Little Women
Premise - Little Women tells the story of the four March sisters, Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth, and the neighbor boy Laurie, over the course of their adolescence and young women-hood. Readers will follow the girls as they experience schooling, first loves, career development, marriage, and children, as the ultimate tale of a young women's domestic life in 1800's America.
Review - I read this out of excitement for the upcoming Greta Gerwig film adaptation starring Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan, Meryl Streep, and Timothee Chalamet, slated to release in December 2019. I'm already so stoked. I quite enjoyed Ladybird, but I really, REALLY enjoy these actors and can't wait to see them perform together. You know I'd never miss an Emma Watson film.
The only thing I knew about the book coming in was that Beth dies, because it was spoiled by Rachel and Joey in Friends. That was literally it.
To be honest though, there wasn't much to give away. This is a book with little to no plot. It more closely resembles a series of anecdotes over the course of these young women's lives. I believe the novel was presented as two serials, one for the first half (Little Women) and one for the second half (The Good Wives) and then later published together as one long novel. I imagine that the serial in the 1800s is analogous to something like a television show today, where each week or month you get another "episode." So if I imagine Little Women to be something like Friends for 19th century girls, it makes a bit more sense. You just become attached the characters and follow their lives over the course of 10 or more years. But as a novel alone... it's not really a novel. There's no definitive plot arc whatsoever. I have trouble envisioning this as a film and not a television series, because I don't know which plot points the writers/directors will keep in, and which will be cut.
We are set up with four young women (or even girls, at the start), named Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth. They each have very definitive, somewhat one-dimensional personalities that are easily digestible for children. I was somewhat reminded of each of the four Hogwarts houses, how it's ridiculous to assume there's a "brave" child, or a "smart" child that easily fits into a category, but the characters are presented as archetypes in that way. Meg is my Slytherin, who is obsessed with her looks, material things, and sticks with the traditional husband/children story life story. Jo is my Gryffindor, who is the main protagonist of the story and is tomboyish, defiant, and plays rough. Amy is my Ravenclaw, as her stories typically revolve around school, art, and world travel, though she's not a traditional intellectual as she often gets big words confused. And then Beth is my Hufflepuff, who lives her life to serve others and unfortunately doesn't get much of a life herself. Now, I didn't mind how easily definable the characters were - that's true of almost all sitcoms or television shows. And it sets the story up neatly and clearly for young girls. It's highly entertaining on a surface level.
But even comparing this to a television series does not quite explain why some of the character arcs are so unsatisfying. Jo is the main character. She develops a close friendship with the neighbor boy, Laurie, who is our one main character outside of the March family. Naturally, a will-they-won't-they romance unfolds over the course of many years, which is fun to follow. But they don't end up together and decide instead to be friends. To be clear - I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I think it was well setup, the way Laurie finally confesses his undying love for Jo, his childhood friend, and then she says that she can't see herself marrying anyone. Jo was always a free-spirited young woman who didn't adhere to traditional standards of femininity. She didn't see it as her life purpose to have a husband and children, and that's what made her character interesting. But then what happens AFTER Jo and Laurie don't end up together is what feels slightly off. Laurie marries Amy, Jo's sister, after they have very little contact throughout the rest of the book, and then Jo marries an old professor who is much her senior. To use my sitcom analogy... Say Ross and Rachel after years of will-they-won't-they don't make it. If the show just ended there, it'd be alright because it would just be these bittersweet, ambiguous "where do we go from here." But instead, imagine Ross randomly marries Phoebe and Rachel marries a random old man. That's what it's like.
I'm curious to see how the new film adaptation will translate this book into modern feminism. I'm not saying the original novel is anti-feminist, necessarily, but it definitely had elements that made me feel uncomfortable in the context of the 21st century. Very much, "boys will be boys" and it's up to the young girls to save the household. Every character ends up married with children, and their role as wife is more important than any of their other achievements. Jo, who spends the whole book aspiring to be an author, ends up marrying a professor and opening a school to teach young boys, without writing anything herself. Many of the individuals involved in the new film are openly feminist, so I wonder what they'll change, or more excitedly what they won't change but perhaps bring in a new perspective.
There's little to no conflict in this novel that the characters have to fight against, other than the fact that they are just existing as women. They are poor, but not devastatingly poor like the family Beth tries to help. Their father is away in the Civil War for a bit, but then comes back. And yes, they are existing as women, but they all end up getting married and being "good wives" in the end so... I wouldn't say there is conflict. Despite the day-to-day drama and conflict, overall it is a series of lively anecdotes that are warm, comfy and familiar to young girls like myself, and are still entertaining if not all that meaningful. (70/100)
EDIT 12/25/19: I HAVE NOW SEEN THE GRETA GERWIG FILM AND IT WAS SO GOOD!! I enjoyed it far better than the book, as it kept the best aspects of the book and then changed the parts I disliked. When I heard that changes were going to be made, I had anticipated that Jo would just tell her publisher, "Sure, just put Amy with Laurie and Jo with some man, let her open a school for boys, whatever" to make him happy, and I was half-right. Jo does sell her own heroine (the fictional version of herself) into marriage in order to get her book published, despite Jo adamantly being against marriage from the beginning. But it is left ambiguous whether or not the real Jo actually marries Frederick. It's not as creepy anyways, as Frederick in the movie adaptation is of course a younger, handsome man, in comparison to the old professor of the novel.
Amy, on the other hand, does marry Laurie. But her romance with Laurie is just as an important piece of the film as Laurie's friendship with Jo. In this way, their marriage feels legitimate instead of random. Amy had been in love with Laurie since the start of the film. Actually, I think Amy may have had more depth in this adaptation than any other character.
Of course I watched for Emma Watson as Meg (and she is absolutely beautiful in this). As Meg's character is centralized around beauty, who better to play her than Emma Watson, one of the most beautiful actresses in the world? I feel as though, in the film, a lot of her character was just about looking so pretty and easy to love. It was a good fit. But the whole ensemble cast was amazing. Timothee Chalamet is so hot. Moreover, the music is scored by my favorite contemporary composer, Alexandre Desplat, and the costumes done by one of my favorite costume artists, Jacqueline Durran.
What surprised me the most in the 2019 film adaptation is that the story is not told in chronological order. The novel is split into two parts, Little Women and The Good Wives, and the film jumps back and forth between the two time periods, drawing parallels between events in the two. As someone who has read the novel, I found this easy enough to follow, but I can imagine it would be confusing for others. The lighting difference meant to signify the two time periods is a little too subtle, and there are few physical characteristic changes to really root you in time (Amy's bangs, Jo's hair when she cuts it really short, that's maybe about it). Otherwise, you have to rely on plot context to figure out when you are.
I cannot imagine I will ever re-read the book again, but I will treasure this film for years to come (94/100)
Giving equal weight to the novel and 2019 film, that is an average score of 82/100
Quote - “Women, they have minds and souls, as well as just hearts. And they've got ambition and they've got talent as well as just beauty. And I'm so sick of people just saying that love is all a women is fit for, I'm so sick of it. But I'm so lonely."
What to read for - Any scenes that are more comical or playful are good. In contrast, Beth's story is absolutely tragic but a highlight of the novel.
What to watch for - Same as above, Amy is comedic gold, even though the comedy of her character was different than that of the book. I thought Florence Pugh's performance stole the show. Normally, in any Emma Watson film, my eyes are so drawn to her above anyone else, but I could not help but be transfixed by Amy. Also I'm literally in love with Timothee Chalamet.
If you liked this book/film, I'd recommend The Adventures of Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn! That's what I would say is the young boy version of this, in some ways. On the other hand, if it's the girl aspect that is appealing, I know there is a book version of Ballet Shoes that may be similar. I've only seen the movie but I can see many parallels. Also, there is a 1990's film version of Little Women that I intend to watch.
Written by Louisa May Alcott
Published by Roberts Brothers
Directed by Greta Gerwig
Distributed by Sony Pictures
Comments
Post a Comment