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]
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 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.
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
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.