Little Women
by Louisa May Alcott, Greta Gerwig
Where should I start with this movie, you guys? Should I start with the acting? The costuming? The structure? The subversion of romance? The female rage? Single moments of brilliance? The warmth and love and humor? The personal note that after I read Little Women as a child I called my own mom “Marmee” for a year which suggests that I am not an impartial viewer?
This movie is remarkable.
Little Women is the story of the four March sisters, especially Jo, as they leave the relative freedom of childhood and face the problem of how to live as adults in a time of limited choices for women, especially women who are genteely poor. The semi-autobiographical novel by Louisa May Alcott was published in 1868 and 1869 (in two volumes). Every generation reads it differently and adapts it differently. For 2019, we get a version that focuses on Jo’s frustration with her role as a woman, as well as her bond with her understanding mother, played by Laura Dern, and her bonds with her sisters. There has already been so much writing about this movie that I’m only going to touch on a few highlights.
This version, directed by Greta Gerwig, stars Emily Watson as Meg, Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Florence Pugh as Amy, and Eliza Scanlan as Beth. Like the novel, it is set in Boston during the American Civil War which, in terms of costuming, means hoop skirts, knits, vests, jackets, pinafores, men’s ties, and lace collars. Thematically, it involves the costs of war and fight to end slavery. The March sisters’ father is away (he’s a chaplain in the Union Army) and their mother supports less well-off families as well as traveling soldiers. However, the focus is on the sisters’ daily lives, with only a few explicit discussions of politics.
Beth, Jo, Meg, Amy
The construction of the film allows it to stay faithful to the original while still viewing the story through the lens of a modern viewer. I recognized most of the dialogue as verbatim from the book which tells you a lot about how many times I read the book. Most of the additions, such as Amy explaining her view of marriage to Laurie, help orient the viewer to the challenges faced by the characters. The movie is not told in linear time. Rather, the scenes are split up in order to make certain emotional beats and themes stand out. I found this to a be strength, something that lets us think about the many-times-told story in a new way. However, I have heard from at least two people who weren’t familiar with the story that the structure made it difficult to follow.
A running joke in the “It’s funny because it was true then, literally, for Lousia May Alcott and it tends to be true today” sense is that Jo’s publisher wants her heroine to be married off. Or dead. “Why doesn’t she marry the neighbor?” he asks. So, let’s discuss romance, because this is where Louisa May Alcott made a very controversial choice and where the filmmakers dropped the ball in terms of characterization for men.
This film keeps the focus squarely on women, where it belongs. However, it provides so little characterization for the men that the romances, such as they are, don’t work at all. If they must kept them in the story, then they ought to be done right.
SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN’T READ THE BOOK:
Yes, Laurie marries Amy. And let me tell you, poor Timothee Chalamet tries so hard to sell it, gazing at Amy with great longing. Unfortunately, his role as Laurie is to gaze at EVERYTHING with longing. Whether he’s looking at Jo, at Amy, at Marmee and the sisters (he wants a family), at furniture, at scenery, “longing” is his one defining trait. Somehow we are supposed to believe that he didn’t just swap sisters, but since he uses the same facial expression towards both of them it doesn’t work.
Oh for crying out loud.
As far as Meg’s husband, John Brooke, goes, he barely exists. That is literally all I can say about him. Their story line is condensed to “He saves her glove, she thinks he’s cute, they get married and have twins and are poor, The End.”
John Brooke and Meg.
A note that, thanks to actress Florence Pugh, Amy grows up to be AWESOME. Never in my life have I wanted to slap someone as much as I wanted to slap young Amy, and never has anyone on screen grown up to earn so much of my admiration for giving no fucks.
SPOILER ALERT FOR THE MOVIE AND THE BOOK:
In the movie, Jo, not Louisa May Alcott, is writing Little Women. This lends a twist of sorts as she may have married Professor Bhaer, just as she does in the novel…or maybe she doesn’t. It makes sense on the screen.
Jo insists to her publisher that the heroine of Little Women doesn’t marry anyone, and he insists that she must. So we have a scene of Jo and Professor Bhaer kissing under an umbrella – but we are left not entirely sure if it actually happened.
A self indulgent aside – I LOVE Professor Bhaer from the novel. This it what happens when lonely children with daddy issues read Victorian literature too young and encounter socially awkward slightly paternalistic older nerds who propose in the rain. Had I read the book when I was older, of course I would have said that Jo should not marry since she has consistently said she doesn’t want to (over my dead body would I let her marry Laurie). Alas, I was but an infant and made of putty. Mr. Bhaer may be a prude, but he’s adorable, and kind, and he’s raising two boys all by himself and he’s tender and nurturing to them, and whenever I’m lost I still say, “This is not our omniboos.” There’s not an ounce of toxic masculinity in his soul, just a lot of the same moralizing that frankly Jo gets from freaking everybody anyway. Thus ends my self-indulgent trip into the crushes of yesteryear. The Professor Bhaer in the movie is young and hot, which is, of course, SO VERY WRONG.
Back to the highlights:
“I’m angry nearly every day of my life,” says Laura Dern, who is shown in one scene composing herself before entering the house and very carefully putting on her “Marmee face.” Word, honey. Even myself at eight knew something was up (the quote is from the book). Watching her and Jo collaborate on shutting their anger away made my chest hurt. Her bond with Jo feels so real, so lived in – those two women as adults are astounding.
Meryl Streep is, of course, delightful, sipping her tea with vast and ominous meaning.
In short, I thought this movie was entertaining, gorgeous to look at, full of exquisite acting, and thought-provoking. I can’t give it an A+ because in keeping the focus on the frustrations of women facing limited choices (a theme which is implicitly and explicitly addressed many times in the movie) the romances become terribly flat (not that they worked that well in the book either). As a feminist examination of character and choice, it’s impeccable. As a movie with romances that are supposed to make some sort of sense, not so much.
Also, I don’t recommend this to newcomers to the story. READ THE BOOK. It’s still good.
Mini-Kickass Women epilogue:
In real life, Marmee was based upon Abigail May Alcott, an abolitionist and suffragette. She was a stationmaster on the Underground Railroad. She was a social worker who frequently supported the family on her own.
Meg was Anna Alcott Pratt, who loved acting and who met her husband, John Bridge Pratt, while they were both starring in a community play. They had two sons before John died suddenly, and Louisa wrote Little Men in hopes of raising money for her widowed sister and the boys.
Beth was Elizabeth Sewall Alcott. She died at the age of 22, after having caught scarlet fever just as Beth does in the novel.
Amy was Abigail May Alcott Nieriker. She was much more successful as an artist than Amy, and spent a lot of time painting and studying in Europe. Her painting La Negresse was accepted to the Paris Salon, which would have been a huge breakthrough for career. Sadly, that same year she died giving birth to her only child. Louisa, who never married or had children, raised the baby until Louisa died, at which time the little girl returned to her father, Ernest Nieriker.
This was an A+ for me.
I’ve never read the book or seen any movies, as I was not particularly interested in LW. The story is so well known that the flashback were not confusing to me (or my sister who has also not read/seen LW) and I thought that structure worked very well.
I loved the focus on the women vs the romance, so the lack of it didn’t bother me.
This is a truly gorgeous film with such fantastic acting. It is maybe my favorite movie of the year.
I loved the book (and the whole series, even the Amy book) SO MUCH as a pre-teen. I thought my family should read Pilgrim’s Progress together (my parents, intelligently, talked me out of it). John was a bit of a blank in Little Women too though, I thought. I was fascinated by the Professor (present me goes “why???”) and disappointed they didn’t get a gruff, rumpled, inappropriately older actor. Great review.
When I was about 12, knowing nothing about the book, I came across the movie version that stared Katharine Hepburn. Young me was so upset that Laurie ended up with Amy that I have always stayed away from anything Little Women related, however this movie intrigues me and I think I may give Little Women another try.
Amy was always my favorite. And I LOVED how this movie showcased how truly awesome she is rather than dismissing her as a brat.
While I think this is the best adaptation out there for sure, I actually had a lot of problems with it, but they really all stem from the fact that two hours is way too short. All you get is plot points because there is so much that you must cover. To me, then, I didn’t see the character development I was hoping for, just words about people’s character. So we see Marmee say that great line about being angry, but then we never see her actually getting angry and we’re robbed of seeing Jo struggle with her anger. What a fervent fan like me would prefer is at least a 6-hour mini series with unknown or little known actors (because I am shallow enough to get distracted by seeing movie stars embody my beloved characters).
Complete agree on Professor Bhaer being too young and hot, but I actually still don’t have a problem with her marrying him. What we say at 17 and what we need at 25 or 35 or later may well not be the same and that’s not a betrayal to me.
At any rate, I really just chimed in to say that the book Marmee and Louisa by Eva LaPlante is an excellent, excellent read. The real-life Marmee was amazing as a human and Bronson Alcott, well, the less said about him the better because it just makes me angry.
Correction: The movie and book are set n Concord, not Boston.
Super unpopular opinion below?
O have to give LW 2019 a B-.
OTOH, I liked that it wasn’t so focused on Jo like the other 13 or so adaptations. And, as someone who always liked Amy, I most certainly appreciated that the movie gave her the time and space to explain what her motivations were. And the Marmee bits were nice. The acting, obvs, was good all around.
OTOH, aside from those things and the non-linear style, I was underwhelmed with the overall film. Perhaps my expectations were too high that this new version would bring something new to the story. Only to remain pretty much the same. (The fact that it was SO glaringly white chafed at me as well. Tho I know it wasn’t a problem for other ppl.)
@CarrieS, I too dig on Professor Bhaer. Gabriel Byrne was delicious in the 1994 version, but not the Prof. Bhaer of my dreams. I suspect that there will never be a Prof. Bhaer that matches the cuddly bearded Cinnamon Roll in the book (sigh.)
This is an A for me, but it didn’t top the exemplary 1994 version. I loved GG’s devotion to LMA’s feminist POV but – re spoiler, my little shipper heart cries out.
@LT – You might like the version the Beeb put out, with mostly unknown actors in the leads. I think it’s maybe an hour shy of six hours, though.
LT — such a series exists. It still isn’t quite long enough, but it was done by the BBC in 2017
This is a terrific, thoughtful review — and I’ve read them all. (I too am obsessed with book…and named my daughter Jo.). When I read the reviews saying “Why doesn’t this movie try harder to appeal to men?” I felt like angry-nearly-every-day-of-my-life Marmee (with some “I’m always angry” Bruce Banner sublimated violence thrown in there). I loved the sisters’ relationships; I loved the cinematography; I loved the costumes.
I wish they could have let Jo be homely. I understand why they couldn’t. :/
For me the glaring acting weakness was Meg — of all the underwritten characters, she seemed least able to convey thru her face, voice, and body everything that wasn’t in the script. I liked the ambiguous (and ambivalent!) ending. And thank God for Meryl and Florence, bringing all the comedy.
I read the book ages ago, so remember very little. I was at times a bit confused by the time shifts in the film, but do agree it was a useful plan for telling the story. I saw the film with a large crowd of knitting friends, so I definitely concentrated on (and appreciated) the costumes.
Add me in as another one who loved Professor Bhaer in the books. Even as a child I felt Laurie would be exhausting to live with, and much better suited to high-maintenance Amy. (Also, my dad was 20 years older than my mum and they had a very happy marriage, so the age difference was never an issue for me.)
I’m looking forward to seeing this. I’ve read the book, seen numerous productions, and just love it all.
Well, I have to say that I HATED Professor Bhaer because he made Jo so ashamed of her “trash” writing that she burned it. I hated the book as a girl for that bit alone. Very ironic to read Professor B celebrated here of all places!!
Yeah, I never understood why Professor Bhaer was regarded as a romantic lead. From the time I was twelve, I thought of him as a controlling, too-old-for-Jo asshat.
Looking forward to seeing this take on the story, having just recently watched the BBC version (which I felt also left out a lot, especially in terms of the girls’ personalities.) A few notes:
Carrie, I believe it’s Emma Watson, not Emily. That threw me for a minute, because I knew Emma was in the movie.
Louisa often complained that she wanted Jo to be the kind of “useful spinster” who helps out everywhere and keeps the community running, and was very annoyed that her publisher forced her to marry Jo off. She was not able to create the character she wanted until the third book, “Jo’s Boys”, with the character of Nan.
And May Alcott became a very well-known artist and sculptor, who also taught other young artists. One of her most famous students was Daniel Chester French, who sculpted the Lincoln figure in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
I always felt Professor Bhaer was too strait-laced for Jo; but in hindsight I suppose without him to ground her, she would have wreaked havoc and raised a school full of rebels and rabble-rousers and reformers. Perhaps what was wanted, but probably not needed after five years of fighting Rebels on a larger scale.
I super enjoyed this as I watched but it was when I walked out and started to think I went hmmm what?
I think the structure really helped benefit the Amy- Laurie romantic relationship and no one else’s
You weren’t invested in the Jo-Laurie relationship because you knew it went no where
And Professor Bhaer was just there for an eye gaze, a dance, a “I hate your writing”, and a family dinner and then….?!?!?! (I did like the fact that its not 100% clear whether the ending is actually what really happened though)
(and Meg and Mr Brooks were just there. I was sad James Norton’s amazing face was wasted lol)
So I think it failed on all its romance fronts whichis fine it decided to focus on other elements.
@LT Bronson Alcott is indeed The Worst, but I’ll never stop cackling over how the high school in Clueless is named after him
Great review! I am also a huge Little Women fan and I loved loved loved this movie and would give it an A+++++++. I loved the non-linear structure, the acting, the costumes, and the focus on the women. I loved the scenes of Jo with her publisher. I did not love Laura Dern as Marmee (she was fine, I just didn’t love her) and while I thought Timothee Chalamet did an ok job, esp with the Amy scenes, his youthful look made it difficult for me to take him seriously. I loved the scene with Jo and Marmee in the attic – someone actually clapped in the theater after Jo was done, it was perfect! I was also thrown off by the Prof. casting but he played such a small role in the film, I enjoyed that he was nice to look at. I was also underwhelmed by Emma Watson as Meg, but they didn’t give her much to work with. Anyway, overall, I absolutely loved it and can’t wait to buy it and watch it over and over.
I loved this movie. A lot of that love comes from being a woman currently prioritizing education and work over romance; Jo’s line about (paraphrasing) deeply believing that women have more than just hearts but being so lonely was perfect and I wanted to jump up and cheer because yes. I also was converted to liking Amy for basically the first time ever. And the ambiguous ending was so great. I think I didn’t mind that the romances were flat because that was sort of the point; there is so much media about women that focuses on romance, and it was deeply satisfying to experience a story focused on women as artists, sisters, mothers, oh and I suppose some men are around, too.
Yay! I’m happy to hear it gets a high mark! I grew up with the anime series in the 80’s, and the 1994 film adaptation. Jo was my fictional heroine after Anne Shirley.
I’m waiting for this to come out on DVD so I can add it to the costume drama section of my collection. (Since I’m (likely) going to be watching it a hella ton anyway, I may as well.)
Great review. Not only did I love this film, but I’ve now reread the book (twice in this past weeks), discovering so many fragments of my own readerly-writerly DNA in it, it was like a fantastic voyage inside myself. And also beginning a reading binge of all things Alcott, discovering such things as a note from Marmee (at age 76) to her daughter Louisa:
I have been reading over my letters to my dear Brother Samuel J. through thirty years of my married life, and am surprised at the history of my life therein continued. My utterances about politics and the men in power at that period were as prophetic as Charles Sumner’s [she means about the Civil War etc]. And I am relieved to find that I was not as busy about my own cupboard and dishpans as I supposed, for in my greatest destitution [and they WERE desperately poor], I could stop to throw my stone of indignation at Congress, or sniff at the cold charities extended to the need of the poor.
I love that she takes pride with having kept active faith with her abolitionist and feminist politics. And I also love that the next year (old, infirm, fat, and with failing eyesight, but finally living comfortably on the money Louisa was earning from Little Women and her other kids’ books) she’s reading Daniel Deronda with “intense interest.” You go Marmee.
Your epilogue reminded me of the wonderful book MARMEE & LOUISA by Eve La Plante, an eye opening biography of these two women in the context of the social and historical moment in which they lived. Check it out if you haven’t! (Full disclosure, I narrated the audiobook, but I don’t get any $ if someone buys it.)
I love recommendations from audiobook narrators – thank you, Karen! I mean, you spend how many hours in that book, so you’re in a really knowledgeable place to recommend it to a reader. Thanks!
@Erica “a story focused on women as artists, sisters, mothers, oh and I suppose some men are around, too.” Yessss we need more of these stories! Rec League, anyone?
The biography ‘Louisa May Alcott’ by Harriet Reisen is excellent and a great companion to the movie. I loved the movie more because I had read this biography in addition the ‘Little Women’.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It’s pretty difficult to bring something fresh to a text that is both incredibly well-known and has had several movie adaptations starring major actresses, and I thought this version did it. Granted it has been awhile since I saw the other movies, but I liked the greater emphasis on the girls’ adult lives…my memory is that other film versions tend to focus on the youthful hijinks. Loved Meryl Streep, Florence Pugh and Saoirse Ronan, and I thought Laura Dern did her best with a very difficult part. Meg is also a hard part to play and I didn’t think Emma Watson was up to bringing nuance to the role the way some of the others did. The main thing that didn’t work for me was the Amy-Laurie-Jo relationships. I don’t think they got enough breathing room for us to understand exactly why they were/were not in love with each other at various times. (Although I did think Saoirse Ronan did a great job with the scene where she turned down Laurie.)