Movie Review: LIttle Women
Last summer my son and I took our hurried vacation in Boston and Maine. We saw as much of everything as we could, within our six days, including the flights from Atlanta. We saw the Red Sox demolish the Yankees in Fenway, toured the Museum of Fine Arts, walked around the Commons, saw Cheers, and fed the descendants of the ducklings that were made way for.
While he toured Harvard, MIT, and Boston College (he's a big ACC fan), I took a bus tour to Lexington, Concord, and Louisa May Alcott's home. The women on the tour were in love. Proof positive: Me by the sign. Photo taken by the tour bus driver (that was another story).
Having watched documentaries about Alcott, having seen all the versions of Little Women except the Melissa Gilbert one, and having read the book more than once (often stopping when it becomes clear Jo is not going to marry Laurie--how could she not?!) I of course was going to spend Christmas night at the movies alone watching Greta Gerwig's new version of the story. There were maybe 50 people in the theater and I only saw three men, but I did see women my age and under.
So, how was the movie. Beautifully photographed, and good acting. Everyone calls out Ms. Ronan, but others were good. Meryl Streep, of course, and the actors playing the other sisters. Not sure about Laura Dern and the fellow playing her husband Mr. March. Laura did her best but she's too tall and beautiful and modern. The actor playing March seemed as out of it as Bronson Alcott usually was; there is an hilarious moment when Mrs. March clearly rolls her eyes at his cluelessness.
I saw, however, two problems with it. The screenplay's use of flashbacks is just too confusing even to someone who knows the book well. I have no idea how someone who hadn't read the book would understand what's going on. You don't know when it is in the story except maybe by the length of Jo's hair--maybe. The screenplay also plays tricks on you at the end and becomes meta, and I don't think I like it. The confusion between Jo and Alcott herself doesn't work for me. It's kind of funny but non-cohesive.
Secondly, there was just too much of the "proto-feminism-marriage is an economic contract and women can't make any money on their own" stuff. It gets old and becomes the characters' prime motivations. Even Aunt March gets into the act, and says things Aunt March would never say. "Cathouse" would never come out of Aunt March's mouth.
Which brings me to the overall issue: This is not a film version of the novel. It is a reinterpretation of the life of the novelist and a director/screenwriters rewriting of the characters. Since the book is in public domain, I guess we/she can do that and live with it. We surely do it with Shakespeare, and Little Women, as wonderful and human and charming as it is, is not Shakespeare. But if you go expected a faithful adaptation of the novel you've read, you will not get that. You will get something else that is interesting, but not that.
While he toured Harvard, MIT, and Boston College (he's a big ACC fan), I took a bus tour to Lexington, Concord, and Louisa May Alcott's home. The women on the tour were in love. Proof positive: Me by the sign. Photo taken by the tour bus driver (that was another story).
Having watched documentaries about Alcott, having seen all the versions of Little Women except the Melissa Gilbert one, and having read the book more than once (often stopping when it becomes clear Jo is not going to marry Laurie--how could she not?!) I of course was going to spend Christmas night at the movies alone watching Greta Gerwig's new version of the story. There were maybe 50 people in the theater and I only saw three men, but I did see women my age and under.
So, how was the movie. Beautifully photographed, and good acting. Everyone calls out Ms. Ronan, but others were good. Meryl Streep, of course, and the actors playing the other sisters. Not sure about Laura Dern and the fellow playing her husband Mr. March. Laura did her best but she's too tall and beautiful and modern. The actor playing March seemed as out of it as Bronson Alcott usually was; there is an hilarious moment when Mrs. March clearly rolls her eyes at his cluelessness.
I saw, however, two problems with it. The screenplay's use of flashbacks is just too confusing even to someone who knows the book well. I have no idea how someone who hadn't read the book would understand what's going on. You don't know when it is in the story except maybe by the length of Jo's hair--maybe. The screenplay also plays tricks on you at the end and becomes meta, and I don't think I like it. The confusion between Jo and Alcott herself doesn't work for me. It's kind of funny but non-cohesive.
Secondly, there was just too much of the "proto-feminism-marriage is an economic contract and women can't make any money on their own" stuff. It gets old and becomes the characters' prime motivations. Even Aunt March gets into the act, and says things Aunt March would never say. "Cathouse" would never come out of Aunt March's mouth.
Which brings me to the overall issue: This is not a film version of the novel. It is a reinterpretation of the life of the novelist and a director/screenwriters rewriting of the characters. Since the book is in public domain, I guess we/she can do that and live with it. We surely do it with Shakespeare, and Little Women, as wonderful and human and charming as it is, is not Shakespeare. But if you go expected a faithful adaptation of the novel you've read, you will not get that. You will get something else that is interesting, but not that.
Comments