Little Women
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
G, 4 stars
Louisa May Alcott's 19th-century story has been adapted many times for film and television. But while some often-adapted works have an adaptation that's considered to be definitive - like the third, 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon - Little Women seems to be a case where no one version is universally regarded as the best.
The fairly traditional 1994 film directed by Gillian Armstrong was very good indeed. This film, written and directed by Greta Gerwig (who also made the excellent Lady Bird) is also very impressive in its own, slightly more contemporary-feeling, way. Both are better than the modernised Little Women that was released last year.
It's set in New England during - and just after - the American Civil War. Mrs March (Laura Dern) and her four adolescent daughters are living in genteel poverty while Mr March (Bob Oderkirk) is serving as a pastor on the Union side. Much of the story is told from the perspective of Jo (the excellent, as usual, Saoirse Ronan), whom Alcott based on herself. She's the second-oldest sister, a feisty, free-spirited young woman who works as a writer, selling stories to help support the family.
As well as Jo, there's Meg (Emma Watson), the eldest and most domestic, the sickly, piano-loving Beth (Australian actress Eliza Scanlen) and the artistic, socially ambitious Amy (Florence Pugh).
The relationships of the sisters come off as real as they have experiences in and out of the family circle. Exuberance, affection and fun contrast with bouts of jealousy, sorrow, anger and spite. All four actresses and excellent and so is Dern in her supporting role as the good and supportive mother who admits to Jo she has had to learn to control her temper: they are more similar than the younger woman realises.
Exuberance, affection and fun contrast with bouts of jealousy, sorrow, anger and spite
Despite its length, the film holds attention throughout: there's plenty going on and the performances make the characters sympathetic and endearing.
Echoes of Pride and Prejudice are striking - examining the desirability of marriage, seeking (or rejecting) potential suitors.The charming and wealthy neighbour Teddy "Laurie" Laurence (Timothée Chalamet, charming and as pretty as any of the girls) has a particular interest in Jo, but will she see him as anything more than a friend? Also interested in her is the plain-speaking academic Friedrich Bhaer (Louis Garrel). And there are other romantic pursuits.
The tough-minded, wealthy Aunt March (Meryl Streep) pragmatically - and perhaps somewhat wistfully - outlines the necessity of marriage. It's a reminder that, despite the film's emphasis on Jo's spirited side and her ambitions, the realities of the time could be harsh.
Flaws? There are a few. The structure, flashing backwards and forward in time, is sometimes confusing, and late in the film several important events are rushed through, which is a little disorienting and means some crucial moments lack some of the emotional impact they should have. The character Bhaer doesn't seem well enough developed given his place in the story.
While the moments of fast-paced, occasionally overlapping dialogue generally work well in helping illustrate the family's interactions - sort of a stylistic hybrid of Gilmore Girls and a Robert Altman film - occasionally the words get a little lost. And what seem to be a couple of moments of fast motion near the start are jarring.
These misjudgments don't prevent most of the film from working, though: many aspects, such as the courtships, are given their due. And the film certainly looks good in its costumes, production design and cinematography.
This is a Little Women for a new generation and well worth watching.