Little Women

Seen at the Village Cinemas, Geelong

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.

**

Mary Poppins Returns

Seen at the Regent Theatre, Melbourne

Bea says: Cecil and I were lucky enough to bag advance tickets to some special screenings of this film at Melbourne's historic Regent Theatre, and a couple of friends joined us which made for a lovely city outing in those days between Christmas and New Year.

I probably last watched the original Mary Poppins when I was the age of many audience members (perhaps 5 or 6) and don't remember the story well, except for the Chim-Chimenee scene and song, the chalk paintings and the carousel horses.  But I did read the books (all of them) in early primary school, so also have a sense of how the books present the characters and stories.  I say stories as they are just that - a sequence of short stories really, and I understand that this was a challenge for both films.

But - it is a good effort for a sequel.  The all star cast (Emily Blunt, Colin Firth - playing a baddie, Meryl Streep, Angela Lansbury to name a few) save any weaknesses in plot and context, although Cecil and I both felt the songs were not as strong, and I at times felt the writing team may have been struggling to keep a distinct plot line going.  It did occasionally venture into Harry Potter territory (Meryl Streep's sequence particularly), and that was when I felt it was most tangential in terms of plot and context.  There are many (I think) references to the original; I didn't really need those and sometimes they just made me wonder why - the penguins for example, don't really belong in the book sequence...

The second half of the film picks up the pace and overall it is satisfying and a great little piece of escapism as a film, with a few nice moments and messages.  Again, perfect for those days between Christmas and New Year; Cecil and I had just been for a long walk on a pier before entering the theatre so we both had a few minutes of shut eye during the first half, with no ill effects in terms of following the plot or characters. 

We had a slap up cream tea afterwards with our friends; highly recommended as a follow up to a screening of this!

***1/2 

Cecil says: It’s confession time for me, here. I have never seen the original Mary Poppins. I kind of knew some of the songs, but to be honest these mid-60s classic musicals all blur into one for me, so Sound of Music and My Fair Lady as well – films I never saw when they came out in my childhood.

Bea had to give me a quick tutorial on Mary Poppins before we left for the day out, especially as it was impossible to find an online copy of the original movie.

And really we went to Mary Poppins Returns because it was a chance to see a film at the wonderful Regent Theatre in Melbourne. I’d have gone even if it was the most unsuitable loud fantasy war game movie because it was the venue that counted.

So I had nothing to compare the new Poppins to.

As Bea says, the songs were a bit disappointing, I thought. None of them felt catchy enough to be humming them later; none of them felt particularly enjoyable to watch even on the screen. In fact, if comparisons are to be made, my other recent experiences of musicals – Sunshine on Leith and the Greatest Showman – both had catchier and more uplifting tunes, to be honest.

I think the last song of all was my favourite, but even that one I have already forgotten, just a week later.

As for the all-star cast, Emily Blunt was pretty good in the title role; Meryl Streep was flamboyant and clearly enjoyed herself, but I kind of wondered ‘Why?” at her cameo; Colin Firth was fine as the baddie. But my favourite was Angela Lansbury, who comes on very late but for me took the show.

It was fun to see the Two Chairmen pub in one of the early scenes, since I used to work in an office very close to there.

But I really haven’t got much else to say about this film.

The venue was fabulous, and they put on a ‘Cockney’ chimney sweep on a bike in front of the screen before the film began, who made a quick welcome and intro for the audience in the Regent, which was a nice touch.

**.5

The Post

Seen at the wonderful Glasgow Film Theatre

Bea says:  We managed to get to this much-hyped, latest Spielberg outing on its day of release in the UK, at the wonderful Glasgow Film Theatre, along with a nearly full house on a sleety Friday afternoon.

Well, it is a good story, strongly-written with good pace and two excellent actors holding the fort effortlessly (Streep and Hanks).  It’s nicely shot, and there are some great scenes of how newspapers used to be – hard copy papers, typewriters, printing presses, the papers manually bundled together, thrown into trucks, driven to delivery points. Just that made me realise how different things are in the world of work today. 

Of course, much is made of Graham’s gender and her invisibility in the otherwise all-male boardroom, and after the Supreme Court win.  I was more interested in her personal story of entering the workforce after her husband’s suicide; and Cecil and I discussed later – we would both have been loth to take the risk of going to print; was it the fact that she hadn’t worked until she was 45, and so was more naïve of potential work problems that helped her take that risk, or was it really that she was a born editor? 

I also think that this is the more interesting of the gender issues presented in the film; that middle and upper class women did not routinely work at this time (not very long ago) and so if a time came when they had to, it was difficult and traumatic.  The film does not really look that much either at how things were changing for younger women entering the workforce, or the experience of working class or poorer women, who did have to work.  There was also an audible groan in the audience at the dinner party when the women retired to the lounge room and the men stayed around the table discussing politics…But in reality this aspect of the film felt a bit tacked on, as a response to the womens’ marches and #metoo campaign over the past year.  

Perhaps I’m just being cynical, but there was only one really key female character in the film, and lots of men….it's still “his”tory I’m afraid.

The film’s other and more central theme was that of freedom of the press, and is impossible to miss, perhaps if anything (although I agree with it) a bit heavy handed….there are quite a few speeches to camera about it, thinly veiled in the plot.

But, it is in its own way a must-see, and a comment on our times which only a bit more than a year ago I could not really have foreseen.  Spielberg’s technique is excellent, my only comment would be to deliver the message with a lighter touch.

Watch out for the young hippy girl delivering the package to the Washington Post – Spielberg’s daughter who is an actor in her own right.

***1/2

Cecil says: I liked The Post for the way it took me back to days when newspaper really did go to press. I remember the smell and the din of the printing presses turning on the Hull Daily Mail as a child; Murdoch and The Times dispute of the 1980s largely did for all the old type-setting and printing work done before I got into media myself.

But I was struck by the scene where the journalists' copy arrives on the desk of the sub-editors, and he immediately strikes out most of the first sentence, replacing it with just a word or two. It reminded me how vital the role of sub-editors used to be, and just how many mistakes, repetitions and poorly constructed sentences get through to print these days since that stage of the production process is now done (or not done, in fact) by journalists themselves.

I actually didn't know about the Pentagon Papers story so that was interesting, though the whole way it was portrayed made you know that Watergate was just around the corner, with Nixon shouting orders down the phone about suppressing press freedoms, covert phone calls to sensitive sources (the famous 'Deep Throat' in Watergate) and the fact that the Washington Post was in the game of such revelations over that period.

I was in the Post offices in 2010, and the offices themselves looked much as they were shown to be in the 1960s-70s of this film. It was also nice to see the Jefferson Hotel, where we had one of our final drinks before leaving Washington.

But the film only gets three stars from me for reasons Bea has already alluded to. Spielberg was being almost as full-on about his 'message' as directors like Ken Loach or Michael Moore can be. I didn't need the First Amendment rammed down my throat or the really obvious references to gender equality, but clearly Donald Trump does need that, as do the voters who supported the current President, and probably sadly some of them DO need the message ramming down their throat, as both Trump and many of his supporters seem to have changed little in the 365 days since he took office.

Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep were wonderful, though. Great to watch them on the screen together.

***

Florence Foster Jenkins

Seen at the wonderful cinema by the beach at Avoca Beach in NSW, Australia

Cecil says: We don't normally let such a long time lapse between watching a film and blogging but life and commitments got in the way of this blog big time in recent months.

We didn't really care what film we saw when we turned up at the beautiful little arthouse cinema in Avoca Beach. The idea was just to experience this lovely community cinema on a day outing along the NSW central coast.

Meryl Streep is always a great actress to watch, though I haven't enjoyed all of her films over the years and not being a great fan of operatic style singing, I wasn't too sure how I'd enjoy this depiction of a wealthy socialite in 1940s New York who can't sing but wants to appear as a diva on the main operatic stages of the East Coast.

Streep does a great job here; I gather she actually can sing, and I guess only a really talented singer would be able to mimic such bad singing so well. Otherwise they'd have had to cast someone as bad as Jenkins herself was in real life.

Actually the actor who stole this one - and got the most laughs out of me through the film - was Simon Helberg, who plays her wonderful accompanist. The guy knows it could ruin his career to be on the stage with someone who is so patently bad, but he sticks at it and takes the risk.

You get the sense that his motives were out of loyalty and - in part - affection for the lonely socialite Jenkins. Similarly, Hugh Grant, playing her partner/lover St Clair Bayfield, tries to the end to prevent her from going on stage, and then from seeing the media coverage of her performance to shelter her from the truth.

But the film, while giving a few good laughs for its comic storyline, is a melancholic tale too really. Surely, it would have been a lot easier and saved a lot of energy to tell the old fool how badly she sang early on, but then it would have both hurt her feelings terribly and deprived the boys in uniform of a thousand morale-boosting laughs at her expense.

I kind of enjoyed it, but it wasn't such a feel-good movie for a comedy.

***

Bea says: 
Cecil and I are both choral singers, although neither of us really follow operatic style singing, but we were in the right place, right time to see this latest effort from Streep, and singing does interest us, so we gave it a go.

Cecil is right - it has a melancholic turn, with the themes tackling dreams (and what happens if they are unrealistic), loneliness, the isolation of wealth, illness, marriage, loyalty and - for want of a better way of expressing it - being a good person.  Sometimes, I felt the film struggled to hold onto these higher level themes, and had to work to keep out of the realm of laughing at Jenkins - who absolutely did not deserve to be laughed at.  It had to walk a line between presenting Jenkins as an old fool, and presenting her as a flawed human being, like every one of us, who has a dream that we are a bit afraid of, but would love to do, and who has flawed people in our lives that we love.

Luckily, the film starred Streep who did the best she could in walking that line; Grant, who also did a fantastic job at portraying his character in more than a two dimensional way.  It was great to see Helberg move out of sitcom territory, and also show his skill at portraying the light and shade of life, as the impoverished accompanist afraid of the implications on his career, but committed to seeing it through.

I was also intrigued by the footnote at the end of the film - that Jenkins' recordings are the most borrowed from the sound archive of New York.  So she did achieve some kind of success, however we measure that, and whatever the reason for their frequent borrowing.  I left the film full of admiration for Jenkins, but it left a bittersweet taste.  A great antidote to reality TV talent shows. Watch this, instead of them.
***

Hope Springs

Bea says: A friend staying for the weekend joined Cecil and me in seeing this fairly new release at our local cinema - billed as a comedy, and starring Meryl Streep, what could go wrong?

Well, nothing did go wrong, although it is worth saying that this "comedy" is really quite a bittersweet, and very character-driven, tale of the ups and downs of marriage - there were certainly times when the audience were roaring with laughter, but there were equally times when you could have heard a pin drop in the cinema, as some of the more painful moments of married life were explored.

Meryl Streep is always good, but Tommie Lee Jones was, if anything, better, with perfect timing and playing really well against Streep.  I was vaguely surprised by this, so checked out Jones' career on Wikipedia, to discover that he has a Broadway background - that explains that, then.

This film is definitely worth seeing - and not just if you have had a long relationship; this is thought-provoking stuff and gives plenty to think about.  Not much to critique here - well written from Vanessa Taylor, well directed and superbly acted from all three main characters - Streep, Jones and Steve Carell playing things a bit straighter as Dr Feld.
****

Cecil says: I agree with Bea, actually.

I didn't even know Steven Carell was the name of that diminutive actor who normally plays comic roles in rather second-rate movies, but he does a grand job here as the straight-faced therapist, cajoling Streep and Jones to explore what's gone wrong in their marriage and carry out various exercises aimed at getting things moving again.

I couldn't help wondering if the pin-drop silence Bea refers to in our cinema was down to the average age of the audience there that day: quite a few must have got to that 31 years' marriage stage, when things just trundle along in a rather mundane way and you can begin to question where now...

Although the couple spend most of the film way up north in Maine, Bea and I fancied we recognised the posh hotel they end up decamping to after they've had their fill of the cheap and dreary motel. Unless we're mistaken, it was the historic Griswold Inn in Essex, Connecticut. You can't be sure from the credits at the end, but we did remember that Meryl Streep's Mum lives about 5 miles away, so she must know the hotel well herself.

Funnily enough, I had to get Bea to remind me of the outcome of their relationship reviews; I had forgotten how the film ends. What lingers from this movie is a feel-good, but challenging mood.

Lovely film to see, though I wonder how I'd feel if my marriage wasn't working out too well...

***.5