I’ve heard a little about this new Anne of Green Gables mini-series. One article described Anne as being “mercurial.” Um, what? Like Scarlett O’Hara or something? What books are you re . . . oh, wait you think the first mini-series is accurate.
My sisters and I have talked this over. Anne is a dreamer, as in romantic dreamer of ideals, not harum-scarum ladder climbing goal-setter. Also, Anne is not Jo March (who could be described as mercurial); I think this is probably the type of character everyone seems to think a girl writer in the 19th century has to be (why?).* If you have to imitate another literary character, and not the original . . . try Marianne Dashwood, she is faaaar more like Anne than tomboy Jo March was.
I was skimming through a book about L.M. Montgomery and came across a clip of a stage actress whom Montgomery thought represented her idea of Anne. Trust me, not at all like the coarse faced, common-looking Meghan Follows. And the looks match the character and manners, the book Anne is refined, the movie Anne is brassy. Also, Anne of Green Gables took place in about 1876 not the late 1890 which is what both series chose.
Yeah, I think this series might even end up even worse (there were more ridiculous descriptions) than the first. Ah, me. What was wrong with the books?!!!! I mean, I guess they’re better as books and a lot could be lost in translation, but I still think the film-makers could’ve captured the spirit.
*And Gilbert is NOT supposed to Laurie. And yes, he was somewhat stolen from Little Women also. I mean, in the second mini-series, the film-makers literally plagiarized a scene from Little Women. Now, I realize that Gilbert’s character is not as well-developed as Anne’s in the books, but taking another literary character from another novel plus giving him lines from a grumpy old man in the Anne books is a bit ridiculous.