Movie Review-Little Women
This weekend I had the opportunity to see the film, Little Women, starring Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan and Chris Cooper.
My sister had already seen it and warned me that I might not like it, but I’m a movie buff, so wild horses couldn’t keep me away from a movie like this one. The iconic Louisa May Alcott book fits into the idealized portrayal of a happy ending, but after reading a few movie reviews this weekend, I really see it a different way.
One review, posted in the New York Times, heralded Writer and Director Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Little Women to be a triumph for feminism, since it “flips the script” (yes, they used that tired phrase) from what Alcott wrote versus how her actual life turned out.
Louisa May Alcott never married nor did she have children, although she celebrated her relationships with her nieces and nephews. While this doesn’t seem remarkable on its face, literary critics have posited that the character, Jo March was a self-portrait. In the book, Jo is a headstrong, independent young woman with a passion and talent for writing. She dreams of publishing a book someday, and that ignites her imagination and keeps the story interesting for the reader.
But romance creeps into the pages, and as pre-pubescent girls, we reveled in the pages where she described all the things she looed for in a mate. Beyond the real-world stories of a war-torn country and injured father that follow, she drew us into a description of Jo getting married to her beloved Professor Bhaer. As young readers, we saw the ebb and flow of her deep and abiding friendship with Laurie and, reportedly, at the time there were legions of fans who felt that Jo should have married Laurie rather than the mysterious Professor who was austere, older and a more daring choice for young Jo. Either way, we all wanted her to finish her story as a happily married woman.
Film critics seem to think otherwise, writing that Louisa May Alcott really would have wanted her portrayal of Jo March to be that of a “literary spinster.” A tip of the cap to feminists who find men utilitarian at best, boorish at worst. I don’t see Alcott’s writings as anything except what they actually are; an idealistic snapshot of her life which happened to include a husband, children and a school devoted to teaching little ones how to read.
Why should that be so controversial, and why should it be a script that needs to be flipped? Isn’t it possible that she wrote the novel out of an abundance of aspiration? Perhaps she wanted to build a life with a husband and children. We don’t have to force intentions & feelings upon the author that simply aren’t there, just to get our own agenda validated.
So, back to the movie. Greta Gerwig portrays Jo as having a family of her own but also opening a school and publishing her book. I don’t see this as a script being flipped at all. More likely, it’s an homage to the idea that women can have it all if they persevere, try harder than everyone else and pray like crazy!
I think this was a beautifully crafted movie that took some creative liberties with the script but primarily kept it on track with the original book. Like most period-films, it graces the screen lush scenery in the snow, interior shots around the hearth and soaring dance sequences in the ballroom.
The cinematography was fantastic and the wardrobe, as you might imagine, was epically faithful to the times in terms of detail, yet elegant in color and texture. They probably could have done a better job with the soundtrack, but it was certainly acceptable. I was pleased with the supporting cast which included Hollywood heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper. Even Bob Odenkirk had a cameo as the ailing Father March.
All in all, 2019’s Little Women gets a thumbs-up from me, and I hope you’ll enjoy it too.
