Had Jo burned some of Amy's art for going to Paris instead of her - Little Women (1994) Discussion

[–] a_rarden 13 years ago

I remember sulking and pouting a few times when my brother got to go somewhere that I didn't; and I remember name calling and showing arrogance all the time to try and upstage my brother at times. In that sense, yes, everyone was like Amy when they were kids.

But I NEVER would have burned something that my brother cherished so much. I never would have had the heart to do that to my stepmom, and I hated her guts! And not just out of fear of punishment, but knowing that it was irreplacable in every way...that's why I wouldn't have done it. Because, yes, I lived by "don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you". Any time I thought of burning my brother's drawings, I thought about him burning my piano music.

Amy may have very well regretted it the second she threw it in (which, they don't imply in the movie), but she did a terrible thing. And the fact that I saw no punishment from Marmee makes me furious!

In the end, Jo forgave Amy for everthing. But Amy continued to be selfish. She knew how much Jo loved the idea of going to Europe, and she mentioned Aunt March taking her at the very worst moment. I was 9 when this movie came out, and at the time, my immediate thought was "Amy is SUCH a B****!" But now, honestly, when I see that scene, I actually think there was something mentally and socially wrong with Amy. I don't know what the book implies, and maybe it's Samantha Mathis (she does sort of appear this way in all her movies), but as an adult, Amy seems a bit slow...almost like Beth does after Scarlett Fever. He reactions and her choice of timing and words just make her seem like she's simply incapable of thinking of others, not that she's purposely thinking only of herself.

reply

[–] cruzlexie 13 years ago

The movie Amy and the book Amy are totally different things. Amy in the book was kid but she had faults, when she matured Amy learned not to be childish and even after her marriage to Laurie she intended to help those less fortunate then her. I have to say as much as I loved Jo, she didn't mature until she left to New York and to be fair, in the book..Jo set her own self up for not going to Europe so to blame Amy when it was Jo's personality that set it up is unfair. In the book it wasn't even Amy who told Jo she was going to Europe. I think it was Samantha Mathis who acted in a way that made Amy look slow. I wish that the movie also took a closer look at Meg who had her own life, married to John and going through the life of a young mother and wife. If you have read the book, Meg's story is kind of interesting and at turns, funny.

reply

[–] cheedo 13 years ago

^well said, all of it, and I agree entirely about Meg- she's my favorite character, and I'm a bit disappointed they didn't think a housewife mother was important enough to include in the movie, but Hollywood hates both jobs, so...

You want that bad attitude drippin' out yer ears?

reply

[–] jcliffo 13 years ago

I've always thought of Amy as selfish and inconsiderate when she tells Jo about Europe. But if you pay attention to the whole conversation, Jo says she needs to get away. Amy says, "Of course....Aunt March is going to France." Before she can finish, Jo jumps up and gets excited but Amy was trying to say that Jo should stay at Aunt March's house while she is gone to "get away." Amy says this after she says "Aunt March has asked me to go."

My take is that Amy is dumb to bring it up in that way because she knew how much Jo wanted to go to Europe, but she was just trying to help. It does support your theory of Amy being a bit socially awkward. (the move amy that is, I know the book is completely different)

That'll do pig. That'll do.

reply

[–] cheedo 13 years ago

Actually, it was the other way around imo. Jo was extraordinarily self-aborbed and inconsiderate to just presume Amy came to tell her SHE would be going to Paris. Why? AMY was Aunt March's companion. But it would be hard for Jo to accept either way, so I don't see what difference it makes if Amy or whomever told her.

But I do agree, that was a rather bad time to tell her. But maybe Amy was just excited herself about going and had to go tell someone, and she hadn't realized Jo was upset.

You want that bad attitude drippin' out yer ears?

reply

[–] cruzlexie 13 years ago

See, that is how I understood it. I don't see how the situation was Amy's fault at all. She didn't say "I am going to Europe" she said that Aunt March was and it was Jo who jumped to the point. It wouldn't make sense that Jo would go if it was Amy who worked for Aunt March so Amy had a total point. Sure, not a good time but then again when would it have been a good time? I don't fully understand why Jo was offered Plumfield.

reply

[–] Unwanted_Birdtamer 13 years ago

When Aunt March dies, she and Amy had been back from Europe a few years, so maybe her and Jo had some time to make a little peace with each other. Additionally, out of the three sisters, Jo was the only one that wasn't settled yet and had a need for it. Amy and Laurie were extremely well off, and Laurie would be inheriting Mr Lawrence's house (or had already at this point, I can't remember); Meg and John had a place of their own and were getting by. Meanwhile, Jo and Friedrich were so poor and their incomes so unstable that they couldn't afford to marry for several years--the house enabled them to start their school and earn their livings. Aunt March knew Jo's dream of a school, so I think that's why she gave Plumfield to Jo. It doesn't say anything about an inheritance of money in addition to the house, but I imagine if there were any money, Aunt March would have divided that more evenly between the whole family.

Come, we must press against the tide of naughtiness. Mind your step.

reply

[–] cruzlexie 13 years ago

I know what you mean but I mean, why was she offered to stay there while Aunt March was at Europe.

reply

[–] joyfarrah 12 years ago

I know this is a late reply but in the book, it certanly wasn't Amy's doing that she got to go to Paris. She had been working as Aunt M's companion for a few years, and was more congenial to the old lady. In addition, just before the decision was made, Jo and Amy paid a "social call" on Aunt and Jo was rude and putting on her "I like to be an independent spinster gal" act, saying that she didn't care for society, etc etc, and I think (I dont remember exactly) that decided Aunt M and the other aunt to take Amy instead as she was polite, friendly, willing to socialise etc and they felt she'd benefit from the trip and not embarrass them.
As for the Amy and Jo thing, when they were younger, yes Amy was very much in the wrong, to burn the stories, and should IMO have been punished. But IIRC Marmee didn't beleive in punishments, so she just kind of expected Jo to forgive Amy.. and it didn't work. JO's temper got worse. But while it was dreadful of A to burn Jo's writing, AFAIR, Jo retaliated by not telling Amy that the ice was thin and thereby almost caussed her death. That's a much nastier revenge surely than Amy's orignal act of burning her stories. (I dont mean she intended to cause A's death but she was spiteful and careless)
But then possibly J wouldn't have gotten so angry if she had seen Amy properly punished for her misdeeds....So I think that in that set up, they were both at fault, very much, but some of it is IMO Marmee's fault...

reply

[–] cruzlexie 12 years ago

I totally agree with you but I think what my post you are replying to was why did Aunt March want Jo to stay at Plumfield while Amy and Aunt March were in Europe.

I think that the scene where Amy almost drowns was a shock for Jo to show how a temper can get in the way of things. Jo wasn't talking to Amy at the time and so she didn't warn her that the ice was thin (to be fair she thought Amy had heard,I think) and because of that Amy almost dies. That incident reminded Jo of how she could have lost her sister and so looking to forgive is the best thing.

Marmee did scold Amy but I don't think Amy really understood what she did. Part of me thinks that she was honestly sorry but after Jo wouldn't forgive her she just got put out about it.

reply

[–] joyfarrah 12 years ago

No, sorry I dont remmeber that Jo did stay at Plumfield. IIRC seh stayed home and looked after Beth, whose health was gettign worse while Amy etc went travelling. It was only after Aunt M's death that Jo got Plumfield.

reply

[–] joyfarrah 12 years ago

wasn't talking to Amy at the time and so she didn't warn her that the ice was thin (to be fair she thought Amy had heard,I think) and

I can't remember exactly but I thnk that Jo kind of convinced herself that Amy had heard the warning - and was in such a tantrum that she just wouldn't shout a warnring herself... so while I dont mean that she deliberately caused hte accident, she was certainly careless as to whether A had in fact definitely heard the warning? I think she was a bit like "well Im sure she's heard and if she hasn't, its her own fault silly little madam".....

reply

[–] liscarkat (16873) 3 months ago

When one child is constantly coddled and another isn't, the first ends up spoiled and the second ends up bitter.

reply

[–] madi-840-42222 13 years ago

Amy was just a little girl, so while it was obviously very wrong of her to do and she deserved some punishment, it doesn't make her evil- kids do that stuff all the time, as I KNOW some if not all of you have.

She was 12 not 7 & knew how much work Joe had put into her writing... I really don't think that doing something like that can be exscused when you are above the age of ten.

reply

[–] cheedo 13 years ago

I agree, especially in this day and age, but back then tweens and early teens were really not much different from young children. Back then, 12 was kind of actually like age 7/8.

My point is most of those Jo fans are pretty hypocritical. They hate Amy for doing that to Jo even though Jo did start it, but had the tables been turned and it was Jo who burned something valuable of Amy's for whatever reason, they'd continue worshipping her for it, probably even more so.

And if you aren't replying to me, do not hit the REPLY button KTHXBAI.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blossom114 13 years ago

What? They were more like 7/8?
No...they weren't. They had much more responsibilities. Just because girls are more "worldly" now doesn't mean that back then they 12 year olds were more like 7 and 8 year olds. If anything, they grew up FASTER because of the responsibilties they had. They also tended to get married younger. So you go from being like a 7 or 8 year old to being mature enough for marriage by the time they're 15/16?

Jo definitely had her faults, but she would never intentionally destroy something that was cherished. Amy was 12. She knew better. Jo had every right to be pissed off. Back then they didn't have computers where you could just save everything on and make back ups.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jaynemanfieldscar 13 years ago

yes they were.. they still played with dolls and were generally treated younger than girls that age are today, just had more chores and stuff like you said. they were NOT trying on makeup and low cut dresses on trying to look years older then they were like young girls today. thats kind of what sandra was getting at.

how do you know jo would never had done that? i mean as LW fans we ALL know Jo easily had the ugliest temper that would go off in a flash, shes at LEAST as likely to do such a thing to amy as amy was to her.

plus you know... just a thought of common sense.... she should have made a copy ;p

reply

[–] VIETgrlTerifa 12 years ago

I don't think I understand your post. Yes, girls at the age of 12 at the time were not putting on make-up or trying to sexualize themselves, but many of them had a lot of responsibilities and had to learn social norms in order to be married and start a family at a age that is younger than is expected today.

Anyway, the only way we can know Jo would have never done "something like that" is that she didn't do it. Of course, Jo isn't perfect and Amy isn't evil. Amy was lashing out and acted rashly while Jo was not taking time to consider Amy's feelings. That said, I do think what Amy did was horrendous and I don't agree with Marmie expecting Jo to forgive Amy so quickly considering writing as Jo's passion.

As for your comment about making a copy, I hope you were saying that in jest because if not, then I hope you do remember the time period in which the story takes place because in those times, it's not as if the opportunity to make copies was readily available or cheap.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CurlyQ 11 years ago

jo just shoulda let her drown, imho

i'm so freaking glamorous i spit glitter

reply

[–] stayprettystockholm 11 years ago

Er.... wow. I think the OP is specifically talking about people with that mindset.

Maybe Amy should've burned more of Jo's stories too? but then, that still isnt half as evil a thing as almost letting someone drown. That's psychotic.

And I think we forget, Jo is still older and knows better. Amy was spoiled and unfortunately this sometimes clouded her vision of right and wrong, though she was not a hateful, wicked brat any more than the others were.

Though you're dressed in rags, you wear an air of queenly grace

reply

[–] Livana_Faolan 11 years ago

So what if she was, "just a little girl"? She still knew better! She knew how wrong it was, and how much it would hurt her sister. She was just too caught up in her own selfishness and hurt feelings to care at the time.

reply

[–] thbryn 11 years ago

Being a nontech age made it worse. No copies and so much work. Jo --maybe-- had some outlines to go back to ... something to try an recover with?

Kisskiss, Bangbang

reply

[–] taylorje 10 years ago

Jo didn't burn any of Amy's art or try to "get even" with her for going to Europe. They were older by then and Jo knew she had only herself to blame for not being asked. In the book, she unwisely said that she hated favors and felt burdened by them. This got back to her aunt Carroll and aunt March and they decided that Amy should be the one to go. She was easier to get along with and would make a good companion for aunt Carroll's daughter. Aunt March supplied the money but did not go on the trip.

I felt that Amy should have been severely punished for burning Jo's manuscript. In the book, Mrs. March "brought her to a sense of the wrong she had done her sister" but there is no mention made of any punishment.

reply

[–] cruzlexie 10 years ago

Lmao, I remember the scene where Jo just goes nuts on Amy after finding out the book was burned (who could blame her?). Maybe, Mrs March felt that Jo shaking Amy was punishment enough.

reply