Little Women

Must admit I liked it. The blurb at the beginning did say it was based on the book(s) of LM Alcott. I thought the characters were very much as I'd imagined them when I reads the book, though that was more than 50 years ago. For me it brought the book to life and the cinematography, costumes and scenery were lovely.

There does seem to be a fashion for all men and women to look alike. One of the reasons I stopped watching Poldark was the fact that all the men looked identical apart from Ross. I couldn't be bothered to keep working out who they were. There seems to be a standard female face and a standard male face and they just cast them in everything.

It was visually beautiful. Quite a treat to see the winter scenes and lovely garden ones with hens and kittens galore. I suppose the sisters looked a bit alike because, very often, sisters do!!

I watched the first episode this morning and must say I am glad that Jo has had her hair cut off - at least I will know which one she is in future! (Unless it fast forwards a few years and her hair has grown again in the next episode).

I loved the books, the first I got as a Christmas present when I was 8 and now have a small collection of original editions.
Like others I was worried about watching this adaptation, but was reasonably ok with it until part 3!
What a load of tosh, the extra Aunt, the way Prof Bhaer and Jo’s relationship was portrayed.
The production went well into Good Wives.

Why, jane10?

Abroad meaning just away. Exasperated imoji required!

Just a keen textual analyst.

I think that Grumppa may be a naughty man

Watching and listening with half an eye and half an ear this evening, I heard the Michael Gambon character say to some lovelorn youth: "Take yourself abroad."

My first thought was that he was advising the lad to distance himself from the young lady he loved and allow distance to help him forget. But then I realised that this was a worldly-wise American talking, and that he might actually have said: "Take yourself a broad," i.e. find a young lady of easy virtue and forget your sorrows in her welcoming arms.

Can someone who has read the book enlighten me on the correct interpretation?

AyjayF you're not dim. It's a lot more entertaining than many programmes. It's just very irritating when events are randomly moved to other times with other people involved. Elrel Beth didn't take the baby to the doctor because they wouldn't have been able to pay. There was delay in sending for him for Beth because of the expense. I think newborn is an American expression though. My American SiL was the first person I heard use it.

March won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 2006. It a really good read to give you the father’s experiences. Really worthwhile for all of you who are disappointed with this present television adaptation.

March ,is written by Geraldine Brookes

I adored the books and was all set to hate this adaptation. However, I found myself enjoying it. It was so beautiful to look at. Very pleasant viewing.

only saw a bit of it but I wasn't impressed,I loved the book and the old version with Kathryn Hepburn as Jo .Theres a newish book about the Fathers exploits in the war,its called March and well worth a read,in fact it would make a very good film too.

I decided not to watch episode 1 on catch up but did watch episode 2 last night. Like many others, I was very disappointed. All that hair flouncing around, the sisters looked more like out of time hippies than they were portrayed in the books.
As a child, I admired Jo but none of the other sisters. This production seems only loosely based on the books and falls short sadly. Shan't bother watching any more.

Also Marmee described poor Mrs Hummel as having 'a newborn' which irritated. Nitpicking I know!
I don't remember Beth taking the baby to a doctor, I thought she just came home sad and said that the baby had died.

No you are not dim AyjayF that happens to me as well, I really enjoy a programme then the next day find the critics have really panned it and seen things I didn't even know were there .

Blimey. I must be dim but I'm loving this series. ?

Surely Jo never sat down and had in depth talks about her novel with her father. No mention of how appalled Jo was about Meg getting married and breaking up the family and the wedding was a complete waste of time that could have been spent on the plot. Apparently tonight we have an aunt who isn't even in the book. What a waste of talent and money, it could have been so much better.

I never liked Amy. Always liked Jo. Meg is goody goody. Beth is well-observed and of her time when acute infectious fevers were not countered by antibiotics or even artificial immunity technology. The precariousness of life then is noted. I suppose that many people had more first hand and practical medical experience than nowadays.

As for the production itself I felt irritated by the diction of the actors who played the girls who sounded year 2017.

The Miniaturist was beautiful to look at and I marvelled at the skill of the producers in making it look like Flemish old master oil painting. I admired the miniatures themselves and I wonder how they were made for the production. As always I sympathised with the dog interest, although Paul O'Grady is a hard act to follow with respect to love of dogs.

Oh dear. Lost interest. Back to the book.

I’ve decided not to watch it, I loved the books so much. I’ve always found screen/tv adaptations tend to fall far short of the books unfortunately x

I thought the second episode was marginally better at least Marmee seemed a little more human and not so perfect.
Not the best adaptation I have seen.

Slightly better episode tonight, but does not do justice to the books. Too much appealing to twenty-first century sensibilities.
Was most disturbed by the poor little Hummel(?) girl crying for her mother in bed; family presumably abandoned by the March girls as soon as Beth was ill.