Directed by Greta Gerwig, starring Saoirse Ronan, Timothee Chalamet, Emma Watson and two up-and-coming talents in Florence Pugh and Eliza Scanlen, Little Women was always poised to deliver the goods. I own the novel, which is collecting dust on my shelf, with the hopes that I will get around to reading it one day. The story sees four young sisters growing older to pursue differing goals for their future. They live with their mother (Laura Dern), and are poor, despite having known what it was like to be rich once upon a time. The necessity to come about money is real, and marriage is often discussed as an economical proposition than a romantic one. Their father begins fighting in the American Civil War before returning home, and writes letters back to his family detailing how when he returns, he looks forward to seeing how his girls have transformed into little women.
I assumed Saoirse Ronan would take centre-stage in this movie, but she doesn’t really; although she plays the focal character Jo, the movie spends enough time with the other girls and their male neighbour Laurie (Timothee Chalamet) that they are nearing equal. I want to single out Florence Pugh though, as I feel like her characterisation of Amy goes through the largest transformation from girl to woman, and she is completely convincing as both. Amy throws some pretty wicked tantrums in the early events of the story, but shows maturity and leadership within the family as she grows older. Although I wasn’t a massive fan of Midsommar, in which Pugh was the star, but it wasn’t her fault, and I feel now Pugh has two complete and complex performances under her belt going forward; just knowing she’s in the Black Widow movie makes that prospect even sweeter – looking forward to that. I found Jo and Amy’s relationship the most interesting thrust of the movie, as they are the two sisters that clash the most. Saoirse Ronan reminded me of the brief snippets I’ve seen of Doris Day in Calamity Jane with the way she portrays the fiercely independent Jo, which was whimsically peculiar to see; a brash wild-west depiction in a sophisticated Victorian girl.
The movie cuts back and forth between the past and the future, and it takes a little while to get the full family dynamic – because the four girls grow up to be ‘little women’, it’s like eight characters are introduced at once, not four, so it took some time for my brain to piece together who they were and how they were connected. Sometimes it also takes a second or two to understand a time shift has occurred, as the transitions aren’t always exactly clear. It got easier as the movie went on; Jo’s short haircut in the past worked as a totem, but I also noticed the colouring in scenes would change, where warm yellow lighting, like dusk, would indicate the past and a dark shadowy blue worked to establish the future – I can’t recall if the entire movie was like that, as I only noticed it late, but I don’t think it was. Also, since I’ve never read Little Women, I don’t know if the novel intersects the story to show the past and present at the same time, or if it’s chronological, but if it was a choice made by the movie to organise itself this way, it worked well.
The movie does make one departure from the source material which I can be certain about, nearing the end. It’s an interesting post-modern decision, doing everything but ‘break the fourth-wall’, by having characters discuss the novel within the movie – I’m sure it works best for advocates of Little Women who have a wider knowledge of the book. What I found funny though, was how it had occurred to me before to the end, how much I was enjoying Little Women for what seemed like a very accurate telling of a classic story. I’d imagine it would be tempting to take the chance to insert some 2020 feminine ideology into it with a story entitled “Little Women”, but the absence of it felt refreshing. The root of the story hits on the frivolity and opposing hardship of womanhood, yet everything these young women were saying acquiesced with the nature of their characters, befitting the time period that they were in. Perhaps it’s merely a compliment to the strength of Little Woman that the movie didn’t feel like it modernise themes to still be dramatic in the 21st century; they do say the greatest stories are timeless.
By and large, seeing Little Women on the big screen just reconfirmed that I am happy I have the book sitting on my shelf. The story, written over a century ago, is still intriguing and relevant today. This Little Women adaptation simply plugs in some of the finest actors we have at the current time.
4.0
David
I was a like you when I saw it– I’d never read the book or seen the previous adaptations, so going into the movie was a new experience for me. It took me a while (I’d say almost the first 1/4 of the film) to fully connect the characters together, how they relate to one another & how the dual timelines work. But once I was able to get my head around it– it was a great storytelling technique. Really helped tell the story by giving us the information we need when we needed it for storytelling purposes.
I have to agree with you that Florence Pugh’s portrayal of Amy March was clearly the stand out performance of the movie. Particularly when she was an older, more empowered woman towards the end of the film. Her speech to Laurie about the economic nature of marriage was really impressive. While on the topic of the ability of Florence Pugh– have you seen ‘Fighting with my Family’?
Today Junior!
No, I haven’t seen Fighting with My Family, I didn’t know Florence Pugh was in that actually. I’ve only seen her once before and that was in Midsommar, and she’s fantastic in that. I saw a few people had Fighting with My Family in their top 10 movies of the year so I’m spewin’ I missed it!