Film Review - 'Little Women'

(Sony Pictures)

When I watched the trailer for the latest adaptation of ‘Little Women’, it instantly became a ‘must-watch’ film. I hadn’t planned on watching it in the cinema, but after reading a couple of reviews – and noting that all the ‘official’ reviews were 4 and 5 stars – I succumbed and headed to the cinema.

It seems strange to say this, but I will – this review contains SPOILERS, not just of the story but also in the way the film is presented.

Again, it seems strange to do so, but I’ll introduce the characters.

The story, set during the American Civil War, is about the March family, specifically the 4 daughters – Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy. They live with their mother, whom they call Marmee and servant, Hannah. Their father is away, serving as a chaplain with the Union army. Although not dirt-poor, money is tight, and the girls often have to go without.

Their rich neighbour, Mr Laurence, comes across as stern, and the girls tend to steer clear of him. Until his grandson, Theodore ‘Laurie’ Laurence, comes to live with him. Laurie becomes firm friends with all 4 girls, especially Jo, and they realise Mr Laurence is actually quite nice.

His tutor, John Brooke, sometimes accompanies Laurie when he’s with the girls, as an unofficial chaperone.

And we have Aunt March, a crotchety old woman who loves her 4 nieces even though, overtly, her behaviour seems to suggest otherwise. In the book, she’s a widow, but in the film, her character has been changed to a spinster, sister to the girls’ father, with her own money.

There are other characters, friends and potential suitors, which I won’t list here.

Instead of beginning as the book begins, and as other adaptations have, with the March family about to celebrate Christmas, the film begins 7 years later, not in Concord, Massachusetts but in New York.

Jo, a writer, is about to enter the offices of a publisher where she’s hoping to sell her stories and earn a wage. From there, we return with her to the boarding house where she’s staying and where she teaches the children of the woman who owns the house.

We’re introduced to another boarder, Friedrich ‘Fritz’ Bhaer, a German professor. Although Jo barely notices him, he seems quite interested in her.

There are a couple of scenes showing Jo’s life in New York. Then she gets a letter from her mother, telling her to return home for Beth is very ill. On the train ride, she falls asleep…

And we’re taken back 7 years to the familiar beginning of the book. It’s only then we’re introduced to the other girls, Marmee and Hannah.

I’m not going to go through the whole film for obvious reasons. And also because I can’t remember what happened when.

I’ll be upfront and admit that I had a real need to love this film because I love the book; the main reason I was drawn to it as a young girl is because I’m one of 4 sisters.

When I left the cinema, I was sure I had enjoyed it immensely. But there was something niggling at me which I refused to pay any attention to.

As I went through my day, I eventually took off my rose-tinted glasses and put down the need to love the film. And I had to admit I hadn’t enjoyed it that much.

But, before I get into that, let’s see who played whom. Apart from a couple of exceptions, I felt most of the actors suited the roles.

Eliza Scanlen as Beth showed her character’s quiet inner strength without coming across as sappy. But she wasn’t as shy and timid as she is in the book.

Emma Watson as Meg didn’t quite convey Meg’s marital struggles that strongly, but, personally, I enjoyed seeing her in a more adult role.

Florence Pugh as Amy portrayed adult-Amy as a mature, young lady in a believable way, balancing spontaneous excitement with respectability. But I couldn’t get a handle on her as young-Amy; it was the same actress playing her and I didn’t find her convincing as a 12-year-old.

Laura Dern played Marmee. I liked the subtle way she showed her struggle as a woman who seemed to fit snugly into societal structures while secretly railing against it.

Much as I like Chris Cooper, he didn’t ‘fit’ the role of stern Mr Laurence. From the moment he’s seen on screen, he comes across as an indulgent grandfather. In fact, there wasn’t anything that showed his sternness; we were told about it by the girls’ references to him and Marmee explaining why he seemed that way.

Louis Garrel as Friedrich Bhaer (Patriot Pics/BACKGRID)

Louis Garrel is not an actor I’m familiar with. I had no issue with his acting in this film – not that we saw much of him – but he’s too young to be Friedrich Bhaer.

The 2 actors I enjoyed most were the ones who played Jo and Laurie.

Saoirse Ronan played Jo, and I loved her bubbling, emotion-filled energy. She depicted the want and need of being a writer very well, and the constrictions she felt as a young woman who didn’t quite fit in with society’s rules.

I also enjoyed Timothée Chalamet’s portrayal of Laurie. For me, the screen lit up whenever he and Jo were together, sparking off one another. It left me wondering how much more I’d have gotten if the film had followed a linear telling.

I’m glad I watched it on the big screen; the cinematography is gorgeous, and the costumes are beautifully done, suiting each character well.

Another thing I liked about the film – instead of focussing mainly on Jo, something previous adaptations were guilty of, the director and writer, Greta Gerwig gives each sister the focus they were given in the novel.

Also, most of the dialogue is directly from the novel. Gerwig has the girls talk over one another and that gave it a realistic feel.

So, what got in the way of my total enjoyment of the film?

Gerwig decided to mix up the timelines. The constant jumping about failed to ground the film for me, making it difficult to form emotional attachments. Even though I’m familiar with the book, I struggled to keep track of the disjointed scenes, of what was the ‘present’ and what was the ‘past’. Yet, it’s that aspect of the film that the critics loved.

Because things are jumbled about, some events set in the ‘past’ have already been revealed by scenes set in the ‘present’, which are presented to us first. Also, the film fails to show character development because we see the characters already fully developed.

I can’t help but think that someone who has never read the book, who doesn’t know the story and characters will be thoroughly confused by this film.

Another thing I was not expecting – there was so much ‘telling’ and hardly any ‘showing’.

For what’s essentially a period piece, it seemed to have a ‘modern’ feel in the way some characters interacted; there was too much of a ‘free and easy’ quality and not much of the ‘properness’ of the 19th century.

Going back to Fritz’s character, I have never understood the need to make him a ‘hot’ match for Jo. In the book, it’s clear she’s not attracted to him because of his looks, but because of his nature. With the film’s mixed timelines, there’s no way to show their growing relationship.

In fact, apart from Jo and Laurie, I didn’t find any of the other relationships convincing.

When I watch a film, I tend to immerse myself completely in it. However, the back-and-forth of the timelines kept taking me out of the film. Maybe I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but I was not expecting to work so hard to follow a story I’m familiar with.

And then there’s the ending, again, something all the critics are raving about. Basically, there are 2 possible endings, which leaves the viewer wondering, did Jo get married or didn’t she?

In an interview, Gerwig said, “If I can’t do an ending [Alcott] would have liked 150 years later, then we’ve made no progress.”

Up to that point, the film stays very close to the novel; why then feel the need to change the ending that Alcott herself had written? It’s true she was pressured into having Jo marry, not only by her publisher but also by her legions of fans. But it’s not as if she wanted to write the book in the first place. As she noted in her diary after her publisher asked her to write a story for girls - “I plod away, though I don’t enjoy this sort of thing. Never liked girls or knew many, except my sisters…”

A writer and spinster herself, Alcott originally wanted Jo to remain unmarried. Anyone who has any interest in the book and Alcott, knows she didn’t totally give in to the pressure of having Jo marry. She wilfully did not marry Jo to her fans’ obvious choice. Instead of Laurie, she created a character who’s the opposite of Laurie in terms of looks and personality, someone whose kind thoughtfulness Jo finds attractive.

For me, the implication that Jo in the film, possibly, didn’t marry but remained a single, published writer able to care for herself makes it an ‘either/or’ situation – you can either get married but give up your dreams of being a writer, or you can be a writer but remain single. Why can’t you be both?

I would not presume to know Alcott’s reasoning for having Jo marry, but I like to think she gave her heroine the best of both worlds. Jo wasn’t ‘trapped’ in a marriage, solely dependent on her husband for everything. I’ve always felt Jo and Fritz complemented one another, they supported and challenged one another in a good way. I never thought she compromised herself by getting married.

In the house Jo inherited from Aunt March, which she and Fritz set up as a school for boys, she was still able to tap into the energy of her youth as she’d have “a wilderness of boys to enjoy it with me”.

And who’s to say she gave up her dream of being a writer? Just before the end of the book, Jo says, “… the life I wanted then seems selfish, lonely, and cold to me now. I haven’t given up the hope that I may write a good book yet, but I can wait, and I’m sure it will be all the better for such experiences and illustrations as these…”

After all that, I’d still say watch the film and decide for yourself if it works or not. There definitely seems to be those who enjoyed the mixed timelines and ending and those who didn’t.