Summary:
Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel about the everyday adventures of the four March sisters.
My Thoughts:
I was not at all familiar with the story of “Little Women” a year ago, but when I heard that Greta Gerwig was adapting Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel for the screen, I knew that I had to read the book before the film hit the silver screen. The novel is nothing short of miraculous; it tells the simple everyday stories of the March sisters, Jo (in this film played by Saoirse Ronan, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”), Amy (Florence Pugh, “Midsommar”), Meg (Emma Watson, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”), and Beth (Eliza Scanlen, “Babyteeth”), their mother, whom everyone calls Marmee (Laura Dern, “Marriage Story”), and their next door neighbors Teddy “Laurie” Laurence (Timothee Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”) and the old Mr. Laurence (Chris Cooper, “Adaptation”). Through every day, commonplace interactions, and unique and funny characters, Alcott weaves stories that illustrate morals for how to be a good person without ever feeling tawdry or preachy, and at the same time, she creates a world that is simply dripping with nostalgia. I loved “Little Women” and the source material was so good, and in such good hands, that I honestly expected to love this movie before I even walked through the theater doors. To my great delight, I did.
I think one of my favorite things that this particular adaptation did was jump back and forth in the timeline. The movie starts in almost the exact center of the book (or rather, nearing the end of part one, since the book is divided into two parts), where Jo is getting ready to sell her stories to the newspaper; we also meet a rather important character, Friedrich Bhaer (Louis Garrel, “At Eternity’s Gate”), almost immediately. (Alcott didn’t introduce Bhaer until much later, but from a revisionist storytelling standpoint makes an enormous amount of sense. In my opinion, Gerwig made a number of incredibly smart decisions when it came to small changes from novel to screen, which is one of the main reasons I loved this film as much as I did.) Then, after a quick visit with each of the sisters- Amy is in Paris with Aunt March (Meryl Streep, “The Post”) where she also runs into Laurie; Meg is at home with her husband John (James Norto, forthcoming “Heart of Darkness”); and Beth is at home, slowly getting sick- the film then flashes back seven years to what is near the first scene of the book. The film sort of jumps back and forth between these two distinct timelines; it helps to bring out the foreshadowing Alcott might have thrown in, and also, because a lot of this story is more about moralistic tales, the themes are really able to ring true, as we’re shown how the lessons the girls learn effect their lives over a long amount of time.
From an acting standpoint, I thought everyone did a marvelous job, but the real standouts were Ronan and Pugh as Jo and Amy. Given, Jo and Amy are the most interesting characters in the book (sorry Beth and Meg), but Ronan and Pugh just absolutely stole every single scene whenever they were on screen. Jo’s character is the more rebellious, rambunctious of the sisters (also the funniest), and Amy’s is the character that I believe goes through the most amount of change (she’s the second youngest, and I feel she does the most growing up the quickest). Laura Dern did a fine job as Marmee, but this performance didn’t hold a candle to her performance in “Marriage Story”, which, I’m predicting right now, will win her the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress this year.
I thought the production design was pretty great. I caught an hour or so of the 1994 “Little Women”, and that film had a far more nostalgic feel to it (both films feel nostalgic, but that one seemed to beg for it); this film had a very realistic design as far as production design goes. Costumes were ornate, but there were times when they were sullied from being out in the fields, or trekking through muddy streets. The buildings were beautiful but simple; the March family is rather poor, but they make the best with what they have.
SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW
Some of the other major changes I noticed in this film, which made a bit more sense to me, was the fact that Laurie wasn’t overtly explicit in his desire to marry Jo for a long time. In the book, and even in the hour or so I caught of 1994 “Little Women” just this last week, Laurie’s character is head over heels in love with Jo for almost the whole book, but Jo still doesn’t want to marry him, and in the end, she doesn’t marry him, she marries Friedrich Bhaer, and in a weird turn of events, Laurie marries Amy. The whole book sort of felt like I was being led on- getting teased that Jo and Laurie would get together (and indeed that’s an argument Laurie himself uses when he confronts Jo about her refusal), but, Alcott writes in a few scenes between Jo and Laurie, and Jo and Amy, where the lovers and would-have-been lovers clear the air about what was and what could’ve been, and in the end, everyone is happy. If I’m being honest, I was a bit disappointed in those scenes of explanation, because in the end it still kind of felt like Laurie was ‘settling’ for Amy, and then, because Laurie was off the table, Jo ‘settled’ for Friedrich. In this film adaptation, there are some minor changes, like Laurie isn’t quite as explicit in his adoration of Jo throughout the story, and there are some small added interactions between Amy and Laurie, that sort of justified the ending a bit more.
Verdict:
If we can get a new version of A Christmas Carol every other year, I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t get a remake of “Little Women” once every twenty-five years. I really think this story is just so delightful that it would be nigh impossible to mess up; it’s innocent, funny, well-directed and shot, and best of all, it fills you with a sense of warmth and gratitude. It’s no wonder this film came out on Christmas day. It’s the perfect holiday film.
Review Written By: