The Big Picture - Why 'Little Women' Matters. Plus: Greta Gerwig! | The Big Picture

Episode Date: December 23, 2019

It's been 25 years since the last Hollywood adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel about the March sisters. Why did Greta Gerwig want to tackle this piece of classic literature for her 'Lady Bird' follow-up (14:15)? We look at how she refashioned and reimagined certain aspects of the book, how it fits in with previous iterations of the story, and why there's something uniquely urgent about it. Then, Gerwig joins the show to talk about how she conceived the film and executed her vision (1:00:00). Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Guests: Greta Gerwig Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, it's Liz Kelley, and welcome to the Ringer Podcast Network. Over the holidays and into the new year, we'll still be publishing new shows to keep you up to speed with the NFL playoff race, the NBA, and awards season. We've published some great episodes in the month of December, including two rewatchables on Happy Gilmore and The Godfather Part II, Chris interviewed Watchmen showrunner Damon Lindelof on The Watch, and the Ringer NBA show ranked the top 25 players of the 2019-2020 season so far. Lastly, happy holidays from The Ringer. I'm Amanda Dobbins.

I'm Sean Fennessey. And this is The Big Picture, a conversation show about women in film. Sean has seated the floor today because we are discussing one of my most anticipated films of the year. That would be Little Women, written and directed by Greta Gerwig. It is an adaptation of the classic book by Louisa May Alcott, and it stars Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlon, Laura Dern, Meryl Streep, Timothee Chalamet, and many more. Sean will be talking to Greta Gerwig later in the podcast, but first, we are going to spend some time talking about Joe, Meg, Beth, Amy, those are the four little women, by the

way, in case you were just catching up, and why this particular adaptation is such a revelation. Most of this podcast is going to be about me, So we'll just get that out of the way. So I want to start with Sean in the spirit of fairness. Sean, when this trailer came out a few months ago, I think you were, let's say you didn't, you couldn't name all the little women. I certainly could not. That's right. I'm still looking for little Rhonda.

Right, exactly. And when you and Adam Naiman put together your top 10 movies of the year, Little Women was on that list. So tell us about that journey. to me as it may have been to you throughout the entirety of your life. And part of that, I think, is a function of Greta Gerwig's conception and execution of the movie. And part of it is about finding the right people at the right time. I love movies where people, the right actors, come together at the right moment. And I feel like this is a great example of four or five people who I love to watch on screen colliding, almost literally colliding, and making something special. So I was impressed as far as Greta taking the next step as a filmmaker, and I was impressed with all of the performances. And it felt, as I'm sure you will get to in this conversation,

like a very now movie, even though it's set in the 19th century. It is a very, it is an urgent film. And that's part of what I liked about it. Yeah, one of the many things that stood out to me, I obviously have a soft spot for costume dramas, which this is. There are petticoats and there's so much dancing. We watched this last night and there are just like eight ball scenes. I think that Timothee Chalamet does dance with everyone. And there is the old timey language. I think Greta Gerwig says that she used a lot of the actual lines from the original

Louise May Alcott book, which was published in 1868 and 1869. But it does not feel stayed. And it really has sort of an almost manic at times energy. Everyone is talking all over each other and rolling into each other. And it feels really alive in a way that is super exciting for this genre. Yeah. And I think a movie like this, it's easy to judge without knowing anything. And I'm probably the kind of person who would do that when we did our Sense and Sensibility Spider-Verse podcast. And I'm learning so much about myself and you by doing this show. I probably had a similar kind of expectation. I'd never seen the 1994 Little Women, which I was just talking to my wife about recently. She has a movie that she has seen and she knows about and she likes. I don't have a

relationship to it. I don't have a relationship to the other previous adaptations that we'll talk about on this show. I never read the novel. It was not given to me in school, nor did I seek it out in my personal life. It's just not something that I was connected to at all. And I obviously am connected to things like Marvel and Star Wars, but also Quentin Tarantino and Akira Kurosawa. And my version of movie obsession is just different from movies like this. And as I get older, I'm opening up. I'm broadening my horizons. And I'm understanding why something like this is so meaningful to so many people.

Yeah. To be fair, it is called Little Women. Like it is that there is on the brand name kind of signal of who this is maybe for. Though I think the beauty of this movie is, in fact, that it opens it up to a lot of people. You mentioned the history of Little Women. I have everything that you haven't done. I have done. I have read the book.

I reread the book this month. I have seen the 1994 version many times. I have seen some of the other adaptations. I promise to be not like a total book nerd about it. But I do think we should talk a little bit about the history, both of the book and the many adaptations, because as we've talked about a little bit before on these podcasts, this has been adapted many times. Like it is in its own way as rich a source text as like some of the Marvel movies. As I mentioned, the book itself was published in two parts, in 1868 and 1869. If you don't know, let's talk about spoilers for a second.

Because this is a movie and a story that has been out in the world so much that there are certain elements that are known to a lot of people, but maybe not everybody? Yes, I'll say I probably personally enjoyed the movie more than I expected, in part because I didn't know about any of the plot mechanics. I didn't know actually exactly what I should be expecting from each character. I didn't even know the characters' names. That being said, as I've, you know,

I spoke to Greta and other people have interviewed Greta about the making of the film and what her ideas were about the movie. She's been pretty loose about saying like, this is the way the movie ends. This is the thing I changed. These are the archetypal aspects of the story that I thought it was important to either underline or do away with. And so I think we can talk a little bit more comfortably about the plot mechanics of the story. Yeah, I will try to protect some things. And we will actually talk about the ending at the end of this because that is very interesting. So we'll let you know and you can turn it off.

I do think in order to talk about some of the choices that Greta Gerwig makes and also kind of how she's working with like the archetype of the characters, we got to talk about some things, but we're going to try. Anyway, if you don't know, it's about four sisters, Joe, Meg, Beth, and Amy during the Civil War. And it's really about their adventures. They work. They get into scrapes. They kind of fall in love.

They have ambitions. They have some tragedies. And it was written by Louise May Alcott, who was like, I guess we should do something for girls. There are all these adventure stories for boys, and we should do something for girls. And it was instantly wildly successful, has never been out of print. It was estimated 10 million copies sold, which is a lot. And it is kind of, for women at least,

kind of a canonical summer reading book. I feel like it's just handed to you, and you at least read the first half. There's an interesting thing that Greta Gerwig has been talking about where she realizes this book was published in two parts and many people have only read the first part, which is them as much younger women. Right. So I think that's something that is a little bit confusing

about the new movie that in general other movies have done differently by casting actors and actresses at different ages. So how old are the sisters in one phase of the movie and how old are they meant to be in the second phase of the movie? In the younger phase, I believe they're between like 12 and 16, 17. Okay. And then it's 10 years later. So they're like 22 to 28. Okay.

So I'll have some questions when we get into the movie itself about some of the casting choices there. Yes. You also have to keep in mind that the age requirements for things like getting married and being in society were very different in 1868 and 1869 than they are now. There's like a whole section in the second half of the book about how don't feel bad if you're 25 and a spinster because there's plenty of life to be lived as a 30-year-old spinster. I read that last night. That was a tough one. This movie has been adapted. I'm sorry, this book has been adapted many times. We don't have to go through all of them. I haven't seen all of them. There

are two silent adaptations. There's a famous 1933 adaptation directed by George Cukor starring Katharine Hepburn as Jo. It's kind of a pretty important one. She's kind of a classic Jo. She really is. Her identity as a film actress is very Jo. There's a 1949 version directed by Mervyn LeRoy with Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and Janet Lee as Meg. Love Janet Lee. There was a 1978 miniseries that I have never seen, but stars, like, it's kind of classic 70s TV. You've got Lori Partridge, her real name is Susan Deck, as Joe. The mom from Family Ties, Meredith Baxter, as Meg. And Jan from The Brady Bunch, Eve Plum, as Beth.

Big Beth energy. And also William Shatner as Professor Bear, which that was just funny to me. Is Professor Bear the Chris Cooper character in the film? No. Who is Professor Bear? Professor Bear has to do with the ending of the film. Oh, got it. Okay, there we go. Oh, wow. So a young William No. Who is Professor Bear? Professor Bear has to do with the ending of the film. Oh, got it. Okay. There we go. Oh, wow. So a young William Shatner is Professor Bear. Yes. Understood. Okay, got it. That's just a funny one. The 1994 version you mentioned is

the big one and was produced by Amy Pascal and the same producing trio who produced this 2019 version. It was directed by Gillian Armstrong, and the cast is like a 1994 time capsule. I'm going to read it out. Winona Ryder as Jo. Trini Alvarado as Meg. Claire Danes as Beth, with possibly the most famous Claire Danes scene of all time. Kirsten Dunst as young Amy. Samantha Mathis as old Amy. Susan Sarandon as Marmee, who is the mother,

Christian Bale as Laurie, who is the boy next door, Eric Stoltz as John, Laurie's tutor, who plays a larger role, and Gabriel Byrne as the aforementioned Professor Bear. I saw this movie in theaters, I think many women my age did. Then we watched it many times. I do think this is credited as kind of creating a re-interest in the Little Women story because I don't know how many people were panning it out to be read in the same way they would have like in the 50s or whatever. This is the time when I would have been reading it in school and I didn't get it. Yeah. So it's notable. But it did pretty well. It made $95 million worldwide, three Oscar nominations, Winona Ryder was nominated, and I think has just kind of lived on as like a cult classic movie you watch at Christmas

or movie you watch as a little girl. What happened to Trini Alvarado? I don't really know. She has the least fun character. Meg is, we can talk more about it, but it's not super memorable. But it's not so far afield from what I was talking about with this version, where there's a lot of actors kind of at the right time. I mean, Winona in 1994, that's a big mood.

That is really in the sweet spot. It's post-Beetlejuice, but it's when she's sort of like the object of affection for men and women around the world. And I don't think I realized that she had been nominated for an Oscar for this. Yeah, I have to confess, I rewatched it a few months ago in preparation for this. I can't say- Are you about to shit on Winona Ryder?

Yes, I am. I can't say that adult Amanda had the same experience watching 1994 Little Women that I remember. And part because I just, it occupies such a special place in my heart. There are a couple of Christian Bale, Winona Ryder scenes that are just like really formative. This is tough because 1993, Winona Ryder makes The Age of Innocence. And then in 1994, she makes Reality Bites and Little Women.

That is a big mood. It's incredible. I would say that I think the other two performances are stronger. How about that? Fair enough. And the movie is good, but is a little more Christmas family-treatly, perhaps, than this version, which I think has a lot of ideas and is really kind of mining the original text for various themes. It's really great, though. And it also kind of starts the whole Austin wave of the mid-90s that we talked about on the Sense and Sensibility Spider-Verse episode. And I was like, I don't really know why they made all these Jane Austen adaptations in the mid-90s,

including Sense and Sensibility. And it is actually in part because the 1994 Little Women did as well as it did. Interesting. And of course, Amy Pascal pushing that forward. Yes. There was also a 2017 BBC miniseries adapted by Heidi Thomas who did Call the Midwife. And that starred Maya Hawke, daughter of Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, as Jo. It was not my favorite of these adaptations. I don't know. This is an American story. Haven't seen it.

Keep out, BBC. Wow. I don't know why I'm saying that. A rare moment where you're rejecting the Brits. That's unusual for you. Well, they should tell their stories and we can tell ours. No, I'm just kidding. I actually didn't finish it, so I'm sure that it's great.

And I thought Maya Hawke was very good at it. I'll never watch it. I would like to watch the George Cukor and Mervyn LeRoy versions, though, not just because of the actors, but because of the way that those movies were made and the way the books were adapted into movies at that time. And I think it'll be interesting to contrast what Greta Gerwig chose to do here, which is, as I understand it, significantly different from, say, the way the book plays out in chronology. I think that's a great segue to talk about the New Little Women, which in addition to dealing with the book is dealing with like a lot of film history, which we can talk about more

in terms of how it is being received. But it is, it does feel like a departure, especially from the 1994 version, which I think is going to be most people's reference point even more than the book. I agree. Just contemporarily. I mean, it's, it's, I don't even know where you would go to find the 1918 silent version of Little Women. I don't think you can actually. I think it's lost. Okay. There you go. I don't know. Anyway, so this I think it's lost. Okay, there you go. I don't know. Anyway, so this, I think we should talk about this adaptation from a lot of different ways,

but first as like a choice for Greta Gerwig. It's not, I'm not sure it's what I thought that she would have done. It's definitely not what I thought. And I'll say candidly, it's not what I wanted. It isn't the kind of story

that I wanted to see from her, in part because I felt like, I hadn't personally seen it, but I was aware that it existed. There was a way to get your hands on some Little Women content if you wanted it. And I thought Lady Bird was such an original and unique perspective. And I thought even her persona as an actress when she was making those movies in the mid to late 2000s felt so sui generis to me. It felt so like a person I know, but I'd never seen on screen, which I loved and I completely fell for.

And Little Women is the antithesis of that. It's historical fiction, which is not that kind of like that New York girl who had a million things on her mind, who was kind of like brilliant, but a little daffy, but like super fun to talk to at parties, but was really creative and you knew kind of had great things in front of her. Like that was kind of the person she was playing in a lot of those movies.

And even though you could make the case that some of the characters in this movie reflect that, I didn't know because I didn't know the little women's story. I was going to say, having seen it, do you understand that what you're describing is also what she finds in this text? It makes a lot more sense now. It makes a lot more sense having spoken to her.

It makes a lot more sense having seen the movie, having read a lot about these other adaptations. You know, it seems like Louisa May Alcott may have invented an archetype for a certain kind of big city gal. It is true. I hadn't really thought about this, but in terms of the kind of nerdy book girl who wants to do other things than being like a girl or our traditional concept of a girl. Yeah, not just a wife. And who has ambitions and who, but who also like is kind of tomboyish and wants to run around and feels kind of pent up by the expectations of a girl. That is, I mean, in every trope of literature from then on, including it's like every YA book is that character. And it really does start with Jo. But there is also a general chaotic girl energy beyond Jo in this movie that, and kind of the noise and the energy around being a young girl

or a teenage girl, I guess, that is similar to Lady Bird. I was like, oh, I get it. You're doing the same things in different time periods. Yeah, they're in conversation in a lot of ways. It's people at similar stages of their life kind of crossing the boundary from like 15, 16, 17 to 18, 19, 20 and having to make choices for the first time in their life and having to figure out how to define themselves, which is obviously such a classic part of coming-of storytelling. But these stories are usually about guys. One thing I was thinking about when you were describing kind of the time in which the book was published is this book comes before

Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. You know, Mark Twain doesn't write those books until 5, 10, 20 years later. And you would think that Little Women is a kind of response to the popularity of fiction like that. But in fact, it comes first. It comes early. And that's like a testament to why it had, the book has a lot of foresight and the movie makes a lot of sense for this moment. Yeah. I think thematically, it lines up spot on with Lady Bird. Obviously, stylistically, it is quite different. It is. And she's taking on a lot of things. How did you feel about the costume drama at all? I wouldn't say I'm like allergic to that necessarily,

but I found that this version was slightly more grounded and slightly less flouncy, for lack of a better term. I think there's a lot of frill and there's a lot of dresses. But that's actually not... We see the movie mostly through Joe's eyes, and that isn't Joe's world. You know, Joe is not a kind of fancy silken lady of the room. She is something a little bit more defiant.

So, you know, I'm not sort of bothered by it. I think the production design is probably more, has more to do with that though. The way they build the home, the way that they build the Chris Cooper character's estate, the way that they design those balls that you're talking about, that stuff feels very tactile and very real, which is kind of what I want out of a story like this. I don't want – and that's also similar to Sense and Sensibility. Part of what I responded to in that movie is it didn't feel like – I don't know. It didn't feel like Barry Lyndon or something, you know, where it was sort of purposefully like operatic and over the top in an effort to draw your eye to something. It was it was tactile.

Yeah. And lived in. Yeah. Which is, I think, also true to to many of the characters. This there is most of this movie takes place in Massachusetts where they live. But one of the characters goes to Europe and there is a real different and difference in composition and mood between kind of the therician buttoned-up European scenes. That's right.

And the chaos of their home in Massachusetts. Yeah, they're lit differently, too. I almost feel like they're happening at different times of the day. You can see a real contrast between Massachusetts and – is Amy in Paris? I think so. Okay. Yeah. Let's talk about the timelines.

Okay. Because the Amy in Paris thing is part of the timeline. So the kind of radical thing that she does and that Gerwig does in this adaptation is she splits up the timelines. And so, as I mentioned, there are two books and it does seem like pretty much she's just doing the book side by side. So you go from the old version of the characters to the young version of the characters back and forth in tandem. Did you, Sean Fennessy, who have never read the books, find that confusing or illuminating or both? Both. Definitely both. I'll say one, I love time skipping. I mentioned Tarantino at the top of this conversation. Watching his movies at a young age, I think, situates you a little bit more closely into characters essentially carving out puzzle pieces of a movie and then moving them to the back or moving them to the front. One thing that's happened in our culture, I think a lot in the last, I don't know, 10 or so years is between Christopher Nolan and Damon Lindelof, this kind of story blending and purposeful confusion in the telling

of stories is much more commonplace. That being said, it's definitely going to confuse some audiences. And one of the conversations around the movie that maybe some Academy voters are not responding to it as much as people had hoped is because they might just find it a little bit confusing. And one of the reasons for that, I think, is just because it's the same actors playing characters who are 15 and playing characters who are 26. And I prefer that personally, but I do understand and, you know, it's been explained to me that Kirsten Dunst is playing a teenage version in the 1994 version, but she's not playing the older version of the character.

A different actress is playing the oldest. Samantha Mathis, I think, is playing an older version of the character. And that is a way to kind of make audiences feel more comfortable, to make them feel safe when you're watching a story. This movie is actually not safe at all. It's pretty risky as these kinds of movies go, which is one of the great things about it, but it is also one of those things where

if we're thinking about broader audiences beyond you and I, and I'll also say I had you as a resource to ask questions as soon as the movie was over. Yeah, you did. I was like, can you help me figure out where we were at certain times? Yeah. Which was useful. And not everyone will have that. Yeah.

I understood what was happening, obviously, because I'm a nerd about this stuff. But I was disoriented just because I was like, wait, you changed this. And I did find that I spent the first 30 minutes of the first time I watched it being like, okay, well, you've already told them this. And how are you going to do this? And where is going to be the drama in this than the other? I have to say the second time I watched it, I was like, this is just a stone cold masterpiece. Like the script is so smart. And once you know what's happening, the way it fits together and kind of the doubling of the themes and the old and young, I was like, this is like, this is masterful.

It really worked for me. Well, one thing that's pretty nifty about the movie, and it's giving away a little bit, but not really, is the movie, which as I understand it, does not have this sort of central framing device of Joe as a writer entering into, is it a newspaper or a magazine where Tracy Letts is the editor? Yeah, I think it's both. A kind of journal of some kind. Yes, a journal. And she's trying to sell her story to him. And we see this relationship and we see kind of what an aspiring artist she is, but also a person who's trying to make money and support herself.

And they use that structure to buttress the movie. Those sequences are the poles of the movie and then everything that's happening around them may be happening at different times, but we realize that this is not going to be a chronological experience. As soon as the film cuts away from that first scene with Tracy Letts and Saoirse Ronan, you know this is going to be different. And there will be times when people will be like, was Amy 15 or 25 in this scene? I don't quite know.

But generally speaking, I actually would prefer that something have, kind of in keeping with the chaotic girl energy that you were describing, a kind of chaotic sensation as you're watching the movie where you're trying to orient yourself frequently. That's kind of fun.

Right, you're engaged in it. And I do feel like a risk of some of these costume dramas. It's just like, oh, it looks very nice. And isn't it pleasant to watch people walking along a hill and look at that other hill and some sheep. And I do enjoy that. But this is not like a painterly movie. No, that's synonymous with dull. To me, that's like this is going to be leisurely and it's going to be magisterial. And that's not my style, at least not in this kind of a story. So for me, that anarchy that you feel is part of the appeal. Yeah. You mentioned the Tracy Letts character, which is, and the framing about the publisher, which is the other major

change, or I don't even want to say change, actually, it's not a change, but it's what Gerwig does with this that other adaptations haven't, which is just this is a book about money and a movie about money. And she really foregrounds these characters' financial interests and their ambition and how that connects to their life and who they can be in the world from the very beginning. I think she also, what she adds in terms of that Tracy Letts character and the Joe character negotiating for her publishing contract is pretty much exactly taken from Louisa May Alcott's experience of writing Little Women. All of the history that I've read has suggested that the interactions about when to publish it and how to publish it and even what

the royalty rate should be are exactly what happened to Louise May Alcott. So she's doing some metafiction about the writing of this to make it about writing as well. It's also been a year of autofiction at the movies. Yes, 100%. So it's really consonant with that. And obviously Greta also is a filmmaker who is making a career for herself. Lady Bird, one of the biggest indie movie hits of the decade. I think Lady Bird made like $85 million, which is ludicrous and impressive. And she seems to be kind of negotiating that in real time, you know, saying like, watch me level up. Watch me get a bigger budget. Watch me get a cast with Meryl Streep and Laura Dern and the two most exciting

young actresses of their generation. Watch me expand in real time the same way Joe is trying to expand her opportunities. It's really clever. It's a movie about being a female creator, and it's also a movie about making things about women. There's a great scene between the Joe character and Amy, and when the Joe character has finally decided to write what will become Little Women. And they have a very meta conversation about, will people take this seriously? And does writing confer importance or reflect it? And you can hear, or at least, you know, I may be projecting, but I have had these conversations about myself, with myself about, will people take this seriously

because it's about a group of women yeah it's it inspired me to um start working on little podcasters my script about um a group of podcasters who were just trying to be taken seriously in a world full of writers you know it's complicated yeah i do think also i rereading this having seen the movie i was just like oh this book really is all about money. And this movie is really all about money. And from the little things, every character has some sort of plot line or incident that makes them grapple with their literal economic worth as a woman. I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves, but I am excited to talk to you about the Amy character in that respect. She's the one around whom the Joe character to me is actually weirdly a recognizable archetype because the sort of proud tomboyish creative woman trying to kind of burst out of the system

that has encased her is something we it's like a kind of character we understand. The Amy character, what happens in this movie is a little different. And I like that about it. But we can we can wait on that. Yeah, I do. I want to go not totally character by character, but at least talk about the main ones and the performances because they're so important to this movie. Is there anything else? I put on our outline Sean's opinions here.

So is there anything about the adaptation or the Gerwig of this movie? Well, I thought you had a great prompt here, which is, will this register as a girl power movie? And you wrote in parentheses, I hope not. Yeah. I just don't want it to be like – I don't want Yeah, I just, I don't want it to be like, I don't want Charlie's Angels again. I don't want people to be like, here's how you can get

Joe's haircut. Even though it is actually a great haircut. It's not supposed to be, you know, it's her one beauty when she sells her hair. That's right.

And in order to pay for her mother's trip to visit her father. I don't know, there's a lot of plot in this movie, but it's not supposed to be a beautiful haircut

and Saoirse Ronan looks amazing in it. I agree. I don't feel the need to kind of inject any stray opinion. I feel like you're giving me really a fair shake here. This is an equitable podcast thus far. I think that the movie itself justifies its existence by commenting on the idea of creation and who owns what and why. And in some cases, you are a part of a system. And in some cases, you are a part of a system.

And in some cases, you are the author of your own fate, quite literally. Jo wants to be the author of her own fate. It's an amazing idea for approaching this story in 2019. It's literally why it works for me. Yes. That said, I have found that people, the way that women go to see movies, it has to be like hit over the head. This idea of this is about empowering women and this is about what a woman can do. And this movie doesn't hit you over the head with it. I mean, it does actually, it really does, but it's not like, hey, come, you know, express your feminism by seeing little women. I didn't get that feeling at all. I mean, the other thing too is that it's a movie that it's about love and finding love and like finding it when you don't expect to find it.

And what it means to be a family, you know, I will say I have three siblings and it's a great movie about siblings and caring for each other and like that ineffable bond that you have with someone that supersedes everything ultimately you can do the worst thing in the world and that person will forgive you and support you and that's a that's like a that's a very powerful message and it doesn't matter that it's for women like I can completely relate to that yeah let's talk about Joe let's talk about all the characters but I would like to start with Joe we you know we established the kind of tomboy independent character that kind of falls through all of

all of writing really I mean I think it helps also that she wants to be a writer so a lot of women who also want to be writers or um who like to read have always identified themselves with Jo like myself included I was I think this is a tremendous Saoirse Ronan performance. It is amazing, like, Saoirse Ronan channeling Greta Gerwig, putting her own self in movies. We have two of that now. It's De Niro Scorsese. Yeah. She picked her De Niro. And the story that Greta tells, which is great, which is that Saoirse Ronan did not ask to participate.

She said, I am Joe, and there's nothing you can do to tell me that I will not be playing this role, which is great. I love a partnership like that. And what's your Saoirse Ronan Mount Rushmore right now? Four performances. She's like 26. It's insane. Lady Bird, this, Little Women for sure.

I think she's very good in Hannah. Is it Hannah or Hannah? I think it's Hannah. I think it's Hannah. I didn't know whether it was being American. And Atonement was really upsetting. But I feel like Atonement is when you, it's so rare that a child actor actually communicates acting and a presence and a vision and that she can do different things. And I'm haunted by her in Atonement. I would probably swap... I would probably swap Hannah for Brooklyn.

She is very good in Brooklyn. But that's a pretty good lineup for a young actor. I mean, she's been acting since she was a kid. She's only 25. Yeah. Oh, boy. She's talented. You know, the character itself is pretty great.

We've already mentioned it. It feels very auto-fiction. It feels very Greta. You know, Greta, obviously, this is the character itself is pretty great. We've already mentioned it. It feels very auto-fiction. It feels very Greta. You know, Greta, obviously, this is the character Greta identifies with. This is the portal through which the movie is sent. There is no Katniss Everdeen without Joe. There are a lot of different characters

that you could pinpoint and say, like, this character probably doesn't exist without this version of a person. And, I don't know, Saoirse Ronan has something unique. I don't know. I feel like when certain actors and actresses become so famous and appear in enough movies that become consequential to your life, they start to supersede things like sexuality kind of like sexuality or the idea of like a realness you know

like they take on an iconography Meryl Streep has an iconography Tom Cruise has an iconography Denzel Washington we don't think of them as real people we think of them as these like you know these these stars in the firmament and she's kind of building a career like that. You know, she's not making a lot of things that are disposable. She's not taking on a lot of parts that don't have high impact. And it's pretty impressive at this time

because it's harder and harder to make movies that can make people feel that way. I think everything you said is true, except that even Meryl at this point is Meryl in everything that she does and she's bringing Meryl Streep and Denzel and Julia Roberts and Tom Cruise at this point it's like don't blaspheme Tom Cruise Tom Cruise is wonderful but Tom Cruise is is Tom Cruise he is not any of his characters necessarily it's it's the star first and foremost and what that and how we relate to that star brings out about a character.

And I think Saoirse Ronan is still kind of a different type of person and energy in each role. I mean, obviously there's a willfulness and a going for it that is very present. And maybe it's also that she's just not speaking in her natural accent all of the time. Like, to me, true Saoirse Ronan is still just the Irish, you know, I'm not going to do it. I'm not Chris Ryan. Mr. President. Yeah, I'm not going to.

But, like, I have a concept of her off screen that doesn't intrude on what she's doing in movies. I get that. I think the more time goes on, though, the more characters she plays. And in Brooklyn, it is closer to the real her. It's probably not as zesty as the real Saoirse Ronan, if you've seen her on a talk show. But she's kind of the goat of her generation.

I mean, she's probably the number one draft pick for all sub-30 actresses in the world. Yes. The thing that is starting to be established for me a little bit more, I'm going to skip to Timothee Chalamet as Laurie, because Saoirse Ronan and Timothee Chalamet together is really powerful. And even as I was rewatching it, I was just like, so are they like Hepburn and Tracy, but serious? Who are the iconic pairings? They're way too neurotic. Yeah. They're very modern.

The energy that they have, even though this movie is set during the Civil War, they together are, they feel like a couple of people that work at the ringer that are talking to each other. Yes.

You know, like, there's just something very, very contemporary about their chemistry that is kind of hard to put into know, like, there's just something very, very contemporary about their chemistry that is kind of hard to put into words, but... It's really on the surface. They're really sharing everything.

Do you think they've ever made out in real life? I don't know. I kind of don't think so. Okay. Not that they have to or that that's meaningful, but I just am interested.

No, you know, I think they... I guess I just want them to be Joe and Lori so much. I feel like the closest I get to kind of fanboy whatever is watching this Joe and Lori situation. Do you understand how important the Joe-Lori thing is? No, but you have mentioned Lori a bunch of times now. So why is this character a big deal in the book and to women? Okay, I'm going to do my best here. So when you

read books and you watch movies, pretty much all of them, at least before Little Women, and their marriage plot, right? And even romantic comedies, which I love, the goal is for the people to get together. And there are a lot of reasons for that, both kind of structural and historical and financial. And also, you know, we're all human beings and we like romance. But this book is both when you, I think, when young people first learn, okay, you actually don't have to end up with the boy, which is like a very powerful thing when you're like eight or nine years old and she refuses him. And you're really upset because obviously Lori is such a dreamboat and you want them to be together. And every impulse and societal training is like, oh, you should be together.

But you're also like, oh, it doesn't have to be like that. And I really, I'm still kind of upset by it. However many years later, because they seem great together. And also, quite frankly, I think in a modern world, like, Laurie and Joe should just be married, you know? Well, the social structure is so different now that it probably wouldn't be as complicated. Exactly. But there's something that is still, it's like the conflict is so well encapsulated in this. And all of the weird emotions I feel about liking romantic comedies and like being married and prioritizing love

versus ambition and what you're supposed to be as a woman and whether you can exist independent of a man is like all wrapped up in this totally adorable character. And I, it's, this scene, the final scene between them is transcendent. It's so good. It blows the Christian Bale, Winona Ryder one out of the water.

That's good to know. That one is like, I vividly remember they're up against like a post, a little bridge, you know, and Christian Bale's just like

really going for it. And he's a very good Laurie, but there's no Laurie like Timothee Chalamet. I mean, that's a recommendation unto itself. I agree. You can see that the movie is alive in that sequence. And you can see that both of the characters are being their truest selves, which is telling the best story. The movie is not necessarily a movie about two people trying and failing or trying and succeeding to fall in love necessarily. It's about

these sisters, but it is activated when they're on screen together. Yeah. The other really powerful thing about Laurie is to an extent this book and certainly this movie at its best, you just want to be a part of this group of women. Like there are four sisters having a lot of fun and they're rambunctious and they have jokes and it just, they're magnetic. You want to

be a part of it. And that's actually not something you see that much in movies and TVs. It's either like really earnest girl power stuff or it's mean girls. But you're very, you're drawn to these people and Lori is also drawn to them and he's kind of the stand in, right, for the audience of you just, you want to be a part of it. Yeah, it is a bit like going to a party and only knowing one person. But that one person you know knows everyone at the party. And Lori is kind of looking at Joe as she is kind of like colliding literally, like I said, with the sisters and with her mother and with the woman who works in their home. And all of these people, they have this fractious but loving energy.

And it's interesting. I mean, it is like, it's a cliche, but it is Altman-esque. You know, the talking over each other and the physicality and the way that the camera is orbiting them as they jump on top of each other, quite literally. It's kind of amazing. And Laurie is definitely the surrogate for me because he's the only like significant male character other than Chris Cooper's character, I'd say. But yeah, I mean, I think that those two should make more movies. I think they will. They should do more things together.

They should do a tragic love story. They should do a weird comedy. They should do an action movie. They're great together, I think, in anything. Yeah. And I think they can play both like romantic interests and friends for sure they can do the full range which is pretty fascinating you mentioned you wanted to talk about amy so you know aside from my my admiration for florence pew and listeners of the pod know how much i like mitsumar and and and the other other fighting with my family this year. And she has

also emerged close to Saoirse Ronan. I don't think she has quite the same track record that Saoirse Ronan has as a person to watch. She's like a fire hydrant to me. You know, she's like short, powerful, ready to explode. You know, like that is every performance she's giving. I'm like kind of waiting for her to snap on someone. And that's also a very special energy to bring to this movie. But this character, I don't know anything about. And you wrote that this is a real hashtag justice for Amy movie. What do you mean by that? So I got to tell you, the Amy character in every iteration up till now can't trust her. You're supposed to. It's in the book, especially they're reconciled and I'm gonna

spoil right now from here on out some things are gonna happen so hit the button but when she marries Lori everyone is supposed to be at peace with this and they're supposed to have like a real love and Joe is like that is right and now I'd get to just have my brother and Marmee is like oh that's so great I would hope this would happen and that's how they're playing it and I just think

it's real bullshit I'm just not okay I think this is bullshit you think she should not have married Marmee well I just number one if girl code

has taught us anything and it really hasn't but I don't think girl code has definitely not taught me anything I don't think that you just get to marry the guy that your sister has a very intimate, complex relationship with without at least sending a note.

I do not feel qualified to weigh in on this matter. Okay. You know, so in the 94 version, it happens. And I think Winona Ryder, as I recall it, is kind of like, huh, and a little confused, but just gets over it very quickly. And I do think this 2019 version, Saoirse Ronan is playing all the range of feelings a little bit more. But I'm really just talking about my feelings here.

I've always just been like, Amy is the vain, annoying little sister who burns the book and steals the trip to Europe and is only interested in superficial things and then marries the rich guy. And that is always how I judged her. And let me tell you, this movie totally changed the way I think about Amy. Is that a good thing? Yeah, I think so. Because I think it makes some really legitimate points. I wrote out this whole speech that I'm not going to deliver, but they give her a lot of thoughts, some of which are original to the character, but about her role and what it means to be married.

And she gives basically a version of the same speech that Emma Thompson gives in Sense and Sensibility, and that I remember having to explain to you on the Sense and Sensibility podcast about how the reason that these women are so obsessed with marriage is because it's like their only means of doing anything in the world. It's literally all you were allowed to do. And the Amy character points that out. It's one of the best parts of the movie is the explanation, that conversation, which I think is between Laurie and Amy.

Yes. That I think solidifies if that opening sequence with Saoirse Ronan's character and Tracy Letts' character identifies that this is about money specifically, that part is about agency and what kind of control you have over your life.

And if you are a woman at that time and you are married, you have no agency. You have nothing. And everything belongs to your husband. And, you know,

I think we take these things for granted in 2019. And also if you're not married, you have no other option because there's no other way of getting money. That's right. So, you know, I do think that scene and a couple other speeches that she makes or motivations they give her really enhance it. But I do just also think that Florence Pugh just shows up on the screen and absolutely steals every minute that she's in. It's amazing. We stand a fire hydrant. Yeah, for sure.

You can't look away. The line readings are hilarious. I'm like, you know, how did she decide to do that? Or is that just how she thinks Americans speak? I wondered a lot about that. She does have like a, her American accent is good, but it is two degrees away from British person doing a Valley Girl accent as a joke, you know? Sure.

Yeah, it works on me. It works on me. And it works on me, too. And also, in many ways, Amy is the Valley Girl of 1868. So it's fine. But it's surprising. I never know what she's going to do. Who are some other significant characters?

Who else worked in this movie for you? I think you and I both walked out being like, wow, Chris Cooper. Amazing. Against type. Just lovely and like the emotional core in a lot of ways. We haven't really talked about Beth, but he, who is the fourth sister and played by Eliza Scanlon, who I thought was really lovely and gets to do more than usual. Is that true?

Because I thought she didn't get enough to do. Beth doesn't really get to do anything. Okay. She's sick the whole time. And then the inevitable happens. And it's very sad. And let me tell you how Claire Danes played that last scene is very different from how Eliza Scanlon did. Everything that you know about Claire Danes and Homeland and all the crying and the boards and everything takes its origin from her death scene in 1894, Little Women.

Got it. I'll be skipping that. Okay. Good to know. But I thought Eliza Scanlon did really well. You know, she gets jokes. And even her timing, when the four of them are kind of talking over each other, she gets to participate. And she also has a lovely relationship, like a father-daughter relationship with Chris Cooper.

She's an actress I'd never seen before. I'm not familiar with her. I mean, apparently she's been on stage of late. She was in To Kill a Mockingbird, which I did not realize. And I did not watch Sharp Objects. Nor did I. I didn't know her work before, but she's very good. We've been talking for 45 minutes

and basically haven't talked about Laura Dern and Meryl Streep. Yeah, pretty big flex in the movie. I would say that Laura Dern gets about one real scene. And the rest of the time she is kind of ornamental. It's kind of like she just makes people feel comfortable, I think, on screen in general. Like when you know when Laura Dern's in a movie, you kind of think I'll be in good hands. Even if it's Jurassic Park 3, you're kind of like, this is going to be fine. Laura Dern's here. I feel like she serves that purpose in this movie and maybe even serves that purpose for her children and her character in the movie.

Yes, I think that's definitely true of the characters. Yeah, she has one or two really emotional moments. All the girls, the little women, if you will, are going for it in such a way that I think Laura Dern is meant to be kind of the steady. You're right. She's more restrained. Yeah. Maybe that's part of why she doesn't jump out.

Yeah. Not restrained Meryl Streep. No. Meryl Streep just chewing on the scenery. She's like making toothpicks out of the set. Like she's just she's streeping all over the place. Yeah. It's not bad.

It's just like she's got a very clear, also archetypal role of the kind of like rich, grouchy grandmother figure. Is she a grandmother or is she an aunt? She's an aunt. An aunt. Okay. You know, it's fun to have her. She is also there to explain some of the financial consequences of everything that's going. She gets to give one of the speeches to Joe about marriage and she also gives one to Amy.

You up on the Meryl Streep-Wendys meme? Was it built around the screening that we went to? So you and I went to a screening where with most of the cast, and they were asked for behind-the-scenes anecdotes, and I believe it was Saoirse Ronan who just volunteered that Meryl Streep ordered Wendy's one day. That was the behind-the-scenes anecdote. What do you think she got? Spicy chicken sandwich? Well, I know, Sean, because there's been more information. Oh. It's-the-scenes anecdote. What do you think she got? Spicy chicken sandwich?

Well, I know, Sean, because there's been more information. This is the meme that I was going to ask you about. Did you report this out? No, I didn't actually. Timothy Chalamet did. Was this on The Intercept? Where did you find it? It was on Instagram, which is close enough. Got it. Timothy Chalamet posted his own behind-the-scenes photos, including one of, it's Florence Pugh,

Greta Gerwig, Meryl Streep, and himself with Wendy's. And there was also a very quick video clip, I believe on Entertainment Weekly. And it's the same scene, the same day. Meryl Streep in costume, and she's still using her Aunt March voice, even though they're between takes. And she asked Timothee Chalamet if he just ate French fries. And he goes, no, but I do smell that as well. And she's like could you get me some and then cut to all of them just cheese in with their wendy's got it it's a

great narrative sounds good yeah for this fond of wendy's yeah fond of meryl streep so she serves her purpose there's one um curious appearance in the film that i think certainly took me out of it yeah i want to talk about this you go ahead well it's a bob odenkirk shows up in the film that I think certainly took me out of it. Yeah, I want to talk about this. Go ahead. Well, Bob Odenkirk shows up in the movie. Yeah. He plays the little woman's father. Yes, Mr. March. It's distracting.

Yeah. Not because Bob Odenkirk is bad. Bob Odenkirk, in fact, is quite good. Yes. But his energy is not the same as the energy of the movie. So I have heard this a lot. I believe Adam Neiman felt the same way. My husband said this last night.

I've never seen a Little Women movie turn into a Mr. Show sketch, but that is exactly what happened. Right. He's just like, hello, guys. Right. But so that happened for you and I, who have absolutely no relationship to Mr. Show, and quite frankly, don't care about Better Call Saul, was just like, oh, there's Bob Odenkirk. Like, it didn't take, I just didn't care because it's just a completely different viewing experience. I mean, I know who Bob Odenkirk is, but I was like, this is fine. Let me just say something right now. Yeah.

Mr. Show is one of the greatest creations of the last 50 years in popular culture. And if you haven't seen it, I encourage you to go seek it out. That's all I'm going to say. Okay. And I also encourage you to not be super distracted by Bob Odenkirk and Little Women because it's not that big a deal. And everybody deserves a chance to show some range. Fair enough. How's this movie going to do at the Oscars?

Yeah, man, I don't know. Let's talk about it. I'm nervous for a lot of reasons. We've discussed some of them. Obviously, it was snubbed pretty much at the Golden Globes. They were snubbed at the SAG Awards, which is not great because the actors are the largest voting body. And this is an actor-y movie. Lots of great generational talents that people love to take seriously.

You know, there was a report in Vanity Fair that I will read. RSVPs for the first screening in October, as well as many others that Sony Pictures hosted around Los Angeles in recent weeks, were skewed about two to one in favor of women. I don't think that men came to the screenings in droves. Let me put it that way, Amy Pascal said. And I'm not sure when they got their screen or DVDs that they watched them. Yeah, we'll see how this evolves. There's a lot of men in the Academy.

And there's also a lot of people who feel like they've seen Little Women before. So those two things working against it could make it challenging. Is it worthy? Certainly. I think Saoirse Ronan will definitely be nominated. We just had a conversation last week on the show about why Greta is not running in the top five at the moment and whether she should be or not. And you know, these things are ultimately subjective, but Little Women, when I first saw it, my instant reaction was, wow, this movie has a really

positive, hopeful ending. And it's about something right now. This could do really well. This could do the same thing that like The Shape of Water did in a lot of ways, where it's somebody that the Academy really loves. It feels like a more diverse story than we've seen in the past and it ends hopefully. Maybe I was wrong about that. You know, maybe things are not going so well in that respect. I loved that you were optimistic. I loved that you had such a positive reaction. We went to the same screening and I felt so close to it that I didn't know whether it was good. And I needed you to tell me that it was objectively good because I enjoyed it so much.

Well, part of it is that it's a filmmaker who everybody got excited about whose first film, she's like a rapper. You know, that first album, Illmatic, is amazing because you've been waiting 18 years to make it. And then that second album, it's like, oh my God, will you have anything to say? Yeah, what's left in the tank? Will all of this be about getting success at a young age?

Nobody wants to see that. And it wasn't that. It was somebody leveling up. It was someone taking a next step and showing that with a little bit more money, with incredible craftspeople. Like that's the other thing too

about this movie is the score is by Alexander Desplat. I think he's like hugely celebrated. I think this might be his best work um it's jacqueline duran doing the costume she's one of the genius costume designers in hollywood right now she picked and chose a lot of brilliant people to work with and that is what you should do as an as a filmmaker going to the next level is you should build a family of artisans who can help you make your vision if you look at all the people that I'm obsessed with that I talk about on the show all the time, you know, Paul Thomas Anderson and Wes Anderson and David Fincher, they work with all

the same people for years and years and years, and they create a kind of family of creativity. This felt like her embarking upon that even further than Lady Bird, which is one of the big reasons why I responded to it and why I thought it could do well, whether it does or does not, we shall see. Yeah. It is late in the game. The Christmas release is harder and harder to pull off. And it could also do very well. It does seem like, you know, don't take your family to see cats. Take your family to see little women.

I agree. You want positivity instead of trauma at Christmas. Do you want to vamp on the ending now? Yeah. So if you do not want to hear anything about the ending of this movie, fast forward, go right to that conversation with Greta Gerwig. But let's just analyze it a little bit. Because as I said, I don't really know the source material.

So I don't know the context for this. So you'll have to help me understand. Yes. Should we just talk about how the movie ends? Yes. So as mentioned, Joe turned down Lori. Lori marries Amy. And there's a character named Professor Bear who Joe meets as an adult when she goes to New York to make it as a writer and honestly really to escape Lori a little bit.

And Professor Bear is a reader and he critiques her work and they have some conversations about her writing. And then she goes back home to see Beth. And you don't hear from him until he kind of shows up out of nowhere at the family home. And within a day, within hours, they are spending the rest of their life together. So that ending is true to the book and is pretty much everyone hates it, or at least all of the little women people, all of the critics. Why? Well, because she's, number one, she's not supposed to be married to anyone. And also because there is kind of a historical narrative running alongside it that Louisa May Alcott knew everyone wanted Joe to end up with Lori, purposely chose for her not to end up with Lori. I will actually read a quote from a letter.

Joe should have remained a literary spinster, but so many enthusiastic young ladies wrote to me clamorously demanding that she should marry Lori or somebody that I didn't dare refuse and out of perversity went and made a funny match for her. So even the author is being like, yeah, this doesn't make sense and isn't true to the character, but I just did it to provoke. I think it's a response to human impulse. You know, I think as much as we want to feel like we are fearlessly independent people, you know, charting our own course, the truth is, that we need people, you know, that we need to see other people connect with other people, that we'd like the idea of love and resolution. And even though a lot of my favorite movies are about disturbed men, like ending up alone in the

world, I do also like a love story. I do like it when people find happiness and it's complicated, right? Because there's an expectation around women making stories that everybody fall in love and be happy. And that's obviously part of the sort of the crisis that Louisa May Alcott has in the writing of this story and that Greta has in the making of the story. But I don't think that it's something to be ashamed of. You know, I don't it's not it's not woeful in any way. It's just perhaps just a touch illogical. I think the other complaint and I am speaking for myself here, but many others, the actual professor character in the book and in many of the previous adaptations is just like a nothing person. But he's played by Louis Garrel in this movie, who is a dashing fellow.

Yes, you do understand it a bit more. He's supposed to be much older. They got rid of that. And that helps. Can I cite an observation I had while re-watching the movie last night yeah a lot of a lot of noah greta energy going on there between those two oh interesting a lot of the like you're brilliant but this isn't good yeah and we've seen that before now i'm projecting entirely but i i could see some reflections on greta's personal experience

with a person who is a little bit older than her, who is a little bit more learned than her, who has recognized something in her, but who knows that she is great. And that's just, I felt that as I was watching it. I think that's right. People can correct me, but I don't recall any of that necessarily in the book. And that lovely speech that Joe gives right before Laurie comes back where she's just kind of she says like I'm so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for I'm so sick of it but also I'm so lonely I I don't believe is in the book I think that that is Greta putting it in and that is she is engaging with everything that you just said about there is I mean to to quote another a movie

close to Greta Gerwig's life, being alone and being alive. And she's adding that and working with it. And it does make me feel better about this. And also develops the character a bit more. I think the other thing that's really interesting is just the way that they present that final reconciliation in this movie, which is it's split up and it's between her running to the train station in order to catch him, which, by the way, is like a lovely reversal of the usual movie thing where the guy is running at the last minute to get the girl. It is the woman being active and doing the chasing. But it is intercut with the Joe character speaking to the publisher, played by

Tracy Letts, about how the book will end and whether it's too sentimental or what the ending should be. And it's a very smart meta conversation about whether they should get together and is it mercenary or romantic and the right ending is the one that sells. And so she's found a way to comment on everyone's displeasure or the tension in it. Hearing you talk about it does make me think a little bit about how people are receiving the movie. And this is not something that we say about very many movies on the show, but it's possible that this movie is too smart. It's possible that it is too sophisticated and that its ideas, while understandable, require a little bit of work and require a little bit of awareness of the artist behind it and the intentions

of Louisa May Alcott. And there is a, there is an active commentary quality to so many of the character choices that it makes it fun to talk about

on a podcast. Yeah. And maybe fun to talk about over dinner, especially with somebody who's read the book. But maybe not as satisfying

as something like Parasite, where at the end of it you get to go like, wow! Yes. Amazing. That was a thrill ride. It's different.

It's different than that. Not that it's not thrilling, but it is a different kind of sensation when you get to the end. Yeah, I think that's very smart. I was struck when rewatching, and again, we're doing full spoilers at this point. I think we've already said that Beth dies, but unfortunately, Beth dies.

R.I.P. We hardly knew you, literally. And that's the really central upsetting memory of the 1994 movie, especially because Claire Danes just, you know, goes for it. But rewatching it last night, there is the mirroring really comes together. And there's a plot line where young Beth gets sick and then as well. And then there's a plot line where old Beth gets sick and ultimately dies. And they're right next to each other in the movie. And you just watch one by one. And it's almost theatrical in terms of the precision and how you're repeating the same action.

And I was like, huh, this is so moving. But it's because I knew what was coming and I understood that it was working with the other thing and it's a it is so so layered and so referential even within the movie itself that I think it really does reward multiple viewings but that's not always, people don't multiply view things, especially during awards season.

Especially if they're not on streaming services, which is a whole other factor in this conversation about whether this movie will be recognized. This probably won't be the last time we'll talk

about it at all, but it might be the last time we talk about it with this much scope, depth, sincerity. Amanda, thanks for hosting. Thank you for letting me share all my feelings.

This segment of the show. Now, stay tuned. Now listen to my conversation with the great Greta Gerwig. We are back on The Big Picture with Greta Gerwig. Greta, thank you for coming back. Thank you for having me back. Yeah, my pleasure. Greta, I want to start talking about Little Women by talking about money.

Great. I love to talk about money and Little Women. Yes, you've been saying recently that money is a core theme of this movie. This inspired some of the thinking behind adapting the movie. Why? Well, I mean, for a few different reasons. When I reread the book as an adult, so many different things jumped out at me because I've loved this book my whole life since I had memory.

I don't really remember a time that I didn't know who the March sisters were and that I didn't know what their adventures had been. And they felt like they were very much part of my life. But rereading it as an adult, the way money works in the book and for women, it was all over it. I mean, it seemed to be as all over it as Joe saying almost every other page she wishes she had been born a boy, which can be cut a lot of different directions. I mean, there's different reads of why she's saying that and how she's saying that. But one very obvious read is boys had much better lives. Why wouldn't you want to be a boy? They can vote and have jobs and earn money and make choices. And women had none of those things. And I felt like so much of what

the book. And I mean, one thing I had been reading and thinking about was Virginia Woolf's essay, but also it was a speech she gave, A Room of One's Own, which everyone remembers as she says to write, you need a room of one's own. And it sounds very quaint and kind of romantic, this idea of being alone in a room wrapped in a shawl or something. I don't know, with tea. Writing. Writing. But what she actually says is, you need a room of one's own and money. And she names the amount and she says, you need money. Because what she was asked to speak to is, why are there no great women writers? And she said, that's not the question. The question is not, why are there no great women writers? And she said, that's not the question. The question is not why are there no great women writers? The question is why have women always been poor? Because poetry depends upon intellectual freedom and intellectual freedom depends upon material things. So women have not had a dog's chance of writing poetry. They can't hold property.

So that's not a question you can even ask. And I feel like that permeates every part of Little Women and it also permeates every part of Louisa May Alcott's life, which she as a writer was writing for art and also for survival. And she was writing for survival from the time she was 15 years old, 16 years old, and she was working as a seamstress and writing stories at night and taught herself to write with her left hand as well as her right because her right hand would cramp and bleed. And she had to keep writing because she had to sell stories. And I think that that sort of intersection of art, commerce, and how much economic power do women hold is still happening. It's still an interesting discussion. And she was at the heart of that. And this book to me is really engaged with that question. The timing of this is very interesting to me because obviously your directorial debut, Lady Bird, made a lot of money. Yeah. It did well. I know. It was a success. It was exciting. And so was that like a convulsion that came after that that showed

maybe I can be a commercially viable person and I have worth like this? Or is it just something that had been inside of you about thinking about the book for a long time? Well, I wrote the screenplay for Little Women before I made Lady Bird, actually. I had had this kind of concept for Little Women building for a long time. For me, there were a few different layers I was interested in. I mean, the first layer was because it was so deep inside of me as a book, it felt like something that I had a movie for before I even knew that I would be in a position to make a movie at all. So it had been growing since I was probably about six years old.

And there's this other side of the story, which is this heart and this love of these sisters and this family and this kind of female utopia and these good women supported by good men who are allowed to dream bigger than what the world is able to offer them at that moment and I and that connection was very deep for me and I have a I had a lot of ideas I put into Little Women but I had you know I had all of this roiling and I wrote the script and then I went away and made Lady Bird and I had written the script since before I directed anything I mean I told everyone I wanted to direct Little Women, but it wasn't exactly on the top of anyone's list yet. And then I was in a position where I was able to direct it, which was just, you know, so thrilling. And I, film is an interesting medium because it is expensive to make. And I mean, particularly, there's ways to make films for less money. And I've certainly made movies for next to nothing, which is one of the wonderful things about digital filmmaking and the fact that you can make a film on your iPhone and edit it on your computer and

there's a lot more access to practice the art but still there's economic considerations with a certain kind of filmmaking and having a movie be profitable opens up more avenues for you to make something on a larger canvas which was what was so thrilling to me because after Lady Bird, I was able to paint something on a big canvas and I was able to create this world and really go for it. And it's a complicated script and it was a complicated story. It's multiple timelines. It's told over 10 years. It's the 1800s. It's many characters. It's many places. And it was a thing I was able to do because of the very fortuitous success of Lady Bird, which I am so grateful for. Because, you know, people feel more comfortable giving you the reins of something

if they think there's a good chance that there'll be a return on investment. Yeah, I want to ask you about that. When I was watching your film of Little Women, and Joe in particular, I was thinking of the earlier films that you made in New York and the smaller films and that feeling that Joe has of I've created something. I'm proud of it. You should buy it. You should pay me for it. There's no guarantee that someone's going to pay you for it.

You're going to have any success at all with it. No, it's true. I mean, the first the scene that we opened the movie with the the the scene where joe is selling selling her story um selling a story um it was really important to me that we ground the film there i wanted to start in the middle of things when they were adults i wanted to start where they're all separate the joe's in new york trying to sell stories beth is at home dealing with her health amy is abroad trying to become a painter. Meg is in her own house with her husband and her two children.

That whatever the thing was that we all collectively remember as little women writ large of family and Christmas and sisters and togetherness, they are in a position of missing that as well. So starting with them all separate in their adult lives was kind of how I wanted to frame everything. And then that, that, that, that, that the opening scene, most of which the language that Joe and Mr. Dashwood, the publisher use is taken directly from the book. book. I read that scene of Joe trying to sell a story and I thought this could have been written yesterday. This could be me sitting in

front of a studio head talking to them about what I want to do. The line, morals don't sell it nowadays. People want to be amused, not preached at. That's from the book. And I was like, well, this is fabulous. And she you know, and she's trying to figure out how much she's going to compromise what her work is in order to get the money, which she needs. And I knew when we were shot listing the scene, I knew, you know, I mean, in terms of camera language, because when they were adults, I wanted the camera to be much more formal, more locked off, more distant, less intimate, and less of a dance partner, and more of a judge in a way, that it has more factual quality. But I knew I wanted to have a close-up, a kind of a graphic close-up of her hand handing Mr. Dash with the story and him handing her money back. Because to me, that exchange is at the core of

what the book is about. I'm going to give you my art and you will give me money. And it, and we even in the sound editing heightened the sound of because I wanted it to land even unconsciously for people that that was going on. And then of course he lays out, he lays out, which is not from the book. He says, if, if your main character is a girl, make sure she is married or dead by the end. But this kind of, what are the narratives and what sells and what are we expecting of our authors and also making authorship the center of it. It just felt very real to me. And it felt very much like conversations I'd had with myself about that minute when he says, you know, it's too long. And then she said, well, you've cut the part where I have my sinners repent. And he's like, well, I'm sorry. You're like, can I live with it? And I think putting

that question at the center of the story with her, Joe slash Louisa slash me as a writer having this conversation in the movie is in the book and it's very close to me. It's really interesting because I think most people who have followed your career, I would guess, think that you have been very uncompromising, have done things your own way, have had a lot of personal control, like no one really has that, right? 100% uncompromising in that way. I think maybe there are people who have gotten to a place in

their career where they are able to perhaps be more so. And I've been very lucky in that I've been able to work with people who are willing to support the vision that I had and the particular things that I wanted to do. But I think... The list is you and Michael Bay. Yeah. It's just me and Michael Bay. Exactly. No, but certainly, and also it's not just, I mean, the other thing is it's not just compromise for, it's not compromise artistically is not always so cut and dry i think there's this idea that like there's pure art that then you know mr dashwoods of the world wants us to change to make it less good and i don't know that that's always the case because the truth is when you're making something

um sometimes you'll have a conversation you're like like, well, maybe they're right. Maybe it's better this way. Maybe that's actually a better, that's a good note. Or, you know, there are so many stories in Hollywood of people falling on their sword for their ending or the scene or this idea and then it working out in their favor. And there's just as many stories on the other side of, I changed it and it was right. And so, you know, artists engage in a lot of self-doubt. So I think it's not just, and also there are no guarantees, is the other thing. No one knows what sells. Right. I think one of the cool risks that you took with this,

and you sort of mentioned it by talking about that opening scene, is you basically, I don't know if you exploded the novel, but you carved it up. I carved it up. I made it a cubist. Yeah, no, I exploded it in a way that made emotional and intellectual sense to me. I did not want it to be only, I mean, I wanted it to be all of the things that I loved about the novel, which is the feelings and is the giant emotion and is these sisters in the story. And I never wanted to shortchange myself or the audience of having that. I just wanted to frame it with authorship and with adulthood so that the way you're looking at it is different, but it's not that the emotions aren't there. There was something to me that was so moving about seeing the famous Christmas scene of coming down on Christmas morning and having all those lines. Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents.

It's so dreadful being poor. It's not fair that some girls have lots of pretty things and other girls have nothing at all. like could be sewn onto cushions and probably have been um that they would be delivered fast and furious and full of life and with a camera that's a dancer and and this gorgeous lighting and these gorgeous costumes and also that it's gone that that part of it was the emotional thing to me is and then they grew up. And what happened to that Christmas morning? And how do you stay that ambitious and brave and wild and become a grown woman? And I think that sort of keeping that emotion as something that's even more than nostalgia, but like an ache for the bigness of childhood was something that I felt like was my way into making it as glorious as I had remembered.

Because I also wanted to introduce this idea of, was that what happened or is that how you remember it? Or was that what happened or is that how you remember it? Or was that what happened or is that how you wrote it? Because there's also a distance between fiction and life, which I always find very emotional. And it's all over Louisa May Alcott as opposed to Joe March. The March family is the genteel poor. They're not the wretchedly poor. And the Alcotts were very, very poor.

And the girls all went out to work. They moved something like 30 times in Boston. They almost starved to death one winter living on a farm in rural Massachusetts. They had a very different economic reality, which so much goes into who Louisa was. And some of the lines I gave Saoirse were lines that Louisa had written in letters. Things like, money is the end and aim of my mercenary existence, something she wrote in a letter. Also, I can't afford to starve on praise is something she wrote after i believe henry james panned her novel in the atlantic and henry james was like this is trash and she's like not all of us were trust fund kids buddy i mean she outsold him though on by a factor

of like 100 to 1 i mean henry james is a. I don't need to take down Henry James, but she was doing it differently. She had different considerations and that line, I can't afford to starve on praise. Good on her. That's such a poison dart. So did something happen to you that had you recontextualizing the book from being about who we were to who we become? Did something happen to me? Yeah. Meaning like, did I... Something in your life, an experience you had?

Well, I think linear time happened to me. Sure, to all of us, theoretically. I mean, that's just sort of the way I'm living in this direction. Which I can't... That's sort of the way I'm living in this direction. And the marvelous thing about film, the marvelous thing about art, is that you can save people. How do you save your sister? Write it down. You know, Beth is gone, but she's not gone.

And I think that impulse to keep writing it down is something that I have because I can't believe that the world only spins in so good. It bears repeating that Joan Didion said in one of her essays on keeping a notebook, she said, people who keep a notebook are people who have an innate sense of loss. But it's not innate. There's another word she uses. But I think it's true. The writing it down sort of saves it. So, yeah. And then also because I remember and I think I've thought about this a lot and I think in some ways Little Women mirrors this is there's a total younger than what it is in the book. I remember when I was 12 or 13, my mother took out of the library the book Reviving Ophelia, which was about how girls lose their sense of self as they become teenagers and that all these kind of funny, ambitious girls shrink themselves down and kind of become less than. And I know what that process is. And I think of myself at 10 and how brave I was and how big I was.

And I always feel like as a director, as a writer, I'm trying to make her proud because she knew the truth. And I felt the same way about the March girls in their younger selves. Amy saying, I want to be great or nothing. What? I wonder how wonderful. Why not keep holding yourself up to that kind of lofty standard? And I think, you know, there's a line Amy also has, which I didn't have time to put in the movie, which is she says, the world is hard on ambitious girls. And the world's still hard on ambitious girls. And I think giving them the space for all that messiness and bigness and finding a way to keep that going as adults. I think that revisiting childhood to find the

bravery for whatever the movement forward is, that is the thing for me. Yeah, I feel like you might be shamed now if you said out loud, like, I want to be great. I know. I want to do great things. I know. You're meant to be embarrassed by it somehow. That's what's so marvelous about writing characters is you can give them the lines that you couldn't say yourself. But I do feel even talking about the book and even talking about these characters, I feel the bravery of Louisa May Alcott that keeps me company.

So I don't have to, I, Greta Gerwig, can let her speak through me. And I think that that's a nice experience. Let's talk about the filmmaking. Sure. You mentioned some of the choices that's talk about the filmmaking. Sure. You mentioned some of the choices that you made with the camera. Sure. What was it like to have some new toys, some more money? What choices did you make to amplify?

Oh, I loved all of the toys. I just was so happy. No, I mean, the biggest toy you can ever have as a filmmaker is time. I mean, that's the thing. And that I always want more of. I think every filmmaker always wants more of. So we had more time, but not, I mean, for what we had to accomplish. It was never, never enough.

But it started with really my costume designer, Jacqueline Duran, who I just, she's a certifiable genius. She's done so many different kinds place now and barely looks costumed. That's how elegant her work is and how understated. But then she can also do things like Beauty and the Beast, which is pushed and gorgeous, but it's specifically heightened. And I knew I wanted to work with her, and I was so thrilled that she said yes. And I spent time over in London gathering all these materials and plotting with her and really starting this conversation of what we wanted these girls to be. And so much of what we did was finding research that supported things that I wanted to do which was I was like would I need I need paintings and photographic evidence of girls not wearing

corsets and not wearing hoop skirts because I don't want to do it and I want different kinds of hair and I want different um I want different looks and we found all these marvelous um you know paintings by Winslow Homer and photographs by Julia Margaret Cameron that show girls that look like girls you'd see on the street. You know, just normal, normal young women. And it gave us permission to do what we wanted. And then she's such a treasure trove of knowledge. Like she thinks, you know, she would show me a color and I'd say, is that too bright? And she'd say, well, actually in the 1850s, they just figured out how to dye silk outrageous colors. And women were wearing like neon green silks and stuff like that. And it was just fascinating. And it was that,

that aspect of world building. And then the same thing happened with Jess Gonsher, who was my production designer, who's done such beautiful work with bennett miller and with the coens and um and and he's another one for whom the period piece of it is never nailed to the ground they always seem like environments that people are living in not like sets which was the big thing for me was also with the clothing i was like i don't want it to fill out costumes i wanted to feel like that's just what's in their closets and um and jess um has such a strong sense of character and such a strong sense of storytelling but then is also just able to make everything feel immediate and um and we spent a lot of time together and that was

i mean the other thing was there's the time during the shooting which is always valuable but then all this time leading up to shooting for me with collaborators that is where the movie's made because once you're calling action it's sort of too late yeah you've made your choices you're you're there and um jess just created world after world after world for me he he he never said no i think every department head was pretty dead by the end of this because it is you know multiple timelines so many it's like there's so many ways that this movie is massive as an undertaking. And he just, um, he just really rose to the occasion in a way that was, uh, so it appears so effortless, which is what this, which is another thing. I didn't want anything to be treated. I didn't want to be in the business

of proving to everyone what, how we'd done it like like even the quality at the beginning I wanted her to run run through the streets of New York 1860s New York which we completely reconstructed and have her run as if it was nothing because I wanted it to have that quality of that just exists and even shooting her on a long lens sort of like midnight cowboy or something like i wanted it to feel like that's just the street she's on the streets of new york city and she's running like a girl would run and uh classical but modern classical yeah classical but modern and that was that was the idea and then my dp yorick uh who's so also so marvelous he was i knew i wanted

to work with him because of um well he'd shot luca guadagnino's movies uh bigger splash but more particularly i am love which is just so stunning i mean it's like insane it's an insane costumes oh my god and also just don't you want to eat it it's the most beautiful movie and so i knew he had that and then he also has done all this work with olivier aseas um and i he's done i think the last four movies of his five movies of his um but he's shot the one i was thinking of was there was this frenetic energy and movement uh Carlos, the long, the very long film. And I thought, well, if you can shoot Carlos and you can shoot I Am Love,

that's, I wanted that kind of dualism and I didn't want it to feel heavy. I mean, that was sort of the obligation of every department was we don't want it to feel heavy. You didn't want to feel how expensive the lighting package was. You wanted it to feel heavy. You didn't want to feel how expensive the lighting package was. You wanted it to feel fleet. And I think that that for me was it was having all these toys and having all this time and, you know, having the ability to have a crane and having the ability to do these shots that I've never been able to do. Uh, but that, but that we are only doing it in service

of making it light that it's not that it never is that kind of laden feeling. Um, but yeah, it was a marvelous thing to, to, to be able to do, to be able to do some of this stuff and also to use the tools of, the bigger tools of filmmaking to at some point in the film make a point about how films are made. Meaning, I mean, it might spoil something, it might not, I don't know, but there's a big romantic scene

and I wanted it shot the way those scenes are shot. So I needed all the stuff that you need. I needed the rain machine and the black backlight and the crane and the, you know, I needed all the bells and whistles because that is what we've decided is a big Hollywood thing. And so it was it was marvelous because it was almost like I got to do. I got to use the language of Hollywood and then also use other language so it was like I was working with both both I would think about you know the way Truffaut uses the camera in Two English Girls or Jules and Jim where you never

really feel its uh heaviness you just it kind of moves yeah it just moves and then also to use you know the kiss in the rain uh as as it and so i got to it's almost like i got to play with different filmmaking styles in the film because it was part of at a certain point in the movie because it becomes reflexive it it's playing with the form of movies as storytelling so I got to I got to really go for it I mean it was a big swing um actually I remember I mean York and I looked at so many different movies for the look of this movie and as I mentioned um I mean two English girls you know, one of the movies where they talk to camera, which is we use employed in the film, but also the color is so beautiful. We looked at the camera movement and John Huston's The Dead, which is, and also just The Dead in general is a great stand in, in a way.

Yes, 1800s and a family. And also just, it's gone. Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah. It's gone, which is, you know, which was actually a suggestion of Wes Anderson said, look at the dead. I think he, I'd seen him and he said, you should watch, you should watch that again. And then we looked at,

we looked at Heaven's Gate, of course, because it's stunningly gorgeous. And also, the giant, when they graduate from college and then they have that giant waltz scene at the beginning, I made all the actors watch it because I was like, isn't this the most rock and roll thing you've ever seen? But it's not rock and roll at all. And Kris Kristofferson's so dreamy.

Anyway, it's great. People were like, stop mentioning Heaven's Gate because it literally bankrupted a studio. Well, your movie's not four hours long. No, no, no. And I didn't build a boomtown for it. And I didn't have giant train shots. But it's so gorgeous.

But also McCabe and Mrs. Miller for... I mean, strange things like how the ice looks in McCabe and Mrs. Miller for, I mean, strange things, like how the ice looks in McCabe and Mrs. Miller. Ice isn't white in it. It's kind of that gray mottled ice. But also just that it's not precious, even though it's a period piece. This is my favorite kind of conversation. Oh, yeah. As you're just saying all the cool movies that you watched and tried to reimagine.

Just like nerdiness. It's great. Just nerdiness. It's great. Just nerdiness. I mean, honestly, Scorsese's Age of Innocence has a lot of the stuff that, in a funny way, he was also looking at all the movies

that I had looked at because I could see all the movies he'd looked at because then when I looked at it, when I watched his film, there were just so many things that I was like, oh, that's from this one

and that's from that one. But the opening scene, I never really got to do a shot like this because I didn't have as much time and I he's crusade and I'm me so we're working there we're good you gotta have your goals but that's uh but that he uh he does that shot um it's from Daniel Day-Lewis. It's like after the opera, they go to this party, and it's the most beautiful shot. And he does things like linger on paintings, which I loved, which I didn't end up doing because I couldn't figure out how to do it correctly.

And probably also the paintings he was lingering on were actual Renoirs, and I didn't have those. But in any case uh it's terrific and then you know like I mean there's so many there were so many um just great films we looked at and I don't even know what my point is now I'm just talking about movies no it's the best it's very funny that you mentioned Scorsese because I have written down on this paper it feels like you have your De Niro and Saoirse and was she always going to be Jo? She told me she was going to play Jo actually she came up to me um it actually seems like Jo was what was so crazy about it both Saoirse and I had separate experiences which when I went to go talk to Amy Pascal about this film,

I said to her, I have to write it and I have to direct it. I have to do it, which I had kind of forgotten that I'd said until she reminded me and press. She was like, do you remember coming into my office and you said I have to write it and have to direct it and you hadn't directed anything? I was like, no, I don't remember saying that. Yeah, a little bit of Joe yourself.

Yeah, and then Saoirse also came up to me and she just said, I know you're working on this and I'm going to play Joe. Basically, that was how it happened. And she was right in that way. She was just telling the truth. She wasn't bigging herself up or anything. And she wasn't saying it because she was being arrogant. She was just saying, that's just true. I'm playing Joe. And it was. No, I'm, Saoirse is such a, it's hard to overstate how much of a collaborator she is with me. And,

and when I talk about like Jacqueline Duran and the stuff we were doing in London, she was there working on the costumes with me months before because she was just so intimately involved with what the film was. And she would, things that, you know, are all over the film, like one example of she wears this military coat while she writes and she wears it the whole movie because she i mean joe says in the book the whole book she wants to be she wants to go to war fight with her father in addition to being a boy um but louise may alcott actually did go to war as a as a nurse and she went and she got sick um but it was then she wrote a she wrote something called Hospital Sketches, which was her first sort of well-received thing and sent her on a on a different path. something uh and and she said because the way joe writes it's it's and the way louisa writes it's like a military campaign she's taking over territory and she's occupying land and she's she's pushing the enemy back and standing on this inland and i was like wow that's um

terrific and you know they came up with this great costume, but that's just one tiny illustration of her making me understand the thing we are collectively doing even better. Right. Small choices make character. Oh, exactly. Yeah, that makes total sense. So it feels like you are plotting the course of a human's life through the first two movies. So first movie is coming of age. The second movie, theoretically, you'd think Little Women would be coming of age, but most of your focus is almost on of age.

Of age. You're aged. Yes. I mean, yeah. Coming of, I mean, maybe it's selling of art. I don't know. For sure. Yeah. Coming of, I mean, maybe it was selling of art. I don't know. For sure. Do you see making choices like this for projects in that way? Is there anything systematic about it or is it just, this is the kind of thing I want to do? I don't know that I think about it systematically because it feels, I think I just try to focus on what is lighting me up and I can't there's something that feels

very pretentious to me about saying this is my this movie that is my I and I also feel like but you're like scholarly about film history so you know that there's like the arc of a director's career and you know no of course yes of course I that. But I also don't think I'm not sure it serves you to think about that while you're in the thick of it. I mean, it's interesting, but I get you. It's interesting to like, I love reading and about, you know, what directors say, as they look at their career, because, I mean, it's even interesting to think of the difference between how a movie was received and how time has treated it. I mean, I'm thinking specifically of King of Comedy, actually, to go back to Scorsese. He was saying it closed in something like two weeks. It was a huge bomb. It was a huge bomb.

Beloved. I mean, I love it. I mean, Noah and I, that movie was one of the movies. Well, that and After Hours we were looking at for Mistress America, which was sort of, I mean, in my mind, we received a kind of collective like, huh. And I was like, well, that's because we liked all the B-side movies. I know. We just did a top five Scorsese's conversation and after hours and king of comedy were on mine for the same reason yeah those are the great ones they're great but like

i mean but so so i think too it's hard to you can't take a long view of your own career first of all and i think i mean the thing i try to focus on is not like what is the arc and the thing i try to focus on is if i'm lucky i only get to make so many movies in my life. Like they just take a while to write, especially if you're writing them yourself, which I am. Can't churn them out. I mean, maybe to our detriment. Maybe because when you think of like Howard Hawks, he made so many movies. Hitchcock made so many movies.

Maybe we should all be making much more, many more movies than we are. Industry is different. Industry is different. And you guys aren't work for hire you know you you're writing your own thing and so but so but i think okay so i'm not gonna be able to make i'm gonna make a handful like even if i make even if i make a movie every two to four years that's still before I start just repeating myself, not that many. And so I try to just make everything, every time I start building another castle, I try to put everything I know in it every time.

And I don't know what the, I might change, but so far my experience of it is I have to get to zero. And I don't know what the art negotiation with the art gods is about this, but for me, I have to be at complete zero at the end of it to the point where I'm like, I'll never have another idea. I spent them all. And that's a really scary place to be, But that's what I've learned is the only way the tank gets filled again. Because if I try to selfishly keep something back for myself and say, well, I'll just keep this one for the next one. I'll be smited by the archons. I don't know.

I mean, maybe this is true is i i feel like my experience of making is you get to leave it all on the floor and just hope it comes again one more little women thing yeah sure um amazing cast obviously yes sick amount of yeah just crazy talented people uh it's very altman-esque there's a lot of over each other, a lot of rambunctiousness. It's very physical. Yes. I saw you at a Q&A talking with the cast and they were treating you like Jesus. They were like, this person is the greatest person.

They do not treat me like Jesus on set. I will say, they only give me shit. So how did you build the camaraderie with people? How did you make that? How did you put that on you, I mean, how did you build the camaraderie with people? How did you make that? How did you put that on screen, I guess? Well, I mean, we had, I mean, I mean that in the most loving way. They give me shit. Like they make fun of me constantly, but it's great. It's, I'm glad that my cast feels like they just, just look at me and they're like, I don't know. I mean, what socks are you wearing? Do they have dogs wearing hats on them? Because that's what it looks like.

They did mention that actually in the Q&A. Yeah, making fun of your attire. Yeah, all the time. I mean, all the time. And what I was eating. But I was lucky. We had two weeks of rehearsal, which is a huge luxury. And it was something I really wanted to protect because I love rehearsal.

I do. I think different directors feel differently. But for me, that's where you build this funny band of people who are going to do this. And part of it is that I want people to get comfortable with each other and unembarrassed about trying things. So I both rehearse the scenes and then I have them do all kinds of theater games and warmups and dance in front of each other and read block, like they're going to get fired or something. And I want them to feel completely free and completely open specific overlap because it sounds cacophonous, but it's very tightly orchestrated. And I was using this, you know, thing that the playwrights tend to use, which is I would use slashes to indicate, like in the middle of the line, a slash would indicate where the next person starts talking. So I wanted people cutting each other off at very specific points. And often there were, you know, four to nine people in a scene at once. And the four sisters were really this four-headed beast that would sweep in. And it would be like a game of hot potato. Like it would needed to to to really have everyone firing on all cylinders to keep going so that getting that together and getting that kind of humming so that by the time

we got to set i wanted those lines memorized like deep muscle memory nobody's searching for the words they're coming out rehearsing like a play and and and so that they had the ability to by the time we were on set completely speed through the lines and it was almost like i was conducting i would say and begin and they would then run the lines for me and i'd listen and then i'd make adjustments and then we'd build this movement into it, which we'd, you know, blocked with a camera and everything else. So, but I find all of that, it, it, it,

it really, it serves to make everyone feel like a company, which is, I think what I respond to so much about the Altman films. And what hopefully they, I think they enjoyed it being all, because in a way it takes pressure off self off self if if you're in a company yeah and and and your performance is so dependent on everybody else's performance that it's not um

i didn't want it to feel like sort of that isolating you in a box of your close-up that it was we need all these people firing and um and they did they worked their tails off they were really tired they were also coming in so early because it was oh my god the days were so long they were really i mean those actors it was like survivor for them they were and it was winter and it was we survivor for them. And it was winter, and we were going through four seasons. I was managing all these seasons, and sometimes it was really cold. And I was like, take off all those layers.

We've got to spring, y'all. And then sometimes it was hot, but it was winter. It was just dramatic. It was dramatic, the whole thing. It looked effortless, but also I couldn't help thinking this must have been hard to do. It's so hard. It was so hard. But in a great way.

I mean, the nice thing about films is it's hard enough that you'll never be on top of it, which is great. I mean, if you're going to try to do something, you might as well pick a hard thing. Because then you can spend your whole life trying to measure yourself against it so a couple more for you and then I'll let you go if you could program a double feature

with your little women what would you program it with? oh my little women and something else? I mean well anything I say will make me sound like I'm really think a lot of myself no but aspirationally okay yeah Little

Women and Fanny and Alexander oh good okay that's fantastic um we end every episode of the show by asking filmmakers what's the last great thing they've seen have you been able to watch any movies what's the yeah uh well the last great thing I've seen it was for me it was like a complete experience which is that um I I went and saw The Joker. Joker, not The Joker. Antonio Banderas was the one who called it The Joker. I had to correct him. You did it yourself.

Well, I saw it in New York. It was a rainy night. There was a nor'easter. It was torrentially downpouring. It was showing at Cinema Village. Not Cinema Village. Yeah, City Cinema Village on 2nd Avenue. I know it.

You know, and like I ran in from the rain. Everyone's wet. Everyone's sitting. Is the one with the big marquee outside? Yeah. And it's got that big theater stadium style. But like there's something about New York when it rains, it always feels like the 70s anyway

because everybody's just like running. And then I ran in there and it was you know glorious 70 millimeter and it looked great and um for whatever reason because it was wet I don't know everyone there were lots of singletons in the movie theater and we were all watching this movie alone and raining and it was it it was the movie and it was the experience and the whole thing and I and I was actually I was the movie and it was the experience and the whole thing and i and i was actually i got to tell um todd phillips how much i enjoyed it and then i was like and do you know this movie theater he was like yeah i know that movie theater but it so it was very um

it felt like exactly the right way to see it yeah i saw it in la that wasn't the right way to see it i don't you need to see it on a rainy, nor'easter night in New York. We don't have those here. Yeah. Greta, thank you so much for coming back and doing this. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you.