sugar storm

We’ll all grow up someday. We might as well know what we want.

… and how much it grates, especially considering everyone in the comments keeps saying things like “Finally! This is Amy!” or “They finally got Amy right!” Because … no. This is not Amy March, not from the original novel. This is 2019-Feminist-SJW-GIRLBOSS!-Amy-March. And I hate it.

Once again, a filmmaker is overlooking organic characterisation and faithfulness to the source material in order to make a film that can be considered “woke”. I most recently saw this with Anne With An E. These classic novels don’t need to take on today’s feminist sensibilities in order to be empowering; many of them were plenty empowering for their time and that empowerment translates just fine to modern audiences, especially because we are more than capable of taking into consideration the differences in social norms between now and then. 

This speech of Amy’s reeks of 2019 feminist sensibilities and has clearly been written by someone trying to make meta commentary on the limited options given to women in Civil War Era America. Her talks of “not being able to earn money” because “she is a woman” of her children “being her husband’s property” and of needing marriage to be a “economic proposition” is not only jarring in a story which is supposed to be a simple tale about four sisters but it is also not true to Amy’s characterisation and, if anything, goes against the point the novel tries to make.

In the novel Amy (and also Meg) long for and envy wealth. Meg longs for a life of luxury and ease and she covets wealth because of this; it’s hard for her to see other girls her age with so much more than she has and she also enjoys ease and not having to work. Amy, on the other hand, covets wealth for status. She does enjoy luxury, but more than that, she does not like being on the fringes of High Society. It’s specifically mentioned in the Chapter “Artistic Attempts” that one of Amy’s weaknesses is her desire to “move into high society” and when she invites her wealthy friends to her house, she insists on buying food and splurging on events which match their affluent lifestyles. She mentions how good they are to treat her well “even though she is poor” and laments no being able to match their wealth. Her entire infatuation with wealth is not about “being a woman and therefore unable to support herself” but rather about coveting the status, influence and affluence of that world. 

This is why she has to learn the value of love, home and forming a genuine and deep connection with another human being over the status that wealth brings. She turns down Fred Vaughn and his fortune because she has started to fall for Laurie, and she learns that she does want love and home over status and wealth. She has to learn that her previous aspiration was empty and shallow, and that she was pursuing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

But the speech in this clip/video? This speech makes sense. This speech is forward-thinking and rational. This speech makes Amy’s longing for wealth something admirable, something she has strategically thought about, something which has been borne of her thinking about her future and wanting to make sure it’s secure. And in doing so, it undercuts Amy’s original characterisation and her mistaken grab for wealth, which helped to humanise her character and make her more sympathetic by showing that she is flawed.

Amy’s longing for wealth was always supposed to be viewed as a bad trait because her motivations for it were skewed. Like Meg, she initially overlooked the beauty of falling in love with another human, of being loved in return and forming a partnership built on this love and respect. And, like Meg, she lets go of her preconceived notions when she does fall in love with Laurie and changes so much under the influence of love that Jo exclaims over how different she is when Jo & Marmee read a letter in which Amy rhapsodizes about being loved by Laurie and being selflessly in love in return. To turn her flaw, her short-sighted desire for status and wealth into something so clinical and rational goes against the original characterisation of the novel and removes a big component of what makes Amy flawed and cuts short part of her journey.

So, in short, no, this is not the Amy March of Little Women. This is Greta Gerwig’s Amy March, and she is far, far too modern for my taste.

Somehow in that dark time, the March family created its own light.

This shit.

So Hunchback is far and away my favorite movie from Disney’s Renaissance, and it always makes me so happy that yes, people seem to appreciate it, people seem to love it, but I’mma go into exactly WHY it’s my favorite, and WHY I think it’s so crucial, and WHY I think it should be required viewing for young boys specifically.

We all know that a huge bulk of the media we’ve grown up with consistently has that one frustrating message:  Being the hero means you’ll get the girl.  Many boys let this mentality bleed into reality.  We have “nice guys,” who feel that their niceness entitles them to romance, when obviously that discredits a female’s personal choice.  We all get this, we all know this, and a lot of us get that it’s a toxic message.

So check out our hero.

He’s an incredibly good person who isn’t conventionally attractive.

Check out our lady.

Super good person, conventionally attractive.

The movie so deliberately builds up Quasi’s hopes.  There’s a whole fucking song about it.

But Esmeralda, who is her own person with her own motivations and preferences, chooses another man, who is also good and also attractive.

A lot of people criticize this aspect of the movie, the fact that Quasi doesn’t get the girl BECAUSE of his appearance.  But my argument?  This is the best damn message a movie could ever send.

Because when things get dicey, when Esmeralda’s life in in danger, when Quasi would be putting his own life on the line, he knows that romance is no longer within the realm of possibility.  He knows he won’t be “getting the girl.”  He knows this, and he allows himself a moment of bitterness, he risks falling prey to the “nice guy” trope, and he almost succumbs.

“She already has her knight in shining armor, and it’s not me.”

BUT THEN HE DOES THE RIGHT THING.

He has NO ulterior motive for saving her life.  NO ulterior motive for opposing the man who raised him.  And he doesn’t know that he’ll get any reward, he knows he could straight up get killed for his actions, and yet he still acts.

And there’s no bitterness. There’s still so, so much love between him and Esmeralda, pure awesome platonic love, and love between him and Phoebus, and just fucking love all around, it’s amazing.

I’ve heard so many people express distaste at Quasi not ending up with Esmerelda.  Like he was cheated out of some kind of reward.  But have they watched the ending?

Does that look like a man cheated of his reward?  Does he look like he “lost” to Phoebus?  No dude, that’s a man who has everything he ever wanted, and that’s also a man who didn’t “get the girl.”

The city awakes to the bells of Notre Dame.