I'll say right up front that I am not "burdened" (that doesn't feel like the right word) by having an intimate knowledge of the book so my review is not affected positively or negatively by the director's interpretation of the original work. That said.... I really loved it. While the jumping between timelines seemed somewhat arbitrary at first towards the end of the movie it all started to come together. It doesn't always work but when it does (Godfather Two, Once Upon a Time In America, Blue Valentine) the film can take on the feel of an epic. I think this technique gave us the best view of the complex character of Jo, and in the final scenes the struggles of her complex character resulted in a beautiful bloom. While I thought Lady Bird was terribly overrated I thought that Gerwig did a masterful job with this film. It was at different parts funny, touching, sad and hopeful. And as you might expect, the acting is phenomenal.
It's in my top 5 for the year.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHateBadMovies
I’m sorry but I just thought it was boring. It has a couple charming moments and it’s undoubtedly filled with amazing performances but it just doesn’t have a story that I can remember. Very bland in my opinion.
This was my favourite film of the season, primarily because of the artistry of Greta Gerwig and the skill of the performers. Saoirse Ronan and Emma Watson were brilliant, as I expected them to be, but, Florence Pugh and Eliza Scanlen were new discoveries for me (and I have already begun to enthusiastically follow their filmography). Laura Dern brought a gravitas to the nurturing, generous Marmee that deepened the character. When I saw that Meryl Streep was bringing her legacy to a relatively small role, I knew there were great expectations of this production (I later found out that both she and Saoirse, announced to Greta Gerwig, pre-production, that they WERE going to play those roles). Greta Gerwig is a profoundly intelligent writer and filmmaker, and she attracts equally gifted people with whom to collaborate. This production is rich with insights into the characters that come Louisa May Alcott's own life and borrows from some of her other works. Those who follow me know that I chat with other movie goers as I leave a movie, and, of the 6 people I spoke to, 4 gave the film a straight up 10. Two women (who watched the film together) were confused because they missed the cues as to shifts in the time line, so here's the scoop - the movie begins in the middle of the book, with Jo in New York scrambling to be published. Only once, is a flashback labelled as such, but, the movie continually flips back and forth between the Jo's present and her past. As her present sparks themes from her childhood, we are transported back to those memories. Greta Gerwig is very deliberate in how she places her cuts, long before shooting begins, so don't miss her deliberate artistry. I've already gushed on too long, so I'll end by rating this film a 10 (perfect) out of 10. [Classic Americana Drama]
How many versions of this movie do we need? If you've read the book you might like this film. But if you haven't it's pure torture that seems to run forever. There's no clear plot or direction, just random segments assembled without reference to chronology. After battling to stay awake for hours asking myself "what was the point?"
Beautiful movie. I really like the Lady Bird too but this is a little better.
I thought that it will be a simple movie with some dramedy feelings.
But it was a way much more than I ever expected.
The casting is perfect.
The emotional journey is unforgettable.
The photography is phenomenal.
I think this is the best movie I've seen in a while.
3 Thoughts After Watching ‘Little Women’:
I didn’t love it. I didn’t hate it. Wasn’t familiar with the story. Went in for the cast, came out reaffirming that this just isn’t my kind of film.
The movie struggled to hold my attention for the first half, but proceeded to grab me in towards the end.
I wish I liked it more. The cast is superb.
Florence Pugh stole the show in every scene she was in, she gave indeed the best performance of the year. Every member of the cast does a stellar job and Greta Gerwig's script is marvelous and charming.
Other than the inaccurate title - these women are all over 5 foot - this is a good film, with a great cast and excellent work from Gerwig as director. Fans of the source work will especially enjoy the movie.
The story never gets old. I still teared up like a lil bitch every time Beth was mentioned T_T
Hardly a false note in this film, every aspect of this film is exquisitely handled
I loved it, I really did, but my favorite part was the book porn at the end. :heart_eyes:
As a fan who grew up on the 1994 version (born in 93) I thoroughly enjoyed this version. I was shocked to walk out of the theatre and realise 2 hours had passed. There were plenty of memorable scenes mixed with new perspectives that didn't ruin it in any way. My only issue was it was sometimes hard to tell what scenes were the flash backs, but again, that didn't remove from the movie at all.
A beautiful film that is a bit on the long side but the story was nice and the performances were great.
Very beautiful movie .. loved it and loved the cast but loved joe the most
8.5
Great movie i didn't expect to like it so much.It's so well directed and casting is beyond good even if i wasn't impressed with Watson's perfomance.Ronan is one of the best actress of our generations can't wait to see her in other movies.I liked the fact director choose to combine past and present.It's emotional and makes you think.
7.8/10
I freaking hate that stupid ending. I hate that Jo and Laurie don't end up together. I know how the story goes, and so I always end up disappointed and broken hearted. It sucks.
To be honest, I feel like I could keep up with the story because I was already familiar with it. I really think someone watching this story for the first time would be utterly confused and lost by the non-linear chronology. Also, it does a terrible disservice and completely wrecks Jo and Laurie's relationship. Their friendship is such a vital part of the story. It's at the very heart of it. And this movie presents it as something silly, superficial and unimportant.
In my opinion, the BBC's mini series is a much better adaptation. The characters are much more empathetic, and so the emotional punches really hit home and all the events are all that much more meaningful. In this adaptation, I couldn't connect to the characters at all. Go watch the mini series!! I know I will.
A film that shifts back and forth between the past and the present non-stop. We know almost every ending, so the film has to make us want to know the paths. For some reason, it was only halfway through the film that I really began to enjoy it.
A more visually confident effort from Greta Gerwig, starring some of the best young talent 2019 had to offer. It’s a timeless story that’s approached intelligently by the filmmakers, everyone should be able to get something out of this, even if you’re not the target demographic. The score is also pretty fantastic too However, it’s a bit too long, and some of its cheesy tendencies are a bit much for my liking.
7/10
i had read the book first in 2020 before knowing that it had a movie adaptation a year before. i really loved and enjoyed the book, probably one of my faves. and tbh the movie, for me, didn't gave enough justice for the book itself. i still like it tho. we can't expect to see all of the details from the book come into life in a movie which just have a span of few hours.
A very moving movie! 9/10 must watch!
Worse than the first one. And honestly if 13 year old amy and 20 YEAR OLD Amy weren’t played by the same actress it wouldn’t have been so bad, it was so fucking cringy having to look at a grown woman pretending to be a child:smiley: I love the Amy in the first version tho
Little Women is an immensely cheesy book aimed at children and young teenagers. The 90s film is too cheesy to watch. Greta Gerwig has done an incredible job at finding the realness in this story and making the cheesy elements feel believable. The chemistry between the sisters is joyous and electric. Jo is everything we want her to be while Amy's ambition is to be admired - kudos to the actresses. The cinematography highlights the boldness of our character's choices. The shots, lighting, filtering, and overall feel of the film is perfect. Yes, I cried. I would absolutely watch again and recommend to anyone who likes period pieces and tearjerkers.
Anyone who takes on Louisa May Alcott much loved tome is always going to be in for a tough task. A section of the viewing world will critically hammer them unless they get it 100% correct, to their personal vision of course, much like any Bronte adaptation, but you have to hand it to film-makers they do not shy away and every one of them approaches the topic hoping to give us a new angle or spin and stamp their vision on a much-revered story. So, a tough task. Therefore, I find it cheering to see a new generation of talented female directors in amongst those queuing up. In the case of Little Women, we have the much-lauded Greta Gerwig.
Gerwig skilfully treats us to a version that to non-lovers of the story or people who have no idea on the topic and period has a gloss coat of modern life painted on. So, we do get very sassy and ‘upfront’ females with very modern attitudes, more so than the book, and Laurie the main love interest, played by Timothée Chalamet, is seemingly dumped straight in from last week. But to my mind these anachronisms is not a weakness but a strength. It makes the story seem much more relatable and the characters likable and understandable to modern minds despite the setting. For younger audiences who perhaps would turn their noses up if the story were described to them, I believe this is a big hook.
The genius is then to get Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh and Eliza Scanlen to be the sisters. You cannot really fail. After this you adapt the story to fit how you want to tell it.
This does lead to some time-hopping jiggery-pokery but nothing too confusing although it is a divisive thing amongst film-viewers and I have seen more than a few heated discussions on this topic on Social Media and whether it is poor writing or not. I sit on the fence if it works then it is fine.
The travails and traverses of the March family are well told and each sister’s distinct personality is brought to life on the big screen. None more so than the talented Ronan who steals the show in the main role as Alcott’s surrogate Jo March who is feisty and iron-willed and uncompromising in how she is going to live her life, sometimes to her detriment. The whole story is efficiently told without a saggy moment or any lagging which can be a problem for films in a similar vein and setting at times.
For me, the biggest weakness in the film was Chalamet who was a bit too cool for school and too mumble-core modern for Laurie but a weakness in this film would be a strength in most other films. Nice to see Chris Cooper as the kindly neighbour Mr. Laurence and with Laura Dern as the matriarch of the family and Meryl Streep as the rich aunt and you are on a strong solid footing for performance and acting.
The costumes seem realistic to my untrained eye and the whole look of the film is ‘to the date’ – again only to my knowledge. Clearly there are anachronisms here and there but the film should not be looked at as a historical treatise but a comment on life, family and responsibility and the role of women in the late to mid-1800s. Each sister has a distinct believable personality that informs their decisions and choices but it is not a hagiography on women. They are shown as strong female characters with flaws and faults like us all – and flaws that cause them unnecessary problems. It could be so easy in the modern-day and climate to remove some of this character development or to make this seem cute or slight to get a ‘message’ across, some lesser directors might well be tempted. Gerwig is definitely ‘warts and all’ here.
The scenery and cinematography capture the period and is sumptuously a much a part of the story as the actors, particularly some beautiful vistas of Massachusetts in its autumnal glory.
Faults? Well as I said the film did not drag or lag at all but it has to be said as good as the actors are we did have four sisters in the same house with four different American accents that slipped back into English and Irish on more than one occasion and if Greta Gerwig said Timothée Chalamet’s Laurie was a time-traveller from the future then it would not surprise me.
Little Women is a good story, well told, well-acted and well presented. Surely that is all you need from a film?
I loved it, it was wonderful.
I read comments about the timeline being confusing before I got to see the movie. You have to be stupid to find this movie confusing. Do you really need a "x years later/earlier" sign to get it?
what a beautiful, heartwarming story about the female experience that, although years apart, still resonates so strongly with the present. Greta shot this wonderfully, you wanna live in this world forever.
An incredible cast. Interesting at times, but it's easy to get bored during the movie.
Little Women is like that time I ate cow tongue: I knew I wasn't going to like it until I tried it and was amazed at how delicious it was.
And judging by how much I liked Little Women, Greta Gerwig must have made the cow tongue as well because her special sauce is what made the movie so great. Sure, Saoirse Ronan just tears up the screen with her magnificence but it's Gerwig's delicate touch that gives the images their depth, the characters their heart and the story its soul. She proves here that she's more than just a director of quirky indie films: she's capable of making great movies on a grand scale.
Simultaneously smiling and losing the fight to hold back tears, I wasn't prepared for how emotional I would feel watching this period piece and my heart hasn't been touched like this and moved so much in a long while.
I'm allergic to time jumps back and forth, back and forth and this movie has a lot of it and it ruins the movie completely, and they really have removed a lot of story. Especially noticeable after having watched the 3h miniseries and the movie from 1994 in the last month.
Little Women (2019) is a period film but it manages to feel so modern and fresh, maybe due to the fact that it touches upon topics that are relevant to us, now.
Even though I've never read the book, I'm aware of its significance, and I'm certain Greta Gerwig did an excellent job adapting it.
Honestly, I feel like I could rewatch this a thousand times and still love it, but I recommend you watch it at least once, because it's definitely worth it.
This latest adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's celebrated novel is an absolute delight and a triumph of filmmaking by Greta Gerwig. It is very cleverly written, incorporating how the book was written and the visualisation of the book, all using the same cast.
It's a film that looks as if the production costs are high, with great costumes, make-up, and all other aspects of the production department who have recreated 19th-century New England on location, so it feels authentic. The film has a lush, evocative soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat and a magnificent ensemble cast including Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Laura Dern, Tracey Letts, Bob Odenkirk, and Meryl Streep without a single weak link.
This is Gerwig's second collaboration with Ronan after 2017's multiple Oscar-nominated Lady Bird, and it would be astonishing if history wasn't repeated with Gerwig and Ronan receiving Oscar nominations for Best Director and Best Actress, respectively.
I was probably the only person in the audience who didn’t care all that much for this adaptation. I know I didn’t care as much as one older gentleman who kept obnoxiously laughing at every minor cutesy scene. Besides, I am very fond of the 2017 PBS Masterpiece miniseries, so I cannot help but to compare. I don’t mind Saoirse Roman as Jo. Given all of her past work, she was a natural (if predictable) choice. I still liked Maya Hawke’s version more. There was more substance to her Jo March. Annes Elwy is more of a Beth to me. And I find it hilarious that Emma Watson, who can’t act her way out of a bag, was cast as a wannabe actress Meg. Every time she came on screen I cringed. The only exception for me was Florence Pugh, whose delightful portrayal of Amy overshadowed Kathryn Newton. But I am not surprised, because Pugh is quickly becoming one of my favourite actresses.
Same with the non-titular characters - Laurie, Marmee, Aunt March, - PBS had better casting.
As far as the direction goes, I hated the nonlinear plot. A lot of times it was hard to tell when we were looking at the past, or the present, and how old the characters were supposed to be in each scene. Whenever the director wanted to show sisterly love, she’d put on a scene full of chaos and giggles, and rolling on the floor laughing, and camera zigzagging between the twirling, chattering bodies. I guess chaos is perfect to guise the shallow characterization or underbaked scene setup. It’s a lazy way to show the relationship within the loving household.
The choppy shuffle of the scenes also made Laurie look like a terrible person. He was professing eternal love to Jo one moment, then fast forward one scene, and he is already in love with Amy. There needed to be a sensible length of time allocated for character growth to make sense of his change of heart, but the direction scrapped that idea.
With all of these negative elements, the new Little Women felt too long for me to bear. I was relieved when it was finally over.
A delightful costume drama about domestic problems filled with a star studded cast giving great performances. It was an easy and fun watch.
Haven't read the book or seen other versions but felt very nostalgic watching this movie. I teared up quite a lot actually. I do think it was quite hard to follow as there are different timelines and they don't really look younger or older in them so it took some time figuring that out. Very great cast and a very nice movie though :)
Not sure how this movie is so highly rated. It was boring, slow, confusing, and the acting was mediocre. Even my wife who enjoys chick-flicks agreed with my sentiment. This movie might have been ok 20-30 years ago, but there's absolutely nothing new it can offer today.
The story starts in a very uninteresting way, then it takes shape and becomes more enjoyable but it still wasn't enough to amaze me, the way they handle love disappointed me a lot but hey, it's not a bad story after all...
Whoever came up with the idea to tell this story nonchronologically seriously needed to be fired. The plotline was genuinely just all over the place and it really took all the feeling and charm out of it. Such a shame, because this movie could have been sooo good.
BOOKS can flip back and forth and back again without confusing because the writer has more ability to describe the shift. in a film, particularly where the period clothing is not an indicator, it becomes tedious to watch. Downright annoying at times.
30 minutes in I wanted to turn it off. but I just kept staying for the book i loved growing up. It just overly reminds how limited women were and if they wanted to be more, it was more punished than rewarded. Not sure this film does anything else well, but it definitely hits that chord.
3, maybe 4. Find a better version.
Very well-directed and acted movie that presents so many different views women may have of the world and none of them are undermined. The movie has so many highs and lows too. Each moment has so much impact on the four sisters' lives that impact them in similar and different ways.
a stunning movie with a wonderful story and great cast with lovely scenes and touching moments
First thing first, I have not read the book, so I can not make any comparison to the original material.
Story was great and had certainly evoked some emotion, nothing to complain about that. It did feel as if women were not represented well for their time, they did go for some empowerment but at the same time women kinda do end up as wives and just become more secondary on a societal level. Which is absolutely normal for civil war times, but for some reason except the main character the other women do not struggle in such a society and its hardship is not depicted that well, at least in my opinion. That is not a major critique, one could really sympathize with the main character and experience all of the hardships(even though it felt like struggle was downplayed and would've been harder in real life) through her eyes and that part is definitely one of the most valuable parts of the movie.
Generally movie geared itself up to be close to realism while you know.. still being a movie and not being too boring, all the actors did their part very well, though it did not feel as there was a lot of moments where the acting could've shone a little better, emotional scenes were cut a bit short and dry for my taste.
Going back and forth between past and present was done well except in the beginning it was very confusing.
Well overall it was a solid movie and definitely one should see. 7/10
Oh my god don’t even talk to me about little women I love both movies so much, obviously the book comes first, and I’m not sure if this beats the first movie but I love it and the cast is my fav
Beautiful, moving, hopeful and sad.
A wonderful tale about four sisters growing up into the fantastic adults they turn out to be.
I was moved to tears, angry fits and laughter for the characters.
One of the loveliest screen works I’ve seen this year.
It starts slow, then it gets more interesting, but it still has some silly moments and it is just too cheese and over the top some times. I like the story within the story, though, and it has some good representations of historical injustices towards women and what it is to grow up and be force to let go your childhood dreams.
Such a wonderful adaptation of the book. Great performance by Emma Watson and Laura Dern. Also loved the actresses who did roles for Amy and Jo
"My little women."
The ultimate comfort movie when things are getting out of hand in your life.
Little Women (2019) is written and directed by Greta Gerwig and is based on the 1868 novel by Louisa May Alcott.
This is my favourite movie of 2019.
It’s entire aesthetic is stunning and filled with beautiful shots. The entire third act of this film breaks my heart every single time I watch it yet I still watch it again and again. The juxtaposition of the past and the present scenes is done beautifully and connects emotions together perfectly.
Everybody is fantastic here but Florence Pugh, Saorise Ronan and Timothée Chalamet all deliver stand-out performances. They play their classic characters perfectly in a refreshing way and make you feel their emotions in every single scene so perfectly.
I am in love with the cinematography, the acting, the clothes, the writing. Everything.
Just watched the 1994 and 2019 version of Little Women. I thought both version have their own plot hole that can be filled with one another. So I can't really decide which I like most. I personally prefer the march sisters and the set in 1994 but I really do like the characters development in 2019, its like finally we got closure...mostly for Jo, Amy, and Laurie. While I do too love Meg's story, I feel like they didn't do enough justice for Beth in this version & it was sad for me because I really like the relationship of Jo and Beth in 1994.
A tad slow but otherwise done masterfully.
A lot better than I thought it would be, I really liked it. Friends kinda spoiled this for me, but anything with Emma Watson is automatically amazing
Not my type, but there must be something to it, as shown in the film - every work has the right to find its recipient.
"I've had lots of troubles, so I write jolly tales."
Saoirse Ronan? Great. Florence Pugh? Great. Greta Gerwig? Great. This movie was a great remake of the previous renditions and it is good to see that these types of stories are still getting made.
I like the movie, it's modern, it's nice, joyful, good actores, good view. But that's it. I read the book many years ago so I don't remember anything fron the book, but I did remember the last movie with Winona Ryder and Christian Bale abd I remember I was crying when Jo dumped Laurie. In this novie I felt everything as too simple and superficial. I couldn't felt for Laurie and I even got to think that Jo was even faking even though Saoirse Ronan is an excellent actrice. So, final words. It's a good movie to entertain yourself for 2h.
From Greta Gerwig comes a new interpretation of L.M. Alcott’s classic novel Little Women for a new generation. The story follows four sisters as they grow up in the backdrop of the American Civil War as they deal with issues of love and loss, and finding their own way in the world. Starring Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Laura Dern, and Chris Cooper, the film has an impressive cast that gives good performances. And Gerwig too does a great job at capturing the romantic tone of the novel and the ambiance of the period. However, it tries to get a little meta in its shifting time frames and parallel storytelling; which can get kind of confusing. And Gerwig tries to slip in some liberal messaging that takes one out of the film; which is really kind of a shame given how powerful the original material is on its own. Still, the authenticity of the costumes and sets is remarkable, and the score is beautifully done. The ‘94 version is probably a little better, but Gerwig’s Little Woman is a compelling coming-of-age drama with its own unique character and charm.
Decent, but nowhere near as good as the 1949 version. Absolutely detested the choice to start at the end, go backward, and then jump back and forth though.
I honestly am surprised that I liked the movie, esp period movies most esp romantic period movies. What kind of spoiled me was the flashbacks and what nots that are happening, it felt so jumbled and confusing. I guess I should just face my fears (fear of just wasting time) and read the actual book myself.
I can best sum up this film as wasted potential. Actors/actresses giving it they're all yet terribly miss cast in their roles, a story with moments that are simple and heartfelt yet the majority is confusing and in need of prior knowledge of whats going on to fully understand, cinematography that can sometimes be stunning yet for the most part is bland and uninspired. I hated this film however I can see that if your someone who already loves the story of Little Women you might very much enjoy this new iteration. Everyone else though please skip, there are much better tellings of this story out there. You just have to look.
Very interesting ending, meybe not real life ending?!
This is not a bad movie. However I must agree that the non-linear story telling had me confused and it was tough to follow. I also wasn't satisfied with the end where Jo suddenly ends up with a guy who has rather a small part in the movie. There doesn't seem to be a connection between them.
I do understand the Oscar and all the other wins and nominations. The movie looks amazing and the acting was brilliant. Maybe I'll watch it again later and change my opinion towards the story.
After the big hype around it I found it not so overwhelming. Was good but...
Fantastic ensemble cast, with some great set work and wardrobe, Little Women really is a great transportation to the late 19th Century. My main reduction being the stories almost abstract, scattershot approach of framing its time jumps, leading to some incoherency in the plot (atleast for me, with this being my first foray into the story of Little Women). Still, a great movie (albeit one very far out of my usual tastes) that deserves the praise it will likely receive from the Oscars.
when you accidentally watch Little Women (2018) instead of Little Women (2019)
Anyway, Flo really deserve that nomination
Hell yeah gurrrlllll. and as always, amazing soundtrack. What do you expect from Alexandre Desplat
This movie is pretty great. Possibly in the top 2 of all 4 adaptations. I'll say one thing though, Chalamet vs Bale = Bale & Pugh vs Dunst = Dunst. Rest are ties with the '94 version.
"Stellar cast and a smart, sensitive retelling of its classic source material."
Review by Andrew BloomVIP 9BlockedParentSpoilers2020-01-20T15:57:43Z
[9.5/10] The most ingenious choice that Greta Gerwig’s Little Women makes is to chop up the story so as to juxtapose present and past. It not only immediately marks this adaptation as distinct from its predecessors, but helps to recontextualize and connect different parts of the story to make it feel new again.
The audience has a chance to meet and appreciate Freidrich before Laurie has burrowed into their hearts. By the same token, the joy and connection between Amy and Laurie can be front and center from the get-go, without springing it on the viewer halfway through the story. And the bookend approach allows Gerwig to put Jo’s drive and travails as a writer into the spotlight early.
But the biggest advantage it confers on the film is how it allows Little Women to constantly contrast the lives that these young girls imagined they would lead one day, with the lives each finds themselves inhabiting in the future. Like the novel it’s based on, Gerwig’s adaptation is anchored squarely around considering the wildest dreams of its titular set of sisters, and measuring them against the paths actually available to women in their time, and the places their choices and passions take them. The jumps back and forth and time allow Gerwig to check expectation with reality, to trace cause and effect, and to resolve the two with poignance and grace.
It also allows Gerwig and company to flesh out each of the young women at the center of the narrative. Jo March still commands the story and the screen. Saoirse Ronan throws herself into the role, conveying all the punch, heedlessness, and subtle vulnerabilities of the character with endearing abandon. It is both a dream role and a hard one, but Ronan makes it look effortless.
And yet, this adaptation makes time for the other March sisters to falter and flourish. Amy is vivid and real from the jump, with her questioning of her own talents, her sense of being second to Jo, and her truth-telling relationship with Laurie put front and center. Meg’s chance at a life of elegance and plenty, the love that pulls her away from it, and the joys and hardships of that choice are given time to breathe. And Beth remains the heart of the film -- still a little too pure for this world, but one who suffers for her own goodness, reminds a kindly neighbor of what’s been lost, and spurs her sister to take up what she’s put down.
All the while, Little Women is utterly gorgeous to look at through the March Sisters’ misadventures. Gerwig and cinematographer Yorick Le Saux capture the bucolic beauty of scene after scene draped in New England splendor. The pair construct tableaus of faraway elegance and local beauty in turn. But these visuals aren’t gratuitous. Beyond making the movie a treat to watch, it helps sell the contrast at the heart of the film. Scenes set in Jo’s youth have a golden hue, an inviting glow that conveys the idyllic, hopeful tone of those early days. And the ones set in her adulthood are darker and starker, visually communicating the various cold realities the March family has had to grapple with in later years.
As necessary as it is to contend with those cold realities, it’s just plain fun to vicariously share in the joy that Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy share with their mother and friends in their family home. Apart from its structural choices, apart from its character focus, the greatest strength of Gerwig’s Little Women is how well it captures this sense of young people at play, of a headstrong young woman in their element, and that unfathomable, spontaneous vigor of youth.
The March Sisters, and their friends and close confidants, fight and babble and hug and exalt together. There’s a move toward Gilmore-esque speed and overlap in conversation after conversation, expressing the happy chaos that envelops these lives. This story is founded on the breadth of possibility forged in such a simple, familiar environment, on the pleasures and satisfactions found despite absences and meager means, on blessings shared and passed around. The warmth of the March household would not work if those who orbit and inhabit it, did not seem so real in their rough-and-tumble interactions and simple joys.
Those joys, however, are meant to run up against the expectations of adulthood that clash with allowances of youth. That’s the role Aunt March plays -- the naysayer to the slack existence her brother and his wife and children have made for each other. But Gerwig does not make her a villain. Instead, she is merely practical, a woman who knows from her own experiences which choices are permitted and which invite difficulties, delivered with an amusing wryness that makes her endearing even as she aims to stifle her nieces’ dreams.
That’s the crux of Gerwig’s adaptation. The March sisters imagine wondrous lives for one another, borne on the backs of each’s great talent. Jo pictures herself as a bold writer in the big city who never marries anything but her art. Meg sees glimpses of a life where she’ll never have to work, where there’s time for things like acting and society and beautiful dresses. Amy envisions the life of the genius painter overseas who stands with giants. And each finds those dreams running aground on the many limitations of the real world, with tethers made extra taut for the declaratively fairer sex.
All except for Beth, whose dreams lie in the simple doing of good, the making of music for those around to hear it rather than for the masses, despite her prodigious abilities. She is the cinch of Little Women, not merely in her death which brings the March sister home. But in her life of quiet kindness at home, in her peace with what must come and the joy to be found despite it, a joy they found together in the attic and can still share and revive no matter how big or little they are now.
Jo, Amy, and Meg each regains a measure of that golden glow in the shadow of the house they grew up in. Amy loses the artists life in Paris she imagines, but finds happiness in a partner who vindicates her talents and for whom love triumphs over station. Meg is denied by circumstance of the beautiful things and easy life she once pictured, but is buoyed by the care and satisfaction of family and a life built with the man she loves. Even Jo turns away from the “spicy” stories that sell to stuffy cigar-smoking New York publishers and finds her truth, finds her greatness, in the bonds fraught and familiar at home, with a winking-but-joyous connection to a beau of her own. And each is seen sharing the fruits of their talents, passing them on to a new generation of young men and women.
There’s a degree of wish-fulfillment to the close of the film, a heartstring-tugging image of familial warmth in a bucolic setting. But Gerwig earns that warmth. The happiness crafted in a humble home is measured against the metes and bounds of the wider world, and found no less worthy. The choices afforded to women of any station at the time are reckoned with and suffered in, with the ensuing joys and small, self-possessed rebellions made more potent in that unfair crucible. The losses each suffers, the distance between the lives they dreamed and the lives they live, is laid bare in the cuts between past and present.
But in the end, Gerwig does as Alcott did, and makes the fulfillment each chooses meaningful by those terms. The hardships great and small each endures, make it more than a publisher-mandated happy ending when, despite that difference between past imagination and present truth, each of these little women realizes they’re living the lives they truly want.