Review: Little Women
Friday, December 27, 2019 at 2:00PM By Lynn Lee
Did we need another one?
That question hangs over any movie based on a novel that’s already been adapted multiple times – even more so if there’s a previous adaptation that’s particularly beloved. It may not, however, be the right question. As potential movie material, perhaps great books should be treated more like great plays are for the stage, in the sense that if the work has enduring appeal, every new era deserves its own adaptation. So perhaps the better question is whether this adaptation speaks to us, the viewers of today?
As applied to Greta Gerwig’s Little Women, the answer is yes…with a few caveats. Full disclosure: I came to the movie as someone who read Louisa May Alcott’s coming-of-age classic so many times that my copy literally fell apart at the seams, and my devotion to Gillian Armstrong’s near-perfect 1994 adaptation starring Winona Ryder (which you should absolutely see if you haven’t) is a matter of TFE record .
While Armstrong’s version remains my favorite, I found a lot to like and admire about Gerwig’s...
Greta Gerwig directing Emma Watson
It helps that the two films share not only literary but also Hollywood DNA: both are Sony/Columbia Pictures, and Gerwig’s was produced by Amy Pascal, Denise DiNovi, and Robin Swicord, who respectively developed, produced, and wrote the screenplay for the 1994 film. In overall look and feel, the new Little Women is a kindred spirit to its predecessor, even while offering a completely fresh take in both conception and execution.
Essentially, Gerwig takes the well-known story of the four March sisters and shakes it up - literally. She flips the book’s girlhood-to-adulthood chronology on its head and then splices it, reframing the narrative from the grown-up perspective of the second sister and Alcott stand-in, Jo (Saoirse Ronan, terrific), as an aspiring postbellum writer looking back at her and her sisters’ childhood in a series of flashbacks that eventually provide inspiration for her writing. It’s a bold approach that directly challenges LW fans’ tendency to focus on the cozy scenes of the first half at the expense of the sadder, more complicated second half. It also provides a great showcase for cinematographer Yorick Le Saux (the go-to DP for directors Luca Guadagnino and Olivier Assayas), as well as costume designer Jacqueline Durran, who do wonderful work here drawing almost painfully razor-sharp contrasts between the warm colors and lighting in the scenes from the past with the colder, grayer and bluer shades of the present.
That said, the constant shifts in time can be disorienting, especially with four sisters to track, and make the film feel a bit disjointed. They also tend to undercut the emotional impact of some of the more poignant character arcs. Without “spoiling” a 150-year-old book, I’m thinking in particular of the main storyline for Beth (Eliza Scanlen), the quietest of the sisters, and, separately, Jo’s relationship with male neighbor and bestie Laurie (Timothée Chalamet, appropriately dreamy if almost too pretty), the outcomes of which are telegraphed early and often. While the climax still packs a gut punch in both instances, the path feels choppy, its natural momentum interrupted by all the other storylines jostling next to it. This kaleidoscopic, snapshot style worked very well in Lady Bird; I’m not sure it always works for Little Women.
Ultimately, what emerges from Gerwig’s restructuring is an extremely meta narrative about writing and being a woman writer in particular, underscored by the movie’s opening and closing images of physical bookmaking and the narrative framing device of Jo’s negotiations with a skeptical publisher (Tracy Letts) who bluntly advises her that all female characters need to be either married or dead by the end of the story. How Gerwig addresses that prescription as to Jo results in a witty hat tip to Alcott, who herself never married and fumed over having to make Jo do so. It also feels a little too clever by half, like the movie’s trying to have its cake and eat it, too. And it shortchanges Professor Bhaer (Louis Garrel, much too young and attractive for the part) who, like him or not, is one of the few significant male characters besides Laurie in Little Women. He’s still here, but – by design, not accident – registers less as a character than as a cutout.
The professor is, fortunately, the exception to the rule. This Little Women invests loving care in all the other principal players, and the sisters’ roles are more equally weighted here than in other adaptations. The biggest beneficiary is Amy (Florence Pugh), who finally escapes the usual limitations of the spoiled youngest sister role to emerge as a genuinely interesting, even compelling, three-dimensional character. Pugh isn’t obvious casting for the part; I always envisioned Amy as elegant and ballerina-like, where Pugh is sturdy and compact. But she conveys with striking force and conviction Amy’s strength of will, realism, and knowledge of what she wants, which allow her to hold her own fully against Jo.
The cast is filled with acting heavyweights including no less than Meryl Streep hamming it up just enough to have fun as crotchety Aunt March, Laura Dern playing it completely straight as the girls’ kindly Marmee, and Chris Cooper doing a benevolent patriarch 180 from his toxic father in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. There are also rising stars (Challamet, Scanlen) and Emma Watson as oldest and most conventional sister Meg. Despite the collective formidability, Pugh, next to Ronan, is the standout. Her voice provides an important counterpoint to Jo’s regarding the choices of ambitious women in a man’s world, a theme that still resonates today, and that clearly resonated with Gerwig. The more things change, the more they stay the same – and the more need there is to revisit classics like Little Women.
Reader Comments (21)
"which allow her to hold her own fully against JLo."
Fixed that for you. What I'm trying to say is that Pugh was amazing as Amy, and I wouldn't be mad if she won an Oscar for this role. She was, indeed, THAT good in the movie.
Sigh. If Spiderman or Batman can be remade, I really don't have a problem with Little Women being remade. The last version was 25 years ago, and each version speaks to a different time and generation. It's great that Greta Gerwig was given support to make this film, because her voice is so unique. I also encourage people to go see this movie in theatres, because studios need to know that there is a large audience for movies starring women, otherwise they will forget to support those films and will just focus on making movies with The Rock, Mark Wahlberg, Chris Pratt, Chris Hemsworth, etc.
I thoroughly adored this film. I've never read the book or seen any of the previous adaptations, so I went in completely unbiased. The movie is so fresh yet traditional, modern yet old-fashioned. It's a delight from start to finish. Pugh is a revelation.
I went and saw this yesterday, and I was initially taken aback by the narrative structure of the film. However, by the end of the film I thought it worked out well. It holds off moments like Jo’s rejection of Laurie until a more climactic portion of the movie. I thought Florence Pugh was tremendous as Amy, but she definitely stood out as being too old in the flashback scenes.
I quite liked the impact of the time skipping, especially at the climax of those iconic tearjerker moments. Part of Gerwig's method of providing so much depth to characters not named Jo March was allowing the narratives to grow and develop in parallel motion rather than happen every so often as in the novel. Even if Meg's story is slighter, having her struggles peak at the same time as the more iconic moments with Beth and Laurie made them seem more important.
I'll also say I really enjoyed Laurie's grandfather being so kind and generous from the start. I was not expecting that and it really helped create a tonal contrast in the past versus present elements of the narrative.
Loved the movie. Loved Ronan and Pugh but MVP for me was Watson.
Saw Little Women tonight. Greta Gerwig found an imaginative and effective way to tell this timeless story. The way she grouped the scenes thematically and emotionally rather than chronologically is initially disorienting later became captivating. I know this is a stretch but I was reminded of the TV series from F/X called Damages where the producers and writers presented 'spoiler' scenes ahead to somehow dislodge the common spectatorial tendencies to follow the story chronologically. In Gerwig's version of Alcott's novels, it helps if the viewer is familiar with the story because it reassembles the story to create its own storytelling logic. Love the way the opening line in Alcott's novel gets inserted midway through.
Florence Pugh is first among equals among this talented group of actors. She is indelible, believable and completely unforgettable - a repackaged Amy March that reveals her incipient feminism. Saoirse Ronan remains a truly expressive and non-cloying actress. She can be truly heartbreaking and gifted with the ability to convey the subtlest and fleeting-est of emotions without effort. I love the reworked ending that succeeded to tell Little Women as it was written, and as Gerwig's artistic/cultural statement that allows Louisa May Alcott's vision for Jo March to end the way Alcott originally wanted it to end in the story.
“The last version was 25 years ago”
Jono - This is the third adaptation in three years.
Ronan can spin golden moments with the quickest of glances or pause in her vocal delivery,the way she emphasises or struggles with some words amidst great emotion is actressing of the highest calibre,she's certainly become a Kate Winslet type of Actress instinctive and natural.
I think you are so right in the value of revisiting classic work.
I’ve read “Little Women”, “Little Men”, “Jo’s Boys”, “Eight Cousins”, and “Rose in Bloom”. I read “Little Women” in elementary school because all the girls in my class were reading it (for fun) and loving it.
In a kind of group read, it had a fuzzy general consensus response from me. I listened more to people tell me how they loved it.
And I’m listening more now, because the younger female members of my family do not like Jo. At all. They think she is sullen, selfish, self-centred and ruins everything for everyone else.
They like Amy. A few days ago, one said to me, “Who would want to take Jo on a European trip? She’d be complaining and whining all the time, and be a terrible travelling companion. Of course, they’d take Amy”.
I listen. And like you say, that’s the value of revisiting a story, that we re-evaluate our perceptions. I haven’t seen the new one yet, but your info that the same production team that did the Armstrong version is involved here, is welcome news.
Per Forbes: In newbie news for the crowded post-Christmas Friday, Columbia and Sony’s Little Women continued to make big bucks. The acclaimed and buzzy Greta Gerwig-directed/Amy Pascal-produced adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel, starring (deep breath) Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlen, Timothée Chalamet, Laura Dern and Meryl Streep, earned another $5.745 million on Friday, down 4% from its $6 million Thursday and just 10% from its $6.4 million opening day. That brings its total to $18.15 million and sets the stage for a $15.8 million Fri-Sun/$28.275 million Wed-Sun debut. Like Sony’s Baby Driver in late June of 2017, the fact that this film’s five-day projections keep going up after each new day is a pretty clear sign that the movie is working for paying consumers.
I saw it, and loved it. I liked that it was so lush, and visually appealing.
It’s exhilarating to watch a director who has such an intense connection with her source material, how certain parts of it are so meaningful to her in her own artistry, and how she efficiently conveys this with verve and style.
I think this will be a much re-watched movie because attention is given to each member of the cast, and we see each person’s point of view. And every member of the cast is so so good. It is so completely satisfying.
That said, I don’t want Saoirse Ronan to make any more movies with Greta Gerwig. I think there is a point of diminishing returns when actors and directors work together too much.
Gerwig has a strong distinct point of view. She arranges characters and relationships to make her point. I like this, but I sometimes think things are a bit manufactured rather than realistic. Which is a perfectly fine artistic choice.
But I think it’s constricting for Ronan, who is an extraordinary artist with a much greater range. I feel that working with Gerwig, she could fall into a bombastic trap that would be hard to get out of.
Ronan has qualities of ambiguity, wildness, ruthlessness, melancholy, sweetness, delicacy, poetry, and aloneness that she needs other kinds of vehicles and collaborators to explore.
And I’m not saying that Gerwig doesn’t deserve an Oscar because this makes her lesser than her male contemporary directors.
Little Women is my last viewed film of the year and also my best. In my book it wins:-
Best Picture
Best Supporting Actress- Florence Pugh
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Costume Design
Best Production Design
Best Film Editing
I have to say, this film floored me. It’s beautiful and extremely well acted. The usage of time is also very innovative. A+
I was one of those “why are they doing this story AGAIN!??”. But I LOVED this version. So many nuances and surprises. I deliberately stayed away from reviews and interviews so I was bowled over to see Tracy Letts AND Chris Cooper, who were marvelous additions to an already stellar main cast. And, don’t get me started about Florence Pugh—a-m-a-zing. I even fell in love with Timothée’s eyelashes again.
With the exception of Streep, who’s been doing too many of these old
lady cameos lately (more befitting actually older actresses, eg Maggie Smith, Angela Lansbury, Eileen Atkins) when she is still youthful and attractive, and could lead a film, the entire cast was wonderful.
Lynn's review was spot-on. The constant intercutting of the narrative did a disservice to just about everyone involved. Nothing had time to build with all of the choppy scene-work, especially the romances. Going from Beth's death to Meg's wedding? That was a bizarre choice to me that lessened the impact of the former event. The professor was a cipher. And poor Timmy. He didn't fare well here much at all. The casting choices were excellent. Gerwig's directorial voice is singular and needs to be heard, especially now. But this film was a flawed effort, and I prefer the 1994 version instead.
Pam, in this instance, since this is an American story, Meryl is perfect for the role, and what does that have to do with her actual performance anyway?
I genuinely don’t understand the complaints about the time jumping. I thought it made the story pop so much more and add depth to each character. It was a fresh take on a stale story. Bravo, Greta!
One of the few times I think Meryl’s casting was appropriate. If anything she’s too old, Aunt March must be around 50
Here is a good site where you can watch movies for free https://xmovies8-hd.net/ I liked this site very much and I find the best movies there calmly
This news was really an informative one because after reading this full article you will know about the whole story.