Watched the 2019 Little Women movie directed by Greta Gerwig last evening. Well, actually what happened was, I was browsing through Netflix when my husband said he would get a bit late coming home. And I saw this movie up and thought, hey, why not watch this now? Because this is one movie hubby is definitely not going to sit through with me!
I am almost scared to watch movies based on books that I
love, especially those I was close to as a child (book lovers will know what I
mean!). And Little Women is one of those. I read the Macmillan version as a
little girl, loved it, and thought the STORY ENDED THERE (when Mr. March
returns home from the war). I was in college when I discovered that there was
in fact a second volume, AND two sequels as well – Good Wives, Little Men and
Jo’s Boys. Of course, I had to hunt them down and read them. Loved them too.
Getting to the movie. I must say that I have not watched any
other film or TV version of the story, and neither had I read any critics’ or
user reviews either, prior to watching this one. So I went in completely blank,
so to speak, which is what I usually prefer (usually, but not always). As the
movie began, I was confused. Was this a re-imagination of the story? It took
just a few minutes for me to make sense of the jumbled timeline – and once I
did, everything fell perfectly into place. I subsequently read a few reviews
criticizing the non-linear narrative structure. While I understand why it may
have confused some (especially those who have not read the novel), I think this
was the perfect creative choice for the director to bring something fresh to
an-already familiar storyline and efficiently condense a literary saga into a
2-hour film, while remaining faithful to the book.
Let’s talk about casting. Prior to watching the movie, I was
intrigued, but skeptical. I adore Saoirse Ronan and Meryl Streep, and I also
like Emma Watson and Laura Dern. As soon as I saw her, I knew Streep was the
perfect Aunt March (is there any role she would not be perfect in?) but was
less than thrilled by the others. For Jo, I had always pictured someone with
plainer, “homely” looks, and while I don’t think any A-list Hollywood actress could
ever be plain or homely, Ronan’s stunning, almost-otherworldly beauty is the
opposite of what I had imagined Jo to look like. On the other hand, I have
always thought of Emma Watson as a no-frills, classic, modern, beauty – not the
traditional soft, womanly romantic type Meg is portrayed as in the book. In
fact, in the novel, Jo and Meg are juxtapositions of two distinct stereotypes –
and Watson seemed a better fit for Jo, if anything. I had a similar feeling
about Marmee – the quintessential gentle, motherly character with a kind yet
perpetually anxious look about her – a faded, unfashionable beauty, growing old
before her years. Laura Dern, while a great actress, seemed a little too
everything – too stylish, too modern, too classically good-looking and
certainly no faded beauty!
One of the greatest dangers of comparing a much-loved book
to a movie, is that we so often visualize the characters in our minds while
reading – they feel so alive to us. And when the movie casts people completely
different, we are disappointed. But that is exactly why we must look at the
movie with new eyes – as an entirely different creative entity that keeps to
the heart of the story, the characters and the author’s intent, but is not a
clone of the book.
Looking at it this way, it was wonderful to observe how the
movie was mostly successful in doing so. While Gerwig was confident enough to
take it in this direction, this is also largely thanks to the versatility and
skill of Ronan and Dern, who fit into their characters like slipping on the
perfect glove – snugly, warmly, but remolding it ever so slightly to
themselves, the actors. Great characters after all, despite their distinctive
traits, have a bit of the “everyman” (or everywoman!) in them – fluid,
moldable, universal. Ronan was completely, utterly believable as Jo, the
awkward tomboy with the quick temper and large heart; while Dern brought out
the emotional depth of a protective mother who is still trusting enough to let
her children follow their heart. A scene which particularly touched me was the
one where Jo cries to Marmee about her temper, after Amy nearly drowns in the
lake. Marmee tells her that after all, she and Jo may be more similar than Jo
thinks – “I’m angry nearly every day of my life”. This surprises Jo, and us,
the audience – and in that scene I was struck by how, superficial differences
aside, physically similar Dern and Ronan can be, with their long fair hair,
pale skin and lanky, boyish figures; and more to the point – how different they
are from the rest. Simply genius.
My initial misgivings about Watson as Meg, however, were
somewhat fulfilled. Somehow, despite the girlish pigtails, I failed to see the
gentle, soft beauty of Meg in her. This coupled with the fact that she was
scripted as one of the less interesting characters in the movie made me feel
slightly disconnected to the character. Yet in the novel too, Meg, though
closest of the sisters to the “romantic heroine” archetype, is (ironically?)
overshadowed not just by Jo, but Amy as well, neither of whom are traditional
Victorian-era heroines. This makes me wonder if this was a deliberate choice by
the director – however, I would have still liked to see a different actress as
Meg.
Florence Pugh was a revelation. While Jo may be the
protagonist, Amy is definitely the more complex character. As much as everyone
loves Jo (at least all modern readers I know!), Amy is the girl you love to
hate, but just can’t bring yourself to. Her character evolves tremendously over
the course of the story, but here’s the crunch – the change is organic, rather
than an epiphanic transformation as she falls in love with Laurie (thereby being
both believable, as well as avoiding a common trope of romance novels). This is
extremely challenging to bring to life on film, with its limited run-time. The
non-linear narrative certainly helps, but Pugh pulls it off wonderfully, and we
believe her every step of the way. We must also remember that playing a 13-year
old child and a 20-year old woman (the movie wisely chooses to increase younger
Amy’s age from 10 to 13) with equal conviction is extremely difficult. The
changes must be subtle, yet dramatic, and it is very easy to go overboard – but
Pugh balances it with ease.
A few words on the cinematography. I will not pretend to be
any sort of expert and analyze this, but let me just say that every single shot
was spectacular, fitting the mood of the story without hitting you on the head
with its symbolism…from the deceptively peaceful frozen lake where Jo and
Laurie go skating one snowy day, to the increasingly gloomy beach where Jo
reads her stories to Beth. Likewise, the costumes. Everyone looks gorgeous, but
character-appropriate, without becoming caricatures – Jo in her loose-fitting
blazers and pants (looking as androgynous as it was possible to be in the
Victorian era, I suppose); Meg in her flowy skirts and pretty bonnets, as
befitting a proper young lady of her class; Amy in her over-the-top frills and
flounces, still managing to look sophisticated rather than silly; and Beth in
her simple dresses and shawls, a pretty little wildflower, often overlooked. All
in all, this is a film that is breathtakingly beautiful to look at. (I later
read up on the rationale behind costume designer Jacqueline Durran’s choice of
costume and colour for each character, and I must say the attention to detail
truly paid off).
You may have noticed by now that I have not made any comment
on the male actors. I thought they were all good, but (sorry, Laurie!), this is
the story of the March sisters – and Marmee – through and through. I was
vaguely disturbed by the fact that the actor playing Laurie had a strong
resemblance to my former nightmare of a boss, but other than that, I have
nothing to complain of the performances.
And finally – it would not be possible to conclude ANYTHING
about Little Women, without speaking of the Elephant. In. The. Room. The
chemistry between Jo and Laurie. While I totally ship them as a fanfiction couple,
I agree that while being soulmates always and forever, they would truly be miserable
as a married pair (Heathcliff and Cathy, please take notes). And so, not being
Wuthering Heights, each of them makes the perfectly sensible choice. I still
don’t quite know how to feel about Laurie and Amy, but I believe that in the
real world, it is certainly possible for someone to choose the so-called
“consolation prize” and be the happier for it in the long run (moreover, Amy,
despite starting off as a little brat of a girl, matures considerably over the
course of the novel while Laurie – well, remains Laurie).
And so, Jo ends up with the Professor. Or does she? In a
ridiculously brilliant twist that merges fiction with reality, the director leaves
us in doubt, despite the sweet fairytale ending. The love that suddenly
blossoms in Jo’s heart for Friedrich (he is smitten from the start, no doubt
about that) that compels her to run after him in the rain at her family’s
insistence – pops out of nowhere and is so jarringly inconsistent with her
character, that you wonder how Gerwig could have been so careless and
mainstream in an otherwise carefully-crafted film. And it makes us wonder – is
this what Alcott truly wanted for Jo? Jo March, who tells Laurie, the love of
her life (okay, I said it!) that she’d “rather be a free spinster and paddle my
own canoe”, who tells her beloved sister Meg on the day of her wedding, “You’ll
be bored of him in two years. We’ll be interesting forever”?
Mr. Dashwood gives Jo an ultimatum – marry off her heroine,
or kill her. What would it have taken an unknown female author to get published
in that day and age?
In our heart of hearts, I think we know.
