Film Review: 'Little Women'

Cizonite
Feb 8, 2020
5 min read

“These women, how little are they?" - Joey Tribbiani, Friends

Joey might not find his answer here, but in Greta Gerwig's adaptation of Little Women, he'll find a delightfully written, well-cast and touchingly directed period piece, one that, while might not be to everyone's taste, should stand as the definitive version of Louisa May Alcott's timeless best-seller.

The Story

The 7th (!) book-to-silver-screen adaptation, Little Women (2019) tells the endearing sisterly tales and adventures of the March family, albeit with some clever subversions and an updated message.

Our four main heroines are:

Josephine, or “Jo", (Saoirse Ronan), arguably the film's main character, is a stubborn, strong-willed teacher living in New York (yes, it's the 4th New York movie in 4 reviews), striving to become a writer in male-dominant 1868;
Meg (Emma Watson), the oldest sister, is a mother of two currently in a shaky marital state;
Amy (Florence Pugh), the one every reader compulsively hates, is a wildcard, ambitious painter and the darling niece of rich, grumpy, marriage-less Aunt March;
Beth (Eliza Scanlen), the loveable youngest child, who develops a father-daughter relationship with rich neighbor, Mr. Laurence (Chris Cooper), who had suffered a tragic loss.

All while Mr. Laurence's nephew and perennial fuckboy, Theodore “Laurie" Laurence (the dastardly beautiful Timothee Chalamet) proceeds to make acquaintance with the family.

Unlike the book, Gerwig has decided to tell the film in a non-linear narrative, jumping back-and-forth between 1868, when the sisters have separated, and 1861, when the family was together waiting for their father’s return from the Civil War.

Little Women for The New Age

In the run-up to the film's release, I proceeded to trudge myself through everything Little Women. That included reading the book (and its surprisingly decent sequels), watching all six screen adaptations (excluding the silent version which I couldn't find, but including that terrible 2018 contemporary update and the one where Christian Bale eerily resembles Timothee Chalamet), and marching (sorry) through the 2018 Kate Hamill stage play on bootleg.

As I was trying to not be biased towards Bale's portrayal of Laurie, I realized that each Little Women was indicative of how women were portrayed during the adaptation’s release, playing a timekeeper on how the world felt about them in that particular time frame.

Little Women 1933, for example, with Katherine Hepburn as Jo, pushed Mr. Laurence and Laurie to the forefront of the women's upturn and eventual happiness; Little Women 1994 put a bigger emphasis on the love stories and “family-comes-first" mentality of each sister, especially between Jo and Friedrich's; while Little Women 2018 had Ryan Evans, Sharpay's little brother, as Laurie.

All so distinct.

But aside from the book, none of them comes even close to matching this Little Women’s brilliance.

Little Women 2019 is, yes, a representation of women for the #empowerment era, but it never plays preacher and turned into something so much more: Sure, the undertones about radical women empowerment and positive independence are clear and necessary, but Gerwig focused more on depicting the sisters' relationships, ambitions and emotions, and creating believable characters, more than she did a political statement, avoiding the pitfalls of recent “woke” remakes such as Black Christmas, Terminator: Dark Fate, and most embarrassingly, Ocean's Eight.

The March sisters here are strong, independent, yet impossibly well-fleshed characters, ones who could juggle between their love lives and careers while not necessarily sacrificing one or the other: Jo would still march (sorry) on, with or without Friedrich; Meg’s story doesn't end with marriage; Amy becomes an ambitious role model, way different from her bratty, cliched portrayal; and Beth is a well-versed pianist even in her younger days.

I was touched by the film, and I am certain that any little girl watching the film would also be similarly empowered and encouraged by Greta Gerwig's deft direction and sensitive message.

The Ensemble Cast and The Production - Costume Design

Any Little Women film would always feature an eye-watering cast: who doesn't want to play every young girl's role models and self-identifications?

Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh earned their Oscar nominations: it might not be the flashiest roles, but the Jo-Amy dynamic is the film's shining star, and is often more understated than others; Emma Watson did an admirable job in a situation where she would have stuck out like a sore thumb; Laura Dern, Bob Odenkirk, Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper could have their own prequels and sequels for all I know; and Timothee Chalamet had just the right balance between douchey frat-boy and sympathetic lovesick-puppy.

Under Gerwig's sure-handed direction, the cast shines, giving understated performances that never shout for the rooftops, but never settle for anything less than an Oscar.

More impressively, the production and costume design became the film’s flashiest achievement, and rightly so. Presumably why the film costs $40 million dollars, Jess Gonchor (production designer) and Jacqueline Durran (costume designer) crafted a mesmerizing late-1800s period piece for all it's worth. I could never do their jobs and I have to give them my biggest applause.

What I didn't like

Look, it's easy to love the film: it's a beautiful film, filled with beautiful people speaking from a beautiful screenplay under a beautiful direction.

But it had unforgivable flaws.

'Little Women' was hampered by confounding creative choices

Alcott's book was written linearly for a reason, as the parallels weren't that distinctive in the first place, and indeed, was not the main draw of the book. In trying to craft her own vision for the screen, Gerwig bit off more than she could chew: for all the good work she did in fleshing out Amy as more than just “that sister we hate", this decision was out of her directorial reach, creating gaps in logic, as well as a disjointed throughline that robbed the film of its cohesiveness and the actors of their developing chemistry.

Speaking of which,... *spoilers from here on out*

The decision to turn Jo into Louisa May Alcott's autobiographical counterpart.

Alcott was an inspiring person: she successfully negotiated her copyright for the book, and wrote a book adored by millions. But she was also a proud spinster, one who created her happiness through inspiring herself and others to become more than just a stereotypical wife.

Yet Little Women wanted its cake and ate it too.

It was clear throughout that Jo was proud of being herself, not bound by the prospect of loveless union; when she found Friedrich, she regarded him as no more than a fleeting object of affection, certainly not enough to run after him in the film's ending (it's good to point out that Saoirse Ronan and Louis Garrel shared too little screen time to develop their relationship).

But even if she did, that's all well and good: people deserve happiness, and changes of heart are real. Yet, Gerwig insisted on an ending where Jo had both the success she craved for and the union she didn't root for in the first place, a too-good-to-be-true happy ending. Gerwig did a great job establishing the career-relationship balance of the sisters’ personal lives, but this one was one too far to be believable.

For God’s sake, 5 minutes before Friedrich showed up, Jo was still wondering whether she loved Laurie or not.

Overall: B+

The goodwill built by the film's first two hours, the relationships between the sisters and the amazing performances almost came undone by a frustrating end to a monumentally well-made film.

I'd still recommend it, for all of its efforts should not go amiss, but it's certain this is one of the weaker movies in this year's nominees.

Fans of the book, the cast, the director and any little women out there, come and watch

Misogynistic assholes, fans of Amy March’s previous iterations and Jennifer Jason Leigh, beware. Available in cinemas everywhere.