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.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.