Bea says: We saw this on New Year’s Day at the lovely Village
cinemas complex in Geelong. It was a
clear, cloudless day after the sad and devastating bushfire news in Australia,
and we were in need of a pick-me-up.
After a coffee and a walk on the sea front, we headed in to a relatively
busy theatre to watch this latest iteration of Louisa May Alcott’s book.
Now, I am a fan of Alcott’s work and have read all four
books in the series as a child/young person (I had a vintage hardcover four
book set which I think were my mother’s or aunt’s originally). I re-read the first two books, Little Women
and Good Wives, very often growing up and have seen (I think) every film and TV
version made over the years. I’ve also
read some of Alcott’s other work, most notably her novella about nursing in the
Civil War in a Washington DC hospital, during the period when we lived there. However, Cecil and I have watched director
Greta Gerwig’s work from early on as well, having seen and reviewed Frances Ha
on this very blog.
I’m afraid I was underwhelmed with this version of Little
Women. I’m not sure what it added to the
canon. Its main claim to “innovation”
was to tell the story in flashback and move back and forth in time. Whilst this is a modern (post-modern in fact)
approach to storytelling, and one I usually enjoy, it didn’t really work for me
in the adaptation of this particular piece of fiction. Little Women (the book) is a narrative that
centres on the growth and personal development of the four sisters – in the
actual book, this theme is likened to the Pilgrim’s Progress, the Christmas
gift all fours girls are given at the book’s opening. It is not just a series of connected, cosy stories
about four young people growing up. This
theme of progress and self-development is actually what is behind the book’s
eternal appeal, as otherwise it would just be too light, pleasant but instantly
forgettable. Whilst Gerwig tried to show
this development in the way the flashbacks were arranged (Jo’s anger at Amy
after the book-burning incident is more or less juxtaposed with (spoiler
alert!) her marriage to Laurie, for example), because we didn’t have some of
the subtler development that is shown through stories that focus on the other
sisters in between, the impact was somewhat lost for me.
But it is hard to mess this book up in adaptation – the
storyline is very strong indeed, but that is thanks to Alcott, not Gerwig I’m
afraid. Despite my familiarity with the
events of the story, I still shed a tear when (spoiler alert!) Beth dies, and
feel Jo’s despair and loneliness when things don’t go so well for her with the
trip to Europe and Laurie.
I didn’t think the casting combined with the direction was
particularly appropriate either. Emily Watson
may have done better as Jo than Saoirse Ronan – she is a perhaps a stronger
actress.
Contrary to popular opinion, I
didn’t enjoy Florence Pugh as Amy – I didn’t think she looked young enough to
play Amy as a child. Timothee Chalamet
as Laurie looked far too young for either Ronan or Pugh which made their love
relationships difficult to believe. Louis
Garrel as Professor Bhaer also looked too young (he is supposed to be middle
aged, although admittedly in the 1860s that was probably younger than it is
now) and annoyingly spoke with a French rather than German accent
throughout. It was nice to see Laura
Dern on screen again, and she gave it a good go, but I felt she was perhaps
being held back. Meryl Streep was
perfect as always.
I’m afraid Gillian Anderson’s 1994 version still wins out
for me; as does the less referenced but wonderful BBC mini-series that was only
released in 2017. I would also very much
like to watch the 1949 version again now – I haven’t seen it for many years.
Seeing this film made me think
of that other great series of young women growing up I read as a child – Little
House on the Prairie. Although slightly
done to death in the 1970s TV series, I am quite surprised no one has thought
to give this the modern (or post-modern) film treatment yet…
***
Cecil says: I can’t add much to what Bea has already said.
The casting was appalling, especially the young men, not
just because they had little presence on screen, and came across more like
school kids than deep-thinking intellectuals, but also as Bea says, with the
accents: what on earth are we doing with a French actor (with French accent)
playing a German professor. And I’m afraid Chalamet looks as if he’s barely
shaving yet, let alone wooing two (or three even?) of the sisters.
The constant back-and-forth of the narrative drove me mad, mainly
because it was so hard to know whether we were looking at current time in the
narrative or some year earlier; the time difference being quite small meant
little in the way of makeup used to distinguish how the actors looked. I must
have lost the plot for a few seconds ten times through the film, and as Bea
says, it’s a plot we theoretically know very well…
To be positive about something in this film, I did like the
way Beth was portrayed by Gerwig, with Eliza Scanlen in the role. Her illness
is always moving in every version I have seen, and the scenes with her piano
playing are always lovely.
I actually hadn’t noticed before the distinctive talents of three
of the sisters: Jo writing; Beth music and Amy art. That kind of leaves Meg
rather talentless, though, and she is the one who craves above all else a
typical homely life, so maybe that is intentional in Alcott’s work? I don’t
remember the ball scene so well from other versions of Little Women, where Meg
has her Coming Out, but I quite warmed to Emily Watson in the role.
I can’t agree with Bea on the idea of Watson playing Jo
instead of Saoirse Ronan. Ronan does ‘plain’ far better than I can imagine
Watson managing it, and actually far more convincingly than someone like Winona
Ryder, who couldn’t be plain even with the best of makeup artists…
So overall, I can only give this version of Little Women two
stars, even though I know the story is a five star one.
**
