Little Women
Brief Description:
Jo March reflects back and forth on her life, telling the beloved story of the March sisters—four young women, each determined to live life on her own terms.
(from IMDb)
Date: 2019
Genre: American family historical fiction romance drama
Running time: 2 hours 15 minutes
Cast:
Saoirse Ronan (Jo)
Emma Watson (Meg)
Florence Pugh (Amy)
Eliza Scanlen (Beth)
Laura Dern (Marmee)
Timothée Chalamet (Laurie)
Meryl Streep (Aunt March)
Tracy Letts (Mr. Dashwood)
Bob Odenkirk (Father)
James Norton (John)
Louis Garrel (Mr. Bhaer)
Chris Cooper (Mr. Laurence)
Jayne Houdyshell (Hannah)
Rafael Silva (Friedrich’s friend)
Dash Barber (Fred)
Hadley Robinson (Sallie)
Abby Quinn (Annie)
Maryann Plunkett (Mrs. Kirke)
Edward Fletcher (Mr. Laurence's servant)
Sasha Frolova (Mrs. Hummel)
Director: Greta Gerwig
Production company: Columbia Pictures, Regency Enterprises, & Pascal Pictures
Based on: Little Women by Louisa May Alcott
Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 5/5
I’ve known Little Women since I was a toddler, no joke. I read it probably over a hundred times. I loved LW. I came to this film knowing some friends adored it and some loathed it.
To start with the setting, feels, and aesthetic, IT WAS PERFECT. I think this film perfectly captured the feel/aesthetic of LW. It was amazing. I loved the colours. I loved the choreography. I loved the way the flashbacks worked. I loved it.
Characters: 5/5
I only know the 1933 Little Women film—which will always be “my” LW film—so that’s what I will compare this film to. I think Katherine Hepburn will always be Jo to me—with her strong personality and her sharp features and her dramatic acting. But I love how Saoirse Ronan presented Jo. She was much softer and younger and girlier. I loved that different perspective!
I was not a fan of Emma Watson as Meg. I don’t think anyone can replace Frances Dee as Meg. She’s just perfect. I felt Emma’s Meg was not mature enough nor prim enough, and too modern. Also her features just weren’t Meg for me?? However, Eliza Scanlen was excellent as Beth and Florence Pugh was PERFECT as Amy. Especially grown-up Amy. She was a tad deeper and stronger than Amy in the book,
but she captured her personality SO well. Even as a child.
At first I had big problems with Laura Dern as Marmee, because I am positive I saw that face somewhere and I had trouble seeing her as a 1865 woman and not a 2015 woman. Once I got into it, though, I really liked her portrayal of Marmee. Specially how she made Marmee pretty and stylish. Such a great take.
I love Douglass Montgomery (1933) as Laurie, but OH MY STARS Timothée Chalamet WAS LAURIE!! He captured so well the different phases of Laurie’s personality—boy Laurie, grown Laurie, Lazy Laurence, and mature Laurie. He didn’t look Laurie as well as Douglass Montgomery, except in Lazy Laurence; but he had that mix of foreign/American that Laurie had.
Father and Aunt March were pretty good, as was Mr. Dashwood. John wasn’t great—he was too shy and not handsome at all. Mr. Laurence was also not great, and I wasn’t too fond of Hannah?? The 1933 versions of them all were better. Mrs. Kirke was good though.
HOWEVER. Louis Garrel was TERRIBLE as Mr. Bhaer. The man is French, I swear. His accent is 100% French and 0% German. He also had ALL the French vibes and looks and NO German ones. I’m a francophone who goes to church with Swiss-Germans with heavy accent. I know what I’m talking about. I couldn’t take it. He was sooooo bad.
EDIT: I checked. HE IS PARISIAN!!! I TOLD YOU SO!!!!
Plot: 5/5
Yessssssss. It was so good. They did the important scenes from the book, but also did lesser-known ones. They started at the end and worked their way through. If I remember correctly, they added scenes that fit in pretty well. I have no complaints on the plot (except that Meg had a pink instead of a blue dress at the Gardiners’??) I can’t remember anything I disliked and I made no note of anything, so apparently I loved it all! This captured the “in real life” Little Women so well. Somehow made all the characters become so human and relatable. I loved how the sisterly dialogue was written…
Also. The description of writer life WAS SO GOOD OH MY HEARTTT I LOVED IT ALLLL.
Romance: 5/5
Really like how they handled Jo + Laurie. I don’t get why everyone thinks Jo & Laurie should have been a thing; it so obviously wouldn’t have worked!! I think they showed it well here. She’s so much more mature. Also, Meg & John’s married life was actually portrayed (THE GREATCOAT SCENE) and I loved it!
Theme/Message/Topics: 3/5
I’ve heard this film was feminist, which I think is inaccurate. It definitely talks about how women had basically no option to make money except by marriage, and how if they did marry they lost their money to their husbands. I think that theme of “how little women can do in the world” was a bit more explored but I forget the details. However, it was pretty true, and I didn’t think it was overdone. Also, it was balanced by the portrayal that marriage and homemaking was just as good and important. There was some feminism, but it wasn’t overdone or bad.
What I didn’t like was how they took out ALL mention of God. It’s 100% unspiritual. The scene where Marmee and Jo discuss their tempers and how they control them felt SO lacking. It was all on them. All about their strength and their ability to change themselves. Which is already lacking, but when you consider how great and God-filled the book scene is… it’s just kinda sad and empty.
I seem to recall Bhaer having good stuff to say to Jo?? Can’t remember. But anyways. Like I mentioned, the writer theme was epic. I don’t recall all of it but it was SO inspiring.
Content: 3/5
Scenes of girls in their undergarments; mention of a brothel; Jo’s in pants; Meg’s infamous low-necked dress; seven kisses; a scene where Laurie undoes Amy’s pinafore for her (bothered me personally). Also a declaration that “what Jo wills shall be done” in defiance to some line about “God’s will.”
Overall: 5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment