much more to the table, I enjoyed the next attempt to remind us all that if not for women, little who be here.
I have a solution that should work towards making everyone - man, woman, child, LGBTQ - a good audience for a sequel to LITTLE WOMEN. The sequel will cover all bases, and be titled
HARRY POTTER, WYATT EARP AND THE FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER MEET LITTLE WOMEN IN A GALAXY FAR AWAY
Yes, the title is a bit long, still not as long as the one for MARAT/SADE, but the film's saving grace is that we all know who will emerge victorious, at least as long as Sigourney Weaver is hired to play a superannuated grandma role. No one has ever given consequence to the March Sisters' grandmother, but when she comes up against Darth Vader, box office records will be set. And with Merryl Streep as Darth Vader, what's not to like?
6
I first read Little Women in about the 6th grade and have reread it many times, most recently last years. I am greatly looking forward to this new movie version and was delighted to see A.O. Scott's very positive review in the Times. Of course I'm a 70 year old woman, a retired literature professor, and a feminist. Various unscientific surveys over the years have revealed that not one of my many otherwise intelligent and discriminating male friends has ever read it. I intend to encourage everyone I know to go, and I think it's a great example around which to discuss current Hollywood and societal gender prejudice. I have always been an avid reader, and when I was growing up I read all the books written for boys as well as for girls. How many of my generational cohort can say the same. We have a long way to go to a free and equal society.
3
@Rebecca Hogan
**I have always been an avid reader, and when I was growing up I read all the books written for boys as well as for girls. **
I'm 42 and I can say the same. But I doubt that even now young men/teenage boys can say it too.
Its nice to see ANYTHING besides comic book movies
5
Ok. Not a surprise, but are we really expecting a radical remaking of the modern male mind two years post the start of the #metoo movement?
In the cultural evolution of our times, I'd like to think, while things have moved slowly and perhaps not very far since Alcott's day. Perhaps this film and time period doesn't speak to what men or women are looking for in movies these days. If we want to advance women's position and society's view of them, we need to meet people where they are at; which means strong intelligent female leads of all cultural backgrounds represented in an equal ratio to men in the casts of action, drama and other movies that are culturally popular right now.
While I did enjoy this book the first time I read it as a child, there have been so many remakes that it just doesn't feel new or fresh. PBS aired version in 2017. The more I see it remade, as I woman, the more I feel like we are retracing the same ground rather than breaking new ground.
I'd rather more women in action, sci-fi or contemporary as strong female leads, role models, taking us forward into the direction, telling new stories of we want our lives and experiences to be rather than continually revisit the same stories of what they were.
1
How would the author explain the predominantly male, but generally balanced Game of Thrones audience? In Season 1, men generally held all the power, but by the middle of the series, it was Daenerys, Cersei, Yara, Olenna that were very clearly the power players, with strong females like Arya, Ygritte, Osha constantly getting the better of their male foes.
Even in the fantasy world of Westeros, there was a clear dynamic in which men were expected to rule and women expected to carry children, and the struggle of women with grander aspirations were front and center in the plot.
To my knowledge, there wasn’t an exodus of male viewers as women took on increasingly prominent roles in the series or the challenges they faced in a male dominated world were highlighted.
Could it be that the male audience prefers a different genre of movie or TV show, regardless of the gender of the leads?
Maybe, but inferring we men are all a bunch of misogynists for not seeing a movie about women certainly drew more eyes and triggered more people than making a more fair and balanced assessment (which may have been the goal), so, bravo.
3
@Concerned Citizen - I agree that deviations from novels to TV series were significant (and grew with each passing season), but the show runners stayed truest to the novels in their development of strong female characters:
- Arya "I'm not a lady" Stark as the tom boy that would go on to become an assassin
- Cersei telling King Robert "I should wear the mail and you the skirts" when he shows mercy in choice of punishment
- Dany starting out as a girl sold to Khal Drogo, and leading a Dothraki Army by the end of season 1
- Yara essentially being named heir to Pyke because she's proven herself to the brutish, misogynist reavers of the Iron Islands
- Olenna pulling the strings in a regicide while hiding behind the facade of a witty but harmless old lady
There was without a doubt an excessive amount of rape and brutality against women in both novels and TV show, but I thought that was to show how women were generally treated in Westeros, making their rise to power that much more challenging and unlikely. I don't know of any book readers or TV show viewers that reveled in those more disturbing aspects of the books/show.
1
It is on my short list for this holiday season!
This article operates on a common fallacy. Why should men be criticised for avoiding a film that is quite evidently directed at a female audience? Women tend not to go to view to Michael bay films (nor do I). There's no opprobrium for that. What hypocrisy, then, for writers to criticise lack of male interest in a film which speaks to experiences they do not share?
11
The total evidence put forward for the claim that men have a problem with the movie is as follows: (1) "Little Women" only has two Golden Glode nominations; (2) a Vanity Fair article; (3) some Twitter posts.
This does not seem like a very strong evidentiary basis for the claim.
17
Part of it could be that some of us tried reading the book and watching earlier adaptations and didn't find them interesting. I'll champion anything of worth and, lately, most of the good stuff I enjoy in music (whatever's on Pitchfork) writing (Ann patchett) and other media is created by women. But that doesn't mean everything women make is enjoyable by everyone.
2
The nourishment of resentment and grievances this op-ed engages is a recipe for personal unhappiness, yet this is what so much of feminism has become. It is hugely unfortunate for all involved, especially for women and girls, who learn to see the world through a victim's eyes, with all of the inherent self-limitations that imposes.
For the record, this man loved "Ford vs. Ferrari," the ultimate "guy's movie." I very much look forward to seeing "Little Women" and will do so with a tissue close at hand, while celebrating the fact that a female director received $40 million dollars from investors to make a well-trod classic period piece which is coming in third in box office revenue. You go, Gerwig!
11
One of my regrets of having boys and no girls was that I would not be able to hand down my worn copy of Little Women. This summer, when my youngest son was running out of time to finish his summer reading, so we were picking books he had not yet read that were on the school list that we had in our house. . . I realized he certainly could read Little Women. So off the top shelf my old copy came and he, a boy who loves to fish and play video games, LOVED it. Shame on me for treating it as a girl-only book. Anyway, the whole family went to see the movie yesterday--husband, sons, grandpa, grandma and me. We all loved it.
9
From the Hollywood Reporter: “In addition to at least 12 adaptations made for television, Little Women has inspired a 1918 silent film, the 1933 adaptation starring Katharine Hepburn, the 1949 June Allyson-starring version, the 1994 Winona Ryder version, the 2018 Pure Flix edition, and, now, the Greta Gerwig-directed 2019 edition starring Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Laura Dern, Meryl Streep and others.”
I went to kindergarten at Louisa May Alcott elementary school in southeast Houston at the end of the 1950s, and happily read Little Women as well as The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as a child.
I’m not exactly sure how to square all that with your thoughts, and your quotations from other women, regarding just what y’all have decided men are thinking and why what y’all think we’re thinking is a problem that y’all need to solve.
5
The movie has problems well beyond men. It's dull. Very little happens that's not light hearted playing for most of the movie. A sister falling through ice barely registers. None of the characters are developed beyond their most basic unchanging nature. Occasional direct addressing of the audience toward the end of the film serves no purpose and seems out of place. Several vignettes are undercut by local theater-level performance. You can learn something from the movie about female psychology - from the audience - when a theatre full of woman laugh at a seemingly banal dialogue exchange with a truculent boy interest. Otherwise the movie is a choppy, light hearted jaunt with one emotional moment and nothing to teach you. If someone doesn't like it they have every right. Don't waste your time or your money. You'll have nothing to show for the expenditure when you leave the theatre.
8
On my part, I don't care to see yet another remake of a 150-yr old novel. I doubt, also, that many people would go to see a remake of Moby Dick, unless it was dumb down and smeared with CGI and enough special effects to appeal to the marvel comics crowd.
I saw Ladybird with my wife, and we both thought it was boring.
We don't go to slasher flicks, huge comic book flicks, or muscle bound hero flicks, either.
2
No matter how good a film may be, it won't win awards if there are better ones, and the same goes for directors. There's no affirmative action at Golden Globes.
8
What is this article about? That Little Women hasn't gotten enough recognition and awards? Meryl needs more awards? Greta Gerwig doesn't have enough respect? And it's our sexist society's fault? I live in LA and I'm currently surrounded by billboards for movies with only women and no men on them. You won the war. Please stop fighting.
13
Talk about taking pleasure in paranoia! Just because SOME men (and some women) don't like Little Women, that doesn't mean they don't see women as human beings. And if Eldredge saw men as human beings, she wouldn't support the current police policy of arresting and charging men involved in domestic disputes without even speaking to them to get their side. That sure makes them feel as if they aren't even considered human beings.
6
Whenever I see the term “unconscious bias” being bandied about, I immediately conclude that the writer can offer nothing of substantive evidence to support their observations and have instead shown their own visible bias by claiming some form of “ism” as an explanation.
Unconscious bias is a canard used by lazy researchers and social justice warriors to try and explain some form of human conduct that they find questionable when the truth of the matter is something as individual choice. Will I go see this film? No. I don’t find the material interesting and I am not drawn by the actors. My decision is a choice. Just not interested. Sorry SJW’s but it’s not unconscious bias that has driven by decision but my own free choice decision to not attend.
14
Well, I’m one lucky little woman. My 41 year old, rather grizzly husband was the one who mentioned how good it sounded—after I had dismissed it (in my head) as a likely silly bit of drivel. I think we’d better go see it!
Luckily, the pressure for men to have “masculine” taste is becoming a thing of the past. I only hope the disapproving will leave the rest of us to enjoy it.
1
I seem to be in the minority but I thought this movie was a total mess - fussy, too "clever" for its own good, cloying and full of absurd anachronisms. A waste of an excellent cast. I'm a woman, and I "dismiss" it!
8
I totally agree. This movie was a big disappointment given the talent involved. It hit you over the head about how unconventional the March family was for their time. The music did not stop swelling to make sure you knew something special or extra heartwarming or emotional was taking place and the actors were too casual and familiar in their performances—too modern but not in the right way. I’m a woman and a feminist. I simply did not enjoy this film.
1
I absolutely loved it!
s/ A Man
1
Any notion that men don’t like this movie because it’s about women is absurd. I’m with the commenters who are simply bored with interpersonal drama—set indoors. Further, it is an insane and grossly misguided leap to go from “men prefer action movies” to “men are misogynists.” Please.
10
Even Louisa May Alcott understood that Little Women was about and for women. That is why she followed it up with Little Men.
8
If there's one thing we don't have enough of, it's aggrieved women finding fault and slights against them in everything men do. Thank goodness for this column! Otherwise the horrible injustice of limited interest in a movie would go unpunished. There's just no accounting for some people's taste. Maybe we need laws to compel attendance! At least for events approved by aggrieved women.
11
Maybe it just isn't a very good movie?
Go read the book. It will be there forever.
5
Holiday togetherness! It's raining, so what movie will we see? Little Women! I want to see it. My wife wants to go, the reviews are good. 1917 isn't playing yet, Harriet is gone and our son says he would rather watch Star Wars instead.
1
I am still trying to understand what this article is attempting to convey. Is it another supposed failure on the male gender not to embrace a female-centric story? The book Little Women has been in continuous print for over 150 years and this current film is roughly the eighth or ninth iteration on screen counting the television miniseries.
Perhaps it is simply remake fatigue. How many awards are due to products having multiple duplication? To go off one article and a few tweets seems a shallow comparison to deduct this opinion.
6
I am so sick of entreched, entitled , white women complaining about the lack of success because of the imbalance of this patriarchal society. The fight for injustice is long and is never truly over. Even if you have people who look like you finding some fortune in their chosen profession. Everyone who went before you had to endure racism, misogyny, etc . . . We need to hear the voices women, people of color, the disenfranchised. That is how you change the hearts and minds of the status quo. It can be a slow and arduous process. I am not making light of how woman have been treated. The road to equality for everyone is hard fought. But for every success story there are thousands not being heard. The efforts of many capable and ambitious people have been silenced by the white male gate keepers. That is why when I read about these women who have a measure of success and their allies expressing dissatisfaction it smacks of entitlement and victimization and it measures the definition of success unfairly. Is it not a success that Gerwig was able to make the movie in her own voice? That young women will be able to view it for years to come and be inspired to tell their story? That she is able hire the top tier of entertainment royalty to make her image come to life? That she is making a living at something she loves? Nothing is promised anyone in this life and true unfiltered success is one of those things. This movie is a stone in a path to enlightenment. Isn't that worth somethn?
5
@Amigo Sanchez You say the "the efforts of many capable and ambitious people have been silenced by the white male gate keepers" but these days the tables have been turned and those who once were kept down are now occupying positions of power and just doing the same. Take this article. It is now permissible to demonize a demographic group as long as that group is white men. Never mind that, in order to do such, one needs to over-generalize, stereotype, and condemn, all strategies previously deplored by the very people now employing them. The impulse to hoard power and denounce the competition is a human one, not a white male one, and whenever women, African Americans, Latinos, or other under-represented groups gain a foot hold, you see the exact same strategies enacted, just aimed at a different group. Why, then, should white men step down or relent? To allow some other group to occupy their space and commit the exact same human impulse of King of the Hill? Is such behavior any more moral when committed by a woman? An African American person? A LGBTQ person? Hypocrisy abounds these days and the reaction to it by many is support of a menace like Trump. People need to stop and realize nobody will win this war except the very characters nearly everyone deplores.
3
The title of this article is misleading, since the further we read the more we find men are enthusiastic about the film.
5
You know, it's just possible, hold on now, but it's just possible, that there might actually be some differences between men and women. Shocking!
9
It was an enjoyable film. I think I was the only man in the theatre, now that I think of it. I was disappointed by how conventional it was, especially the whole "inspiration" scene when Jo gets her writing mojo back. I thougth Gerwig was better than that: a montage of inspiration supported by swelling music. Bleh.
I'm just sad to know that vanity fair doesn't know how to use the word "comprise."
4
This op-ed piece and the comments it has inspired amount to a tempest in a teapot.
Folks, you have better things to do with your time than debate this to death...like going to your local cinema and seeing your favorite movie.
1
I don't know a soul who goes to the movies anymore and I don't live in a cave. The author of this article apparently does.
To make a an allegedly telling social or political issue out of who does or does not see this or that movie is as silly as Fox blaming Justin Trudeau for cutting Trump's cameo in Home Alone 2.
4
Oh good heavens. I don’t expect most of my male friends to want to see “Little Women” just like I don’t expect most of my female friends to want to see “1917”. Each appeals to different audiences and that’s ok.
8
And why you are surprised? No different than anything men like that women dismiss. That's why there are two types of people-- men, and women. See? You guys really need to get over this stuff already.
7
This movie just isn't that good. Everyone wants to believe it is because of the all-star cast and female director, but I think the story-telling was disjointed, and the script was rambling. The actresses failure to stick to an 1800s vernacular and mannerisms made it unbelievable and disorienting. I think in an effort to appeal to Gen Z Gerwig traded in literary prose for rom-com girlyness.
8
Some women from my family went to see it yesterday. They didn't enjoy it - mainly because of the non-linear time jumps.
4
And it is, indeed, a tremendous surprise that women are defensive, and passionate in their support. Worried?
1
Men are dismissing Little Women?
I haven't read the book. Never seen a film adaptation of it. I got up, went to my book shelves, found Classics of Children's Literature by Griffith and Frey, and yep, memory serves, the story is in the book. Flipping through Classics of Children's Literature I see I haven't read Pinocchio, Wind in Willows, Beatrix Potter, Little House on the Prairie.
Therefore I have nothing to say except that I saw a preview of the film and it looked like the female equivalent of Ocean's 11 or the Brat Pack films of eighties; in other words, Hollywood girl's night on the town rather than men's night, a film more about Hollywood stars getting together and enjoying a little fantasy and everyone else is supposed to go along with it, enjoy it, than anything else. Self indulgence I believe is the word.
I'm trying to imagine rural men everywhere, sitting with their beers, bleak prospects, and opioids watching the preview I saw. The only thing worse would be to read the book I'm reading now: Autobiography of Buffalo Bill Cody. Buffalo Bill remarks at one point about riding all alone, with the perfect freedom of being on the plain, a world where it can be determined if you are moral or not because you have first the freedom to demonstrate it, unlike the modern world where men are made "moral" by first controlling them as much as possible, taking their freedom...How can you know if a man is moral if he is not first free to act?
Does that apply to woman as well?
1
The book is a classic and all should read it. There have been approximately 20 attempts at telling the story on film in one form or another. It is one of the most adapted stories for film. If someone tells me that this is the definitive film version of the book, I will gladly watch it. Otherwise, it is merely another in a long line of attempts.
1
I highly recommend seeing Little Women on the big screen. The cast, settings and costumes are wonderful and the director presented the story in a way that is different from previous versions but true to the novel. Yes the story is about women, yes it is set in the 1860’s but it seems fresh and timeless. Well worth the price of a ticket.
2
I am a man. I thought the movie was great! I agree that the angry political fight must go on, and as one who loves my sisters and fights political fights, I am sorry that it is necessary. But I am glad that I choose not to fight this one. Why? It takes attention away from the great content of the movie, which I am certain is the best calling card here for sexual equality. Fighting creates enemies and further, it could call into question whether any awards would be given for artistic merit or for the political circus. Great art creates understanding by way of its own language. Political distraction cheapens it.
6
I am a man who is not going to see 'Little Women,' but not for the glib reasons of automatic or 'unconscious' bias which are the focus of this article.
After seeing multiple trailers and clips from the film it appeared to me to be a modern version of a historical work which followed a recent trend: reinterpreting the past to suit modern worldviews. The characters in the clips I saw seem to talk, act, and conduct themselves as 21st-century individuals who happen to be wearing fancy dress. I find this reinterpretive approach jarring and ahistorical. I feel we need to understand past eras on their own terms, not those we impose upon them.
I adore Ang Lee/Emma Thompson's 'Sense and Sensibility' regardless (or because) of the fact that it is female-written, dominated by female characters and their stories, and takes place in an even earlier period than Little Women. That film respected its source material and its audience enough to present less overt modernization but still speak volumes about the female experience and, yes, struggle with patriarchal codes of behavior.
11
Little Women is so knitted into the childhoods of American women--though I wonder, is it still?--that we cannot see it objectively. It IS Victorian, it IS cloying, it IS preachy. If the title doesn't turn you off, the prose might.
But the novel is also realistic. All the pretty picnics and kittens tumbling out of baskets merely underline how nasty, short, and brutish life could be. Alcott's father was an idealist who never bothered much about supporting his family. Louisa, like her protagonist Jo, wrote to keep the Alcotts in food and home. She wrote everything that she could sell, though, like Jo, she was partial to gothic romances. She wrote Little Women and her other children's fiction only for money.
I had no desire to see the movie until I read how carefully Gerwig strove to recreate Civil War Concord. Sounds to me like she's also captured Alcott's anger at a society which frustrates female AND male hopes. (Don't forget, Laurie is denied his vocation of composing.) At an economic system which makes choices so permanent and livelihoods so precarious. (Fathers "failing" in business and the impoverishment and social decline of the family are a staple of Victorian fiction, especially Alcott's.)
Are men tough enough for this movie?
Happy new year. Harriet
4
December 27, 2019
Women culture and the to say culture that is fair and respectful to gender neutral - as the direction humanity is striving and will achieve when works like Alcott is the grace that is universal. We are either educated fairly and adapting to the moral, cultural standards that are shared and enjoyed with equality in all forms and universal.
2
I wanted to see it, but my wife didn't. Her view was that this material has been produced way too often and a slight difference in interpretation is no big deal. She convinced me.
2
I haven't read all the posts, but has anyone mentioned all the new technologies? This film and others will no doubt be streaming in a year or less. Things are expensive and I am not one of those people that DESPERATELY has to see or readthings immediately. I also enjoy 'binge watching' shows I've missed.
3
I really enjoyed Ridley Scott's 2012 "Alien" prequel, "Prometheus."
Yet, the film is currently at 73% on Rotten Tomatoes. Why not 100%? Maybe I'll blame critics, particularly women who are biased against the sci-fi genre, or men who are biased against movies with a strong female protagonist.
It was only nominated for a single Academy Award, for visual effects. What gives? More examples of pernicious bias in action. I feel like Russel Crowe in Ridley Scott's excellent "Gladiator": "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?"
I guess I'll chalk it up to the fact that people don't like all the same things I do, and that's OK. I, for example, am not going to shell out forty bucks to see "Little Women" with my wife, because, as with most movies, I have zero interest. And that's OK.
588
@Patrick
Life is grand. Many of us are capable of forming our own conclusions, independently of the horde.
I hated Prometheus. Loathed it. I almost left early, which puts that movie in with such classics as Macon County Line and that Spike Lee movie about the frat brothers—both of which I did leave early. But Alien (groundbreaking female lead) remains one of my "Top Three," along with Pillow Talk (independent career woman), The Terminator (time-traveling romance).
You have zero interest in Little Women and probably won't see it, while I am previewing it before going this afternoon with my best friend.
Hooray for differing points of view!
50
You are an evolved man. I don't have to shell out $40 to see "Little Women" with my wife because I have ZERO INTEREST. Does she get to accompany you to your favorite flicks - do you shell out the money for her?
26
@Patrick I am a 68 year old woman who has loved sci-fi since college. Lots of women do. That does not mean I like every sci-fi novel or film. Some are just not good. I gather that "Prometheus" has not been well received because of its own flaws, not because of women (or men) who dislike sci-fi.
As an aside, where in Wisconsin does it cost $40 to see a movie?
44
I know a number of women who think men who express an interesting in "chick flicks" and "woman centered" novels are unappealing, "too soft", and "betas". But it still makes sense to blame men.
11
I found it smart and moving, beautifully shot and structured, with top-notch performances, and my wife and I mused while leaving what it might be like for Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach to go head to head for Best Picture and/or Best Director. Men who have a "problem" with it presumably have a problem with understanding artistic achievement.
7
Well, my husband and I went to see it -- I've seen the 1930's version many times and liked it plus I read the book as a girl whereas my husband didn't read the book or see other versions of the film -- and -- the upshot is -- we both enjoyed the Gerwig film and some of the many reasons we enjoyed it -- no violence, no booming music, no foul language, instead a film filled with very real people, facing real issues, dealing with happiness and sadness, talking to one another, and finding their way in the world -- in other words -- reality.
7
Or, you know, maybe men aren't interested in seeing a film. There's a big difference between that and dismissing a film.
5
I remember going to see “Carol” a few years ago, with the amazing Cate Blanchett. It was a great film about one of the great taboos in 1950s America: romantic love between women. It was a story about women told by a woman. It never occurred to me that I had to pass some sort of purity test to like it because I was a man and it was a movie about women. I just really loved the film.
I saw “Little Women” a couple of days ago. I was really looking forward to it. I’ve really like other films by Greta Gerwig. I didn’t like the film that much. While it was a beautiful film (I’m usually a sucker for period pieces) and I love some of the actors, I thought in general they were trying too hard, miscast in certain cases, and poorly directed. (Their performances seemed so unrelated to anything you’d expect from people in mid-19th century America that I was half-expecting them to whip out their iPhones and starting taking selfies or making TikTok videos.) Also, the constant back and forth messing with the timeline of the story confused and distracted me.
It never once occurred to me that men would be tried in the court of public opinion for not liking a film about women. I don’t have any doubt that women still face a lot of crap in today’s world, like they have from time immemorial, but all these purity tests for everything are an indicator that something has gone really wrong in this culture. It’s becoming an exhausting experience to navigate all the culture wars in this society.
5
Here is my take on the perceived problems about Little Women - story has been adapted many times, all the characters are white and feel less reflective and have nothing in common with other women of different ethnicities or socio-economic backgrounds, there is very little unity among women as a whole as to what a woman is or supposed to be, middle class - 1st world problems, white men think women have made achievements so what are they complaining about; white privilege. However the story of Little women continues to resonate is that all the problems that exist then, exist now.
1
"As Ms. Baym noted, Nathaniel Hawthorne, for one, complained in 1855 about the “damned mob of scribbling women” whose inexplicably popular work he feared would hurt his own book sales."
Love this quote. Plus ca change, plus ca reste le meme.
I haven't seen the film, only the trailer, and can't wait. I believe that Saoirse Ronan is an exceptional talent, increasingly creating characters so fresh and inimitable I'll go see just about any film she's in.
Ms. Eldridge makes the point that female English writers managed to enter the literary canon far more easily than American authors. For all its hierarchy, Britain seems more focused on talent than gender in determining literary merit.
It will be interesting to see how this film does over the long haul during awards season;it could be a sleeper like "Argo" where box office triumphs over critics.
2
Guys. “If Twitter is any indication”? Twitter is not an indication of anything — it’s a forum for various niches— most vociferously angry trolls — to scream at each other. The movie placed third behind two giant Christmastime blockbuster franchises. That is a win, and further evidence that movies by/about women are becoming more popular and mainstream, not less. This male viewer loved it. If award voters didn’t, well, awards voters have pretty consistently sucked at gauging true excellence. Kubrick never won an Oscar. Last year one of our greatest living screenwriters, Paul Schrader, failed to get his first Oscar — it went to a Farrelly brother. The hand-wringing over representations of women and minorities at Oscar time implies these shows are valid indicators of importance, audience reception, or quality. They’re none of the above, and never have been. Let’s take our wins where we can find them — in this case in critical reception and at the box office.
6
@RGT " If award voters didn’t, well, awards voters have pretty consistently sucked at gauging true excellence."
Those awards voters preferred "Talk to the Animals" over "Mrs. Robinson" too. They miss sometimes.
1
While I think the movie is one of the best of the year, and yes, I am a man. Perhaps Gerwig should have titled it “Little Wonder Women” and previewed it at Comic-Con to win over my fellow Neanderthals.
178
@Rtd Bravo!
8
@Rtd
There would be a wider audience if the actresses simply wore cat suits and bikinis; no necessity to change anything else.
2
@Rtd
If you white knighted any harder you'd need a shield and a lance.
What a crock that the only two options are loving Little Women and comic books.
I've read the original book but apparently now I am obligated to go spend Christmas in the movie theater watching yet another version of the book because if I don't I have a problem with women? Please. I don't owe Hollywood a dime, my holiday time is limited and precious. Virtue signaling by buying a movie ticket is probably the lowest form of praxis out there.
5
I have not seen Gerwig's Little Women...yet. But I intend, too, as will my husband. My husband came from a family of four boys, and from the south side of Chicago. When I first met him he was, shall we say, a bit patriarchal in his attitudes. That changed after he married a woman (me) of the 60's with a college education and a career as an RN. Then we went on to have two spirited, intelligent, inquisitive daughters. Life changed, indeed it changed for him. What I am getting at is that too many men just do not get or do not accept that their female counterparts are just as capable and able across the board as they. Maybe more so, since I believe that we may have more of a curiosity which triggers more of an insight into the human condition. And maybe if more of these men had daughters, they would finally understand that which is indisputable...that we are their equals, without question and without doubt.
3
Not mentioned in this piece is "The Wide, Wide World," written by Susan Warner and published in 1850, which became the first book in the United States other than the Bible to reach sales of 1 million. At the time, the population was about 23 million, including millions of people who couldn't read. (In comparison, Moby Dick sold a couple of thousand copies.) Trivia: Jo March reads "The Wide, Wide World" in "Little Women."
I learned in college, back in the 1980s, that in addition to sexism part of the motivation for elevating hard-to-read books such as Moby Dick was that in the late 19th century English literature professors were trying to justify their inclusion in the academy. Formerly, works in Greek and Latin were considered worthy of study at a university, but anything in English was considered leisure reading. You didn't need a lecturer to explain it.
@Jake Roberts
I first read Little Women and all the other Alcott titles when I was 9. One of the elements of Little Women in particular that kept me re-reading Alcott most of my life was all the references to other book titles and authors -- even the card game "Authors!" I made a point of searching out every book mentioned by Alcott and reading for myself. And, of course, my siblings and I spent many hours every winter playing Authors ourselves. I also checked out every author and title on the cards as well.
Alcott was a ferociously productive and positive force in my education -- cultural and historical -- both for this country's and Europe's culture and history.
3
Even the author, Louisa May Alcott, did not think it was a very good book!
3
Why does it surprise anyone that some movies appeal more to men and others appeal more to women? Have we been so brainwashed about “gender neutrality” that we are not able to accept there is some commonality of interests between many (not all) women and many (not all) men? Has a similar article been written questioning why more women don’t flock to see certain “action” films?
11
Women writing for the NY Times are dismissing men. What a surprise. My wife, a woman (I'm a man, imagine that), refuses to watch "A Clockwork Orange," "The Thing (1982)," or "Cutter's Way (1981)," despite my claims of their artistic merit. She says they're just not of interest to her. End of story. I accept the difference in taste without any demeaning sociological theories attached...
16
Talk about taking pleasure in paranoia! Just because SOME men don't like Little Women, that doesn't mean they don't see women as human beings. And if Eldredge saw men as human beings, she wouldn't support the current police policy of arresting and charging men involved in domestic disputes without even speaking to them to get their side. That sure makes them feel as if they aren't even considered human beings.
3
I’m reading everything I can find by George Eliot aka Mary Ann Evans. Silas Marner anyone? Think middle 19th century for reference. Must be a reason why great women writers used pseudonyms?
It's no surprise that after drumming into the heads of males that anything "feminine" is "unmanly" that they would retain an implicit bias against female narratives.
We literally define "maleness" as rejecting "femaleness."
3
Are all men are rejecting "Little Women" or is it that SOME men...
please let us not stereotype all men. Please let's distinguish between some men and "men."
3
Recently a few women (my partner included) have told me that they were going to see the movie. Always in a group of all females. I wasn't invited. Seems like women are telling me it is a movie for women. Little Women, rightly or wrongly is perceived as such. A movie for women. I am going to go to Star Wars. It is a whole family affair. Stars Wars is advertised and widely perceived as being for everyone. With so much to do in this world I don't make a point of going where I am not wanted.
5
Greta Gerwig seems to get a pass on her own white upper-class fixation. Like her partner, Noah Baumbach, she creates interesting worlds but they are very, very insular. Alcott’s story suits Gerwig well not just because it’s about women but also because it’s about a world where only white women (and white women of a certain class) matter. Period pieces can’t change, but this one is being marketed as a radical revision, which is only a partial truth.
3
I’m wondering where the evidence for this article is coming from, and I suspect it’s Twitter, where I’ve seen this rant stretching across many of the accounts I follow. I’m a Gerwig fan. I’m a woman. I love the actors in this film. We got the screener along with a hundred others for awards season, and it was the first one I watched. I was disappointed. While sumptuous and smart, the non-linear narrative dulls the storytelling, and confuses even the most attentive viewer at the most impactful moments of the film. And that’s even knowing the story having read the book and seen other versions. Chalamet’s performance saved the film from being unwatchable aside from its pagaentry. Whether men want to see it or not isn’t the issue with this movie. The storytelling is green and just doesn’t deliver. In this instance I really don’t think we can call men- or anyone else- out on not flocking to the theatres for this movie. It tries too hard to be original and loses the audience in the process, men and women included. I’m amazed it’s doing as well as it is. For feminism, The Late Show was a million times more important than this Little Women.
3
When did female authors/entertainers become so entitled? Nobody is entitled to male eyeballs.
Here is a news flash: men and women have different taste in movie genres (on average). Men don't have a problem with a female cast, and the author is sexist for saying that we do. The author is essentially demanding that men change their taste to align with female taste. Again, this is sexist against men. If NYT put our a piece condemning women for not going to see the latest war action adventure movie, can you imagine the backlash?
Are we really going to continue to condemn all things male? We can't even have different taste than women without being accused of things. I guess female tastes are the default. Please do better, NYT.
8
So when the audience for another bang-‘em-up movie is overwhelmingly young and male, that means older people and women are biased?
Come on.
3
Mainstream culture is sexist and mainstream media helps perpetuate that. You can see this in issues like it being socially horrific and deeply politically incorrect for a white person to impersonate a black person by donning blackface, but for men to impersonate women by painting their faces and essentially parodying women by amplifying clichés of femininity (as defined by men), that's perceived as not only ok, but "brave" and "progressive". So long as mainstream media keeps championing men's derision and right to define women in narrow, superficial ways, including the parody of them, culture will continue to be deeply sexist.
2
I find this opinion a strange contradiction. Why do you need male validation? I would think this is the last thing you need.
5
Wow! Do women still need men’s approval? I’d better run out and get on it! I’ll go like the movie right away.
4
Fifty years ago, we Promethean youth set out to explore the reality that women and men were essentially alike, and only superficially disparate.
For example, we dreamed of mixed teaching staff for our mixed elementary school classrooms.
Certainly, I hoped that the next generation of boys wouldn't go through the eight exclusively female-taught years, half of them run by man-haters, in which I wasted my time.
And of course we accepted one of the first of Steinem's off-the-wall pronouncements, that women should get exactly 50% of everything.
Well, it didn't work out like that.
Segregated male activity was integrated. Military schools, famously VMI, were grudgingly made coed.
But much of female activity remained segregated.
Some women's colleges, e.g. Mills, were not integrated. Women are victims. Men are oppressors. Women need rooms of their own, and colleges. Men don't. (BTW, when did we vote that one in?)
Now, we have a complaint that men aren't 50% of this female film activity.
Sorry, sisters. We have enough compulsory togetherness. Most of it is a set-up for us to learn to shut up and line up, whilst y'all let us know a new set of ways in which patriarchy has ruined your lives.
Lord, give us some peace.
Go to your female-oriented flicks. Let us go to ours. Give me fourteen hours of Beavis and Butthead. It's a boy thing. You wouldn't understand.
4
I am 58. Since I was a child I was expected to be excited about the latest movie where all the main characters were male, where the plot was action, where the story line was often a car chase. These were the blockbuster must see movies.
I am so happy that my 20 year old daughter is alive in a time when movies, like books, like professions, like toys, like clothes, like hairstyles, etc. no longer have to be labeled as for girls or boys, women or men.
I think the author is simply saying that some people haven’t quite come to this understanding yet...that just because the protagonist or writer is a woman, it doesn’t have to be given that terrible label “chick flick,” which discourages people from accepting it as a universal story for all.
2
I'm a man, and.visiting my sister for Christmas I suggested we go see Little Women at the local cinema and she catwgorically refused, citing her hatred (and Alcott's) for story's reinforcement of sexist norms or whatever... Rave reviews about how it's been treated this time round are apparantlyyou irrelevant. Oh well, I guess I'll have to wait and go see it with, my daughters.
1
Clickbait headline for an over-generalized and sexist article. No one is "dismissing" anything but you, Ms. Eldredge, and what you're dismissing is men.
9
How about just not interested? I go to movies solely for entertainment. I just don’t find this enjoyable. Everything having a motive is getting tiring
6
I'll wait for Wonder Woman 1984
In the present era of an “Access Hollywood” President why is this a surprise? MAGA, with women rightfully placed back on their “throne”, the kitchen.
2
Men against Women, creating a rift where none exists?
Straight married dad with a girl child. Or, straight married mom with a boy child, can see through the fakery of this article.
Not sure about gay men or women or bitterly divorced people without children though, who couldn't know that truth. Maybe this article is attempting to attract that demographic, the anti-Trumpers. Now we know why they hate him too.
1
Were we supposed to like it?
4
I have really had it up to here with the Caucasian male bashing. We are not to blame for every problem which exists on the planet. Related to this film, we also have mothers and wives and daughters and want to see them succeed. Will I see the film? No, it doesn't appeal to me and wasn't intended to. I will also not see the 5 million comic book adaption films, which are like Big Macs/junk food for the eyes. The best films I've see this year are 'Tolkien' and 'Judy'. 'Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood' was good until the 'celebrity revenge on Manson' /Sam Peckinpah Tribute' ending.
6
Yesterday we went to see Bong Joon-ho’s “Parasite.” Today we are going to “Little Women.” My interest in both films is rooted in the reputations of the two writer/directors and the stellar casts. This opinion piece caused me to pause and ask myself if I am approaching “Little Women” with some reservations because I am male? I’d say that I am, just as I approached “Parasite” with some reservations because I am an American. What’s unclear to me is whether or not I should label my reservations as biased? They are not, I think, entirely unfair or unjustified. In one instance, I worry that I might not be able to connect with or fully appreciate a work set in another culture. In the other, I wonder if a film based on a book that expressly targeted adolescent girls as it’s audience will engage me? Both concerns seem reasonable to me. It turns out I found Bong Joon-ho’s film totally engaging. One of the best I’ve seen in some time. I have high hopes for “Little Women.”
1
“...to be a...human being” is an ESSENTIAL Idenity.
To behave in personally accountable ways throughout life IS aspired behavior.
To BE(come) menschlich, whatever the barriers, in a toxic violating WE-THEY culture, and world, is beyond gender.
The ARTs, ranging in semantic, visual, sounds and movement, can enable. They can also be complicit in violating.
Let’s see how many women go and see “1917.”
3
This article is a sexist generalization. Equally sad when by a male or female.
6
The most telling line in the movie comes from Amy, who says to Jo that (I paraphrase) "It will be important if you write about it."
1
I also hated Frozen. Does that make me a monster?
4
A good story well told should be of interest to all. I'm looking forward to seeing "Little Women," and most of the men I know are going to see it, too.
Someone who chooses not to see a film because its focus is women, or is in black-and-white, or has subtitles, or for any other irrelevant reason is merely depriving themselves of a potentially enthralling experience.
It's idiotic and self-defeating.
2
This film is not woke. It's about four cisgender wymyn who are only concerned about getting husbands. I can't believe the NY Times would give it a positive review. So patriarchal.
2
Haven't seen the movie, but the recent WaPo article by Gillian Brockell on "Little Women" is an interesting read:
"Girls adored ‘Little Women.’ Louisa May Alcott did not
Alcott’s most famous work, “Little Women,” was... a light, juvenile novel focused on sisterly love and domestic peace. And though it was semi-autobiographical, she hated it."
1
I can say with some confidence that my levels of interest in 19th century novels or adaptations thereof are completely consistent (hint: next to zero) regardless of the gender of the authors. I’m sure there’s quality here, just as I’m sure there’s quality in Moby-Dick but I’m happier reading and enjoying modern novels and literature and have zero guilt about not caring about it. Life us too short to slog, and sometimes people just find oldtimey stuff boring.
1
Unbelievable an entire article and hundreds of comments about absolutely nothing. Where is this sort of vacuous conversation going? Have we (hopefully) hit rock bottom on this issue, and can soon return to normal sort of articles and discussions? Time may tell, but one is dubious....no doubt one must get ready for the next episode soon..
3
I think "The Expendables" movie series must have a little woman problem. I can't get the wife to like it.
2
We have a pampered, immature men problem. If a movie doesn't have space ships or things being blown up, American men aren't interested. We raised them that way. It's a sick culture.
2
Are you mad at me because I don't have the same interests as you? Perhaps I need to get my mind straight!
2
The best thing about reading these responses is to discover the numbers of men who read Little Women when young. I would never have guessed there was any male audience for the book at all. Similarly, the numbers of men giving a thumbs-up to this film.
Leave me inject some toxic masculinity. Men like movies with hot women, and women in 19th century clothes are not.
3