OSCARS 2020: Little Women (2019)

Louisa May Alcott's novel about the adventures of Jo March and her sisters seems to have a real grip on the minds of filmmakers. It has been adapted to theater screens seven times over the decades. (Not to mention another seven adaptations for television, two of which were Japanese cartoons.) As recently as 2018, we had another version, a modern updating from those purveyors of squeaky-clean Christsploitation at Pure Flix. So, when it was announced that a new “Little Women” was coming in 2019, it certainly didn't seem necessary. Yet this “Little Women” was also Greta Gerwig's follow-up to the highly acclaimed and beloved “Lady Bird” and even had Saoirse Ronan playing Jo. That made it an event for a certain breed of film fans and, unsurprising considering the attention her last feature received, it has gathered up a decent crop of Oscar nominations.

Set against the background of the Civil War, this familiar story follows the March sisters as they navigate their chosen passions, loss, and romance. Jo longs to be a writer but is pressured by those around her to marry a rich man instead. Amy wants to pursue painting but finds herself being similarly entangled in romantic obligations. Meg is happy to play the role of a young maiden wearing glamorous gowns and being courted by young men. Beth, meanwhile, loves to play piano but is often sickly. As life intervenes, the March girls will soon find themselves forced to grow up.

It would seem to me that Gerwig's “Little Women” is specifically designed for people who are familiar with Alcott's novel, or at least prior adaptations of it. I've somehow never read the book or really watched any previous film versions, even if the 1994 take is a favorite of my older sister.  Probably in hopes of bringing something new to the often-told tale, Gerwig's film approaches the story in a non-linear fashion, cutting between Jo's current life and her memories. Though the exact way this reflects on the source material is lost on me, I can appreciate the dreamy, nostalgic feeling this gifts the film with. This approach also adds another layer to the story, as it makes Jo the actual author of her own story, Gerwig incorporating the literal text into the film.

The sequences I found the most endearing in “Little Women” are those most similar to “Lady Bird,” the scenes that double-down on the youthful energy of its young characters. Several times throughout, we are greeted with touching moments of the girls acting like girls. They goof around in the attic, enacting plays. On Christmas, they rush around in excitement. When their father returns home from the war, they cover him in hugs. More than once, Jo and Amy have a sisterly spat. It's invigorating to see another period drama, another take on a stodgy old book, enlivened with such a sense of familial bonding and child-like enthusiasm.

In other ways, Gerwig seeks to modernize Alcott's text. This “Little Women” is especially concerned with the sacrifices women had to make back in the 1860s and – to a certain degree, still have to make – in order to succeed. Jo wants to write but publishers are reluctant to buy stories about women, the kind of stories she writes. She is repeatedly told to marry young and marry rich. While Jo avoids this path, either out of stubbornness or an inability to be anything but herself, her sister Amy isn't so lucky. Amy abandons her painting to become a wife, a choice largely motivated by a woman's lack of legal rights at the time. Gerwig is obviously especially interested in the places where feminism, the creation of art, and life in a patriarchal society intersect.

Considering Gerwig's status as a newly anointed Big Deal director, and “Little Women's” status as an adaptation of a well known novel, it's unsurprising that the film has a cast full of notable names. Both Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh are probably too old for their parts but that's not so important, as both give very fine performances. The clear depth of soul in Ronan's eyes, and the ease with which she plays a determined young woman, makes her perfect for Jo. (Though Emma Watson clearly gets the short end of the stick as Beth, the obviously least interesting sister.) Among the cast's biggest names are Meryl Streep, suitably acerbic as Aunt March, and Laura Dern as the March matriarch, who is even better here than in “Marriage Story.” Timothee Chalamet brings the same fuckboi energy from “Lady Bird” to “Laurie,” though the character is a little less obnoxious. Chris Cooper brings a lot of warmth to his dad.

If I was one of the faithful fans of Alcott's book, I would've probably gotten even more out of Gerwig's 'Little Women.” However, this is definitely still a fine motion picture. Alexandre Desplat's score is lovely, the visual construction is well done, and the meta twist on the story – especially evident in its ending – is especially clever. There is a part of me that feels Gerwig's talents were probably better served on a story that hadn't already been filmed so many times. Yet she also made this one her own, so I guess that's just an empty gripe. Yeah, this is an extremely pleasant and sweet film. [7/10]