The 2019 adaptation definitely takes the tack that Amy has always had a crush on Laurie. I think it's one of those things that you CAN read into the book (the scene where Laurie convinced her to go to Aunt March's by promising to visit her every day!), but it's not an interpretation that the book insists on.
And yes, Jo's writing is always taken seriously. I don't think the book ever straight out calls her a genius - in fact, there's a scene where Jo comments to herself that she ISN'T a genius - but, on the other hand, the other characters sometimes ask her, "Does genius burn, Jo?" So it's at least hinted that she is.
Whereas Amy's artist talent is always referred to as talent, and when she gives up her art, she comments, "talent isn’t genius, and no amount of energy can make it so." And then Laurie straight-up quotes her when he decides to give up his composition.
Although clearly they both do keep up their artistic endeavors as a hobby! So in the end their quitting didn't really stick. In the 2019 adaptation, Amy gives this speech with a certain crabby "I should've become an accountant!" energy, as any artist may when the art isn't going well; she's venting, not seriously giving up her art.
It strikes me that looking at Alcott's musing about Art and Artists solely through a feminist lens can have a flattening effect: given the parallel journeys of Laurie and Amy, she's clearly talking about Artists in General rather than just Women in Art, and yet modern critics tend to read her argument as gendered.
And Beth tends to get entirely left out of these conversations, even though she's part of the talent/genius circle, too; Laurie himself, the other musician, tells her that she has a really remarkable talent, and everyone listens to her playing as eagerly as Jo's stories. But she has no professional ambitions for her music.
(And poor Meg, like the cheese, stands alone! It makes sense that some of the adaptations would emphasize her theatrical talent: you don't want her to be the ONLY sister without a talent.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2022-02-15 03:08 pm (UTC)And yes, Jo's writing is always taken seriously. I don't think the book ever straight out calls her a genius - in fact, there's a scene where Jo comments to herself that she ISN'T a genius - but, on the other hand, the other characters sometimes ask her, "Does genius burn, Jo?" So it's at least hinted that she is.
Whereas Amy's artist talent is always referred to as talent, and when she gives up her art, she comments, "talent isn’t genius, and no amount of energy can make it so." And then Laurie straight-up quotes her when he decides to give up his composition.
Although clearly they both do keep up their artistic endeavors as a hobby! So in the end their quitting didn't really stick. In the 2019 adaptation, Amy gives this speech with a certain crabby "I should've become an accountant!" energy, as any artist may when the art isn't going well; she's venting, not seriously giving up her art.
It strikes me that looking at Alcott's musing about Art and Artists solely through a feminist lens can have a flattening effect: given the parallel journeys of Laurie and Amy, she's clearly talking about Artists in General rather than just Women in Art, and yet modern critics tend to read her argument as gendered.
And Beth tends to get entirely left out of these conversations, even though she's part of the talent/genius circle, too; Laurie himself, the other musician, tells her that she has a really remarkable talent, and everyone listens to her playing as eagerly as Jo's stories. But she has no professional ambitions for her music.
(And poor Meg, like the cheese, stands alone! It makes sense that some of the adaptations would emphasize her theatrical talent: you don't want her to be the ONLY sister without a talent.)