A few weeks ago, I wrote about my thoughts on rewatching the 1994 movie adaptation of Little Women. Over the holidays, I had the chance to watch the new version directed by Greta Gerwig. It came out to overwhelmingly positive reviews, good word of mouth, and solid box office. I was fully sold on it before walking into the theatre because I adore both Saoirse Ronan (Jo) and Timothee Chalamet (Laurie) and, of course, love the story. Well, I walked out with mixed feelings about the movie. I wasn’t planning to write about them (because I did enjoy the movie a lot and it didn’t seem worthwhile to focus on the quibbles) until someone on IG asked me to share my thoughts. I guess this does serve as a bookend to my previous post, so here we are. Read on and feel free to disagree in the comments.

First up, the good stuff. The cast is, for the most part, absolutely fantastic. In many cases, I would say they’re an improvement even over the 1994 version (which was superbly acted). Off the top of my head, Professor Baer is infinitely better cast here, as is Aunt March. Old Mr. Laurence is wonderful. Florence Pugh as adult Amy is amazing, far better than Samantha Mathis. Timmy Chalamet was perfect as young Laurie, though I feel that Christian Bale looked more age-appropriate for older Laurie. Saoirse was phenomenal, no less great than Winona Ryder.

The main exception? Emma Watson. I am, admittedly, biased because I don’t think she is a great actress is general. I thought her Meg was a charisma vacuum, and it made me deeply uninterested in her subplot, to which the movie devotes far more time than the 1994 version.

I also think that having Florence play both young and adult Amy was a mistake. She is a very dynamic performer, but she does not look anything remotely like a 10-12 year old, nor does she sound like one. Her voice is absolutely lovely but quite deep/gravelly. When Amy throws a tantrum because she can’t go to the theatre with Jo and Meg, the scene played off to me; Amy looked just as old as her sisters, and the whole thing only made sense if you already knew that she was supposed to be much younger.

This brings me to my other major quibble with the movie: it relies entirely too much, in my opinion, on the audience’s presumed familiarity with the story. Rather than following a linear narrative, the movie is largely a bunch of flashback scenes. In the “present day”, Jo is already in New York, and Amy is in Europe with Aunt March. Jo eventually travels back to Concord because Beth is dying, all the while thinking about the past. To me, this approach of inter-cutting different timelines drained the story of its emotional impact to a large extent; I wasn’t watching “little” women grow up, I was watching an adult woman reminiscing about her childhood. There is emotional power in that kind of story, but that is not what Little Women is for me. Your mileage may vary, obviously. I still enjoyed the movie because I knew the backstory, and because the individual flashbacks were so wonderfully acted, but I can’t say that I loved it in the same way as the 1994 version.

Another director’s choice that I didn’t enjoy was the ending, and specifically 2 aspects. One, there is an added scene where Jo second-guesses her decision to turn down Laurie’s proposal long after it was made. I have no idea if this was in the book, but it wasn’t in the previous movie and I feel like it muddies the waters unnecessarily. I think this version did a better job than the 1994 one of showing that Jo only loved Laurie in a platonic manner and that she was better off either alone or with someone like Baer. This new scene undercuts all of that. I understand wanting to show that Jo is rethinking her whole I-will-never-marry stance, but to go down the path of Laurie-was-the-one-who-got-away? The idea of Jo pining after her sister’s husband is icky to me. No, thanks.

Secondly, I did not like the resolution of Jo’s story with Baer. The way it was presented was too ambiguous for my liking. Did she truly end up marrying Baer, or was it all just a fiction? I liked the scene where Baer shows up at Jo’s house and interacts/bonds with her family; I thought that was lovely, and it showed how well he would fit in with the March extended family. But then the umbrella scene immediately thereafter felt rushed and much like an afterthought – and too meta. We all know that Alcott paired those two characters mostly so that people would stop griping about Jo not being with Laurie, but the decision to basically insert that very fact into the movie felt off to me. Little Women is not about authorship to me, though it clearly is what interested Greta Gerwig. That’s fine. I wish we had gotten a more satisfying resolution to Jo’s love story, but I guess it’s a minor quibble. (And we do have the “happy ever after” montage at the end which would suggest that Prof. Baer did, in fact, stick around in some capacity.)

Overall, it was a very enjoyable movie filled with great performances, and my quibbles with it are solely of the “creative differences” variety – I admire how beautifully Gerwig shot the movie, but I don’t agree with all of her narrative/directorial choices.

If you have watched the new Little Women, I would love to hear your thoughts.

NYE Belle

One of the things I accomplished this holiday season was binge-watching the entire first season of The Witcher in 2 nights. I know, you’re impressed. But seriously, it’s highly entertaining and I say that as someone who doesn’t even enjoy the fantasy genre as a rule. One of the great things about the show is all the fashion inspo, particularly as served by two of its main characters, Geralt (the titular witcher) and Yennefer (a rogue sorceress). I have been doing Witcher-inspired looks ever since I finished watching, and NYE was no exception. I decided to “Yen-up” this Nicole Miller dress by adding a faux fur vest whose silhouette is almost armor-like.

Notes: Nicole Miller dress (thrifted, $8); Skaist Taylor for Target vest (thrifted, $25); Valentino shoes (consignment, $50).

Festive, My Way

I’m not big on festive dressing – no Christmas sweaters here, no red-and-green combos. Well, not quite. I did wear dark forest green and blush pink for Christmas Day dinner with my family, a combination inspired by the Danse Lente bag I received as a gift from my husband.

This is a combination that I might not have otherwise put together, but I ended up loving it. It’s unexpected and doesn’t look garish at all. As someone who loves colour but also feels most comfortable wearing black, this is important. Also loving this Oak & Fort faux leather, half-wrap skirt – it’s such a “me” piece, and I can’t wait to use it for some Witcher-goes-corporate looks.

Notes: Aritzia sweater (thrifted, $5); Oak & Fort skirt (thrifted, $12); Melody Ehsani earrings (retail, $20); Prada shoes (retail, $330); Danse Lente bag (gift).

Laurie-Jo Mash Up

Another thing I did over the holidays was watch the new Little Women movie. A separate post on that is coming up later this week. Needless to say, however, the movie was also full of style inspo for me, especially from Jo and Laurie. This outfit was a bit of a mash-up of their styles, and also inspired by this Instagram ad from Frank & Oak:

I don’t have a pair of high waisted plaid pants (more’s the pity) so I had to make do with my paperbag-waist Anthro pants. The marigold colour paired well with my grey Comme des Garcons cardigan, a recent thrift rescue. (The cardigan had been shrunk by its previous owner, and I did my best to un-shrink it via blocking.) I like to think these Modern Vice shoes are something that Laurie – or Timmy Chalamet, let’s be honest – would wear. Timmy is one of my new style idols; I love how he mixes traditionally masculine and feminine pieces, and marches to the beat of his own sartorial drum.

Notes: Aritzia top (thrifted, $5); Comme des Garcons cardigan (thrifted, $4); Anthropologie pants (gift); Modern Vice shoes (thrifted, $25).

Gothic Fairytale

I didn’t bother much with Boxing Day sales this year, apart from checking out Goodwill’s 50% off sale and popping into Nordstrom Rack. The latter didn’t have a stellar sale, but I did find this literally stellar faux leather jacket. Actually, to be precise, my daughter found it for me. Her mission, in every store, is to find “sparkly stuff” and, this time, she really delivered. I am obsessed with star motifs, and my daughter didn’t get her predilection for sparkles from her father, ahem. I like how BlankNYC jackets fit (I have a couple of other ones), and they’re reasonably priced at Nordstrom Rack, so this one was a no-brainer. My first outfit with it was also a no brainer. I layered my Rick Owens smoke-hued tunic over an asymmetrical Oska skirt, and added some patent leather boots (my current faves) for some textural contrast. The result was very “gothic fairytale princess” and I LOVED every bit of it.

Notes: Oak & Fort turtleneck (retail, $38); Rick Owens tunic (secondhand, $133); Oska skirt (thrifted, $10); BlankNYC jacket (retail, $63); Ecco boots (thrifted, $20).

The last time we talked about my art endeavours, I had just entered on a new era – I like to think – in my experiments with portraiture. I was finally developing some finesse, and getting more adventurous with my technique. Since then … well, it’s been more of the same. I can’t say that I’ve noticed another significant “leap” in my abilities, but I trust that I am slowly improving because that’s the beauty of practice. Even when you don’t know it, you are learning. At least, that’s what I’m telling myself.

Before I talk about the new direction I’m taking with my portraits, here’s a quick round-up of some you haven’t seen:

So, where am I going with this? Portrait commissions. This approach addresses a couple of ongoing issues. One, storage. I don’t have room at my house to keep accumulating canvases; people tend to want to keep their own portraits which means that my work output has a ready-made home waiting for it (assuming its subject likes it). Two, subject matter. The longer I keep at this, the more I realize that I am especially drawn to unique, interesting faces. Is it weird to say that I find real-life models to be more diverse and interesting than models in magazine spreads? I think the lack of air-brushing alone is more helpful to me as an artist. I don’t want my paintings to look like anime drawings, if that makes sense, which is what tends to happen when I am working with an inspiration photo that has been heavily Photoshopped.

As a side-note, I pause here to mention that social media photo filters are just as bad. I know everyone uses them when taking selfies – I’m guilty as charged – but they render those images pretty much useless to me as a painter. They typically bleach out the colour and shadows from the face which, while certainly dewiness-enhancing, makes for a really boring painting. That’s not something I ever thought I would complain about, but there you have it.

Anyway, commissions.

They’ve been fun but also a challenge. Painting a famous person (who will never see your work) is one thing; painting someone you know, and who will most definitely see and have opinions about your work, is another thing. Likeness matters a whole lot more. As someone who is not very good at drawing, it’s a bit nerve-wracking. I’ve learned a lot in a short time about how much of a difference very slightly changes to the proportions of a face can make. Half an inch of jaw or nose or forehead can make or break a portrait. Sometimes I think I’m on the right track at the pencil drawing stage – which is mostly just a broad outline – only to realize about 2/3 of the way into the painting that I’ve gotten the eye placement wrong, or something equally disastrous. Acrylic painting is forgiving up to the certain point – I have shortened or lengthened noses and eyebrows with some regularity – but at some point you have to admit defeat. Luckily, so far, I think I’ve been able to sell some of my lapses as “artistic license”. More practice is called for.

Here are some of my commissions so far.

This is the lovely Nicole, the wife of one of my co-workers.

I was drawn to this photo because of the lighting and soft shadows – it had a lovely, dreamy feel. While my version is brighter and contrast-y, I think I captured the romantic vibe of the original.

This is Teagan, whom I recently met through our local IG community.

This is Erin, a former co-worker.

Next, I tackled a real challenge: children. And not just any kids, but my own. The artist in me battled the mom, whose exacting standards for getting a good likeness were tough to meet. I did these portraits as a Xmas present for my father, who is impossible to shop for. Kids, like hands, are the toughest subject matter I’ve tackled yet. Their faces have different proportions, their skin is different … it’s all different and difficult. Sigh. I managed to pull off 2 pieces that I can live with, but I won’t lie – I’ll be happy to go back to painting adults.

Here’s to many more portraits in the new year, learning new techniques, getting better, dreaming bigger.