Rating: PG
Runtime: 2 hours, 15 minutes
Director: Greta Gerwig
Quick Impressions:
Despite the fact that I love Katharine Hepburn, my favorite version of Little Women is the 1994 film starring Winona Ryder, directed by Gillian Armstrong. That’s a wonderful adaptation, well-acted, emotionally resonant, accessible, the whole package. Although I have read the book, I was quite young at the time, so the 1994 film is the Little Women that is burned into my brain.
Louisa May Alcott holds an extremely special place in my heart. In fifth grade, I did an oral book report on her biography, Invincible Louisa, by Cornelia Meigs. (To make it fun, I played a fortune teller revealing the story of Louisa’s life to her pregnant mother.) The story of Jo March, similar (though not identical) to Louisa’s own story, has always resonated strongly with me. I’m also a writer with a temper, and when the 1994 Little Women came out, I had a sassy little sister just about the same age as Kirsten Dunst’s Amy. (For the record, Dunst is two years older than my sister, but Jo and Amy’s relationship dynamic was quite similar to our own at that juncture. My sister always emphatically stresses that she would never have done to me what Amy spitefully does to Jo, though, and I believe her because if she had, I would have let her drown in the ice.) (I’m just kidding. My little sister is quite precious to me.)
When I started hearing about this latest Little Women, I wasn’t sure what to expect. When you hear the writer/director of Ladybird is adapting and directing Little Women, it would be more of a surprise if Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet weren’t playing Jo and Laurie. So I did expect that, and I think it was brilliant to cast both of them. Obviously, Saoirse Ronan is a gifted actress. She is blessed with the ability to make natural, every day things look natural. She’s an obvious choice for Jo, a good fit, and she plays the part perfectly. And Chalamet makes an outstanding Laurie, the perfect Laurie for 2019. I’m a huge fan of Christian Bale, so I was surprised to be as impressed with Chalamet here as I was. Actually, he was the standout of the film for me, and I’m not just saying that because he’s been my daughter’s Oscar crush since Ladybird. I did see this movie with my almost eleven-year-old, so I won’t pretend her enthusiasm for Chalamet didn’t work in his favor, but honestly, I did think he was the best part of the film. I’m still trying to decide what I think of the film as a whole.
The Good:
Greta Gerwig does something different with Little Women. She doesn’t just give us a new cast to play the familiar characters, she also recasts the story in a different light, changing the structure. I personally would not have retold Little Women in a non-linear, post modern, time-jumpy, flashback-filled way. I would have thought, “What would be the point of doing that?” But Gerwig shows us the point. She doesn’t just make structural changes as a gimmick. (Well, I mean, part of me thinks that is kind of why she actually did it. I mean, when you’re giving the world Little Women yet again, you’ve got to think of a way to make it your own.) The movie begins just before a crucial event, with all four March sisters as adults, living separately, and it moves forward (and backward) from there, eventually telling the whole story.
The time jumps are not at all random. Instead of moving forward on a linear timeline, the material is organized thematically. We get the (full) story of this, the (full) story of that. The childhood events are still key, but they are used to help us understand who each woman becomes. So we get a kind of God’s eye view of the characters. We see them in their totality, outside of time. We see their past and their future all at once.
This method of storytelling changes the way we understand Little Women. What have been key beats in past versions become practically non-existent here. For example, we see almost immediately the way the Laurie story will end. We have a good sense of who will become his wife. So when we see romances that won’t work out, we are wiser than Laurie. Instead of experiencing his life with him as a series of surprises and reversals, we are basically watching How I Met Your Mother. (“And that’s how I met Aunt __!”). (I won’t spoil it in case you’re new to Little Women.)
(It is worth noting that one possible weak point of the 1994 version is the way Winona Ryder plays her scenes with Christian Bale. No wonder he’s confused.)
While watching, I frequently wondered if this constant back-and-forth method of storytelling would be confusing if I wasn’t already familiar with the story.
Right after the movie, I got my answer. “What was wrong with those people sitting next to me?” railed my daughter, newly introduced to the story by Greta Gerwig. “They could never understand a thing that was happening! The woman finally got the idea, but her husband kept asking what was going on constantly. If he is that confused about girls having a life, I don’t know how he ever watches anything with plot twists!”
So some people will have no trouble following the movie, but others may be constantly scratching their heads, completely baffled. (Maybe in the future, Gerwig’s film will be a useful test for parents. If your kids can’t follow Little Women, then hold off on showing them any non-Batman Christopher Nolan movie.)
Two other things set this particular Little Women adaptation apart from most others. (I can’t say all others because I’ve only seen Katharine Hepburn, June Allyson, and Winona Rider. I’m sure there are others. Actually, I know there’s a recent one with Maya Hawke I’d like to see.)
If you’ll notice, I name all of those other projects by their Jo, but this one feels oddly Amy-centric, like some Little Women spin off, All About Amy. This is fine. Florence Pugh makes quite an impression as Amy. (It’s really a shame 1994’s version couldn’t have waited for Kirsten Dunst to grow up. She was an exceptional child actress, and Samantha Mathis never felt like the same Amy, which is not a knock on her acting skills. She just feels like a different person because she is.) Florence Pugh plays Amy the entire time. I don’t think this gives us a very clear idea that Amy is the youngest. (Pugh’s method of playing a child seems to be wearing her hair in braids and yelling. My daughter thought Beth was the youngest, not surprising since Eliza Scanlen is the youngest actress.) But I’m not sure that matters. Overall, I liked Florence Pugh’s Amy, but I worried that she commandeered the story a bit. As the end credits rolled, however, my daughter started gushing about how Jo was obviously the best one and saying that she identified so much with Jo, so maybe viewers who are new to the story won’t think anything of the extra dose of Amy. (If you ask me, Jo and Amy are the most interesting March sisters, anyway. Apart from them, Meg is just kind of alive, and so forth.)
The other slightly novel thing Gerwig does is tinker with the ending a bit, making Jo’s story more faithful to Alcott’s vision and more similar to Louisa’s own life. As I watched, I thought, “Wait a minute. In the beginning, she wanted those stories published with no name, so…are we watching a bunch of flashbacks or a cleverly disguised frame story?” But the film doesn’t exactly give us an answer there. Fantasy and reality seamlessly blend, and we just get a little bit of everything. I do find it fascinating that the other characters realize something Jo does not know herself, with the implication that perhaps this sentiment is coming from the views of those characters and doesn’t actually align with Alcott’s own outside-the-box worldview. I need to watch the film a second time. Perhaps it truly isn’t just flashbacks. Maybe it is time jumps with a separate frame story. If it’s the latter, it doesn’t exactly declare itself definitively at the end.
I like the new cast. They were so good, they make me wish we saw the story presented in a more traditional way and got a long, continuous look at the protagonists’ girlhood together.
Bizarrely, I loved Laura Dern as Marmee. She really jumped out at me, and I think I prefer her work here to her much lauded turn in Marriage Story. I say this is bizarre because I never expected it. Laura Dern is an actress I have no strong feelings about one way or another. (I like her, in general, but I’ve just never felt that strongly about her.) I had a hard time imagining her in this role. But she lights up the screen every time she appears. She’s a wonderful presence as Marmee, just a ray of joyful sunshine. You can see why her girls adore her.
I also thought Chris Cooper had some lovely moments as Mr. Laurence. He’s shown to us through a lot of beard, but I still found his scenes extremely moving. And the non-chronological storytelling in this version really highlights the unfortunate life of Mr. Laurence, all his heavy grief to bear, his many sadnesses. I feel like Cooper does all the heavy-lifting of Beth’s part. (Scanlen’s role is a bit underwritten, even for Beth, but it’s almost like Cooper fills in the gaps for her and creates a bond with the audience.)
All the March sisters are good. As I said, Eliza Scanlen has the least material, but I preferred her understated Beth to the Claire Daines incarnation of the character. Emma Watson is apparently ageless. She could step into Hermione Granger again right now. In fact, if they ever make a sequel series to Harry Potter, they might have to recast it with other adults playing Hermione and possibly Harry. Emma Watson still looks and acts about sixteen. She is almost thirty. She’s a good actress, but in almost everything she does, she seems like Hermione playing the part. I honestly don’t mean that as an insult. I really like Hermione. I do wish we had gotten a bit more of Meg as a girl. Her story-arc seems so sad in this movie. (Even the bright parts are like, “No, honestly, I’m so happy to be sad because in my heart I’m a good person, and it’s a good person’s lot in life to be miserable.”) I would have liked to see more of Meg’s youthful acting in Jo’s productions, but I like Emma Watson, and she’s good in the part.
I’ve already said that Saoirse Ronan makes an excellent Jo. She’s a fantastic actress, and a no-brainer choice for the role. Will she get a Best Actress nomination? Probably. The field is not terribly strong, though there are more than five options, so we’ll see. (Interestingly enough, Ronan has now shared two big roles with Katharine Hepburn, who also played Mary, Queen of Scots reasonably well in a disaster of a movie.)
Florence Pugh makes a compelling scene-stealer of an Amy. (Weirdly, to me, the movie’s ads keep saying things like, “Pugh makes Amy likable.” Wasn’t Amy always likable? She’s clearly the second most interesting March sister in any version of the story.) Pugh is such a force playing Amy. In terms of the Oscars, I personally find Kathy Bates more compelling as Richard Jewell’s mother. I have no idea how those nominations will turn out. I’d be happy to see Pugh nominated, but if she’s not and the person who takes her place is Bates, Kidman, or Johansson, that’s fine with me, too. She’s very fun to watch as Amy, although she never plays a child as convincingly as Kirsten Dunst, who was a child. (Her technique is interesting. She ages herself down through voice modulation, volume, hairstyle, and posture. It is not completely effective, but it is compelling to watch, and it’s a lot cheaper than digital de-aging. It’s also more satisfying to have just one Amy. The 1994 person had me feeling like, “Why did that vibrant child disappear into this boring person?”) (No offense, Samantha Mathis! It’s not about you, I swear!)
Meryl Streep makes a great Aunt March. (Who is surprised?) She does this great thing with her voice, too, and really makes the most of every single moment on screen. To be honest, I wish we got more of her. (I do find it confusing that she is their father’s sister. Why is her brother so poor, then? That’s very odd.)
Another thing I particularly liked about this version of
Little Women is Alexandre Desplat’s score. I’ve been paying particular attention to score lately, and this one is good. (I have to be honest, though. I’ve rewatched
Joker twice in the past week, and I’ve completely fallen in love with its score. It’s probably tied with the
Frozen II score as my favorite of the year.)
Best Scene:
Probably my favorite scene is actually two scenes, one in which the March sisters give away their breakfast, and the next when they come home to discover an amazing surprise. (This second part stands out visually, too.) This made me feel a) like a terrible person, b) hungry, and c) delighted (in this weird, primal way that I didn’t expect).
Best Scene Visually:
There is one moment where Jo is in the center of the screen, in close-up, looking down. I love this shot. (There’s another similar shot later, but this is the first one) (that I noticed).
Probably most effective to me visually is the moment when Mr. Laurence sits on the stairs and listens to Beth play the piano. This ripped my heart out of my body. I was full-on sobbing, thinking, “Oh God! This poor man!”
Best Action Sequence:
I love the energy and intensity of Amy’s reunion with Laurie while abroad (when she’s in the carriage).
Most Oscar Worthy Moment, Saoirse Ronan:
Ronan should wind up with a Best Actress nomination for this, but I could easily imagine a scenario in which she doesn’t. (This idea that Lupita N’yongo is an option came as such a delightful surprise to me. I can’t help but root for her.) As much as I’m a fan of Winona Ryder, I do think Ronan plays Jo March a bit more like the way Alcott probably envisioned the character. I do wish we got to see a bit more of her. I feel like her character is oddly marginalized.
Ronan’s best scene is probably the one in which she discusses profits with her publisher near the end of the movie. She’s also very good in a one-on-one with Laura Dern in the attic, following a major turn in the story.
Most Oscar Worthy Moment, Florence Pugh:
Pugh is just something else as Amy. She never convinces me that she is a child (or even the youngest of the four), but she is so larger-than-life and scene stealing. And she is always Amy. Even her more restrained, adult version is clearly still the same person from the childhood scenes. The girl lives right on the woman’s face. Not only does the girl not disappear, she is never even hidden. I actually love the cold-hearted calculation with which she slowly and methodically disposes of page by page.
Most Oscar Worthy Moment, Timothée Chalamet:
If the Academy didn’t nominate Chalamet for
Beautiful Boy, they will never nominate him for this, but I included his name in this section because I said he was the best one in the movie, and I mean it. He’s just perfect as Laurie. (His performance makes me so excited to see the upcoming
Dune!) He and Ronan are such perfect scene partners that when they’re together, they don’t even seem to be acting. The scene in which he jumps out of the wardrobe is delightful, but he’s equally good embarrassing Amy at the party. (Weirdly, he reminds me of Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne’s contrived playboy act in this scene. I say weirdly, because, of course, Bale played Laurie in 1994.)
The Negatives:
Some people aren’t going to like these post-modern time jumps applied to a nineteenth century story. They just won’t. For one thing, people who love “classic” stories tend to love older, more conventional methods of telling stories. It’s hard to know the exact words to use here to convey my meaning. Little Women was written in the 1860s. To those who study literature, it’s a far cry from an old story, but to a broader audience, it’s a musty old tale. I worry that I will sound ageist if I say those who like such “old-fashioned” tales often prefer them told in an “old-fashioned” way. But a person’s age does not necessarily matter (although most of the audience in our theater were sixty or older). Some people like “quaint” things, and they like them told in the original way.
I recall arguing at length with my mother about something I had written. “Why does it need to go back and forth in time this way?” she asked. “This is confusing. Shouldn’t the plot happen in a straight-forward way?” I protested, “The non-chronological story-telling is advancing the emotional story.” But she didn’t like it because it jumped around in time. (She was actually only in her fifties at this time, so this is not a critique of the elderly.)
Watching Gerwig’s version, I myself yearned to see this story told in the more traditional way. I kept thinking, “This is such a great cast. I wish we could see the plot advance in order without seeing the best parts of the story all broken up like this.”
But I may get over that feeling in time. I will not deny that what Gerwig does here is effective. It’s just doing something different than I expected. She’s not just throwing in a bunch of time jumps haphazardly. She’s presenting the story in a different way.
Still, after the film, when I asked my daughter her favorite scene, she said, “I liked all the parts when they were all together as sisters.” And I mean, yeah, that’s the best part of Little Women, the part when they’re young and live together as girls, and that does make up the largest part of the story. It would be a joy to see it all in one piece in this movie.
Then again, Gerwig’s version shows that childhood is always with us, continually informing who we are. We carry it with us, and we draw on it, and we never forget it.
There’s a weird emphasis on harsh economic realities in this version of the story. Aunt March and Amy preach practicality and remind us constantly of what the world is really like. We hear Amy saying that she can’t be great, so she will succeed through practicality. She will marry well and have money, so she can live and be happy. I listen and think, “Yeah, she’s right,” but that’s sort of a soul-crushing message. The message we want to tell girls in 2019 is apparently, “Be practical. Realize you’re trapped in a box and make a nice home there.” That’s not Alcott’s message. Louisa dreamed big and lived outside the box. She is also the one who became rich and paid for her sister May to study art abroad. I’m not sure that the point of Little Women is to marry well and make sound economic choices. (Amy gets such a nice happy ending in Little Women because Louisa gave it to her.)
Pride and Prejudice is about marrying well and much more about the spaces that men and women share. Little Women, if anything, almost argues for a life free of gender restrictions. Laurie is allowed in the girls’ space. Jo is allowed to grow up and enter the world of men. Laurie and Jo are the same. We’re all the same. We’re human. I’m not sure I like this message of, “Being comfortable is the wisest choice,” this weird embrace of society’s rules. If fitting in and making shrewd choices is the message of even our art, we live in a very sad time.
Other weaknesses are very minor. I like Bob Odenkirk as an actor, but I was not impressed with his performance as the girls’ father. (In fairness to him, though, that’s not much of a part.) I also thought James Norton was kind of dull as John Brooke, although he did have one line that made me laugh out loud (to my embarrassment). The Tracy Letts character didn’t work all that well for me either. His performance was fine, but I just didn’t quite like that part as much as I wanted to.
Overall:
It is not surprising that the writer/director of Ladybird wanted to make her own version of Little Women. Gerwig feels like the perfect fit for this project, and she directs a perfect cast. The way she presents the story is unusual, which is both an obvious weakness and hidden strength of the project. I liked this Little Women (though I’m still deciding how much), and I do think a perfectly cast Saoirse Ronan and scene stealing Florence Pugh are quite likely to get Oscar nominations for their work here, though I personally liked my daughter’s secret boyfriend Timothée Chalamet the best.
