Skip to main content

You can have it. Make the edits.

Little Women
(2019)

(SPOILERS) It could be argued, given Little Women’s evergreen popularity, not least as a go-to text for Hollywood adaptations, that Greta Gerwig isn’t exactly stretching herself or giving us a better idea of the kind of directorial career she envisages. Hers is a likeable, intelligent, well-rendered sophomore picture. As such, the awards plaudits are probably no more or less deserving than for your average prestige period piece. Which is to say that Little Women is handsomely mounted and consummately performed (at least, by some of the cast), but it doesn’t absolutely feel like this umpteenth version of Louise May Alcott’s novel demanded to be told, even with the Gerwig’s innovations of experimentation with time frame and metatextual use of its author.

Of course, the only legitimate Hollywood criteria for a retelling is whether or not it will make money, and on that score, Little Women qualifies hands down. And the worst charge one can usually level at the period literary adaptation is that it’s inoffensive: invariably impeccably cast and functionally directed while providing a comfort blanket of familiarity and escapism. The temptation, even or perhaps especially with creative types who are devotees of the original texts, is to indulge a mix up what they know, offer a different flavour or twist to that familiarity. Armand Iannucci’s colour-blind take on The Personal History of David Copperfield inevitably means that becomes the most high-profile aspect of the film. Gerwig’s choices aren’t ones you’d take away from the trailer, but they are, in their own way, as much of an authorial signature overlaid onto the original author’s signature.

I’ve seen some criticism of the juggled time frames conceit, but for the most part, I think it’s an interesting choice. The worst I could say of it is that there are times, mostly during the first half of the film, when it results in an uncertainty of trajectory, not quite aimlessness but lacking clarity in what it’s supposed to achieve. That’s largely resolved as the picture progresses, and there are certain sequences – the recovery of Beth (Eliza Scanlen) from scarlet fever and the accompanying relief of Jo (Saoirse Ronan) juxtaposed with her death and Jo’s grief – where it feels positively inspired, and more than justifies the risk.

I was more convinced outright where it came to foregrounding of the autobiographical qualities of the book, by which Jo is a stand-in for Alcott and there are significant doubts voiced about the potential of her chick lit endeavour, until publisher Dashwood (Tracy Letts) receives input from his daughters (which is loosely the case, although he was the one to persuade her to write for girls in the first place). This is followed by Jo haggling with Dashwood over her royalties and sequel rights. My favourite aspect here was the nod to the novel’s unashamed commercial instincts, whereby Dashwood insists that Jo must marry at the end or it stands no chance of capturing the imaginations of its prospective readership.

The picture is, perhaps surprisingly, most variable when it comes to casting, which means a knock-on for the strengths and weaknesses of certain plotlines. On the considerable plus side, Gerwig hits the jackpot reteaming with Ronan for her lead, far more vital and compelling than Winona Ryder in Gillian Armstrong’s 1994 version. She carries you passionately through Jo’s hopes and frustrations for freedom of expression and career, rejecting the traditional and expected support of a husband, both financially and for fulfilment. Just now, it feels as if there are no limits to Ronan’s range, and that an Oscar is only a matter of time.

Florence Pugh – who I’ll readily admit to having been cool on after I saw perhaps too many performative similarities across a couple of her roles – is similarly compelling as would-be professional artist Amy, besotted with neighbour Laurie (Timothee Chalamet), who is himself besotted with Jo, who has rejected his overtures. And both Pugh and Ronan have strong chemistry, often of a combative nature as their characters clash over attitudes and outlook. They also engage spiritedly with Meryl Streep’s old reliable, providing as she does Aunt March’s spinster with a knowing wit.

The aforementioned Letts is also very good, projecting underlying kindness into his officious editorial veneer. Scanlen makes a sympathetic Beth, even if the part is, by its nature, on the thin side. Chris Cooper (the moment where he sits on the stairs to listen to Beth playing is lovely), Bob Odenkirk and Louis Garrel also provide strong, likeable showings. Of course, next to everyone in this is likeable, or supposed to be likeable, which leads me to…

I’ve expressed reservations about Chalamet before when it comes to playing sympathetic parts, and that’s doubly confirmed here. Laurie is surely supposed to be likeable and charming enough that both Jo and Amy are enamoured of him, but Chalamet brings his usual slightly stiff, suspect quality to the role. There’s no ease or relaxed confidence to his privileged wastrel, which means the scene where he is allowed to join the sisters’ acting club is absolutely excruciating (just how is it that they’re finding him so amusing, other than his being a boy?) That Christian Bale was more charming and affable is saying something.

I was similarly less than convinced by Laura Dern, who as of writing seems to be a shoe-in for Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Marriage Story. She seems to be struggling to find any warmth in Marmee, and as a consequence, it’s difficult to believe in her children’s or husband’s devotion to her. Emma Watson is utterly flat as Meg, which means that, while John Brooke does his best as her husband, the entire plot strand – one that is particularly pointed with regard to hopes, dreams and expectations and their contrasting realities – rather flounders.

If Gerwig had handled the material with less sureness, these not insignificant shortcomings could easily have torpedoed the picture, but she nevertheless manages to ensure Little Women feels fresh, aided and abetted by Yorick Le Saux’s (Only Lovers Left Alive) gorgeous cinematography and Alexandre Despat’s sensitive score. I was ready to find Little Women mired in the curse of the period-piece literary adaption – respectability – but it succeeds in overcoming such limitations. That doesn’t mean, however, that it feels like an Oscar winner… any more than any other respectable period-piece literary adaptation. Which is where I came in.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Just a little whiplash is all.

Duel (1971) (SPOILERS) I don’t know if it’s just me, but Spielberg’s ’70s efforts seem, perversely, much more mature, or “adult” at any rate, than his subsequent phase – from the mid-’80s onwards – of straining tremulously for critical acceptance. Perhaps because there’s less thrall to sentiment on display, or indulgence in character exploration that veered into unswerving melodrama. Duel , famously made for TV but more than good enough to garner a European cinema release the following year after the raves came flooding in, is the starkest, most undiluted example of the director as a purveyor of pure technical expertise, honed as it is to essentials in terms of narrative and plotting. Consequently, that’s both Duel ’s strength and weakness.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Ours is the richest banking house in Europe, and we’re still being kicked.

The House of Rothschild (1934) (SPOILERS) Fox’s Rothschild family propaganda pic does a pretty good job presenting the clan as poor, maligned, oppressed Jews who fought back in the only way available to them: making money, lots of lovely money! Indeed, it occurred to me watching The House of Rothschild , that for all its inclusion of a rotter of a Nazi stand-in (played by Boris Karloff), Hitler must have just loved the movie, as it’s essentially paying the family the compliment of being very very good at doing their very best to make money from everyone left, right and centre. It’s thus unsurprising to learn that a scene was used in the anti-Semitic (you might guess as much from the title) The Eternal Jew .

You are not brought upon this world to get it!

John Carpenter  Ranked For anyone’s formative film viewing experience during the 1980s, certain directors held undeniable, persuasive genre (SF/fantasy/horror genre) cachet. James Cameron. Ridley Scott ( when he was tackling genre). Joe Dante. David Cronenberg. John Carpenter. Thanks to Halloween , Carpenter’s name became synonymous with horror, but he made relatively few undiluted movies in that vein (the aforementioned, The Fog , Christine , Prince of Darkness (although it has an SF/fantasy streak), In the Mouth of Madness , The Ward ). Certainly, the pictures that cemented my appreciation for his work – Dark Star , The Thing – had only a foot or not at all in that mode.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Sleep well, my friend, and forget us. Tomorrow you will wake up a new man.

The Prisoner 13. Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling We want information. In an effort to locate Professor Seltzman, a scientist who has perfected a means of transferring one person’s mind to another person’s body, Number Two has Number Six’s mind installed in the body of the Colonel (a loyal servant of the Powers that Be). Six was the last person to have contact with Seltzman and, if he is to stand any chance of being returned to his own body, he must find him (the Village possesses only the means to make the switch, they cannot reverse the process). Awaking in London, Six encounters old acquaintances including his fiancée and her father Sir Charles Portland (Six’s superior and shown in the teaser sequence fretting over how to find Seltzman). Six discovers Seltzman’s hideout by decoding a series of photographs, and sets off to find him in Austria. He achieves this, but both men are captured and returned to the Village. Restoring Six and the Colonel to their respective bodie

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.