Some Thoughts On Little Women (2019)

I finally got to see the 2019 version of Little Women the other day, and I have a few things to say.

Roughly 800 years ago (which is to say, back in 2013) I sat down and read the novel Little Women, both volumes. I then wrote this post, in which I talked about the book as well as some of its many film adaptations.

Since 2013, the world has been granted three (3!) new versions of Little Women. 

The first, a 2017 TV-movie starring Maya Hawke as Jo, had all the makings of a masterpiece -- Angela Lansbury as Aunt March, Emily Watson as Marmee, Michael Gambon as Laurie's grandfather. Unfortunately, the acting from everyone else was so stilted and ridiculous that I couldn't even make it past episode one.

The second, a 2018 "modern retelling," featured Lea Thompson as Marmee. I never saw it, and the ratings don't look particularly promising, so I likely never will.

And finally, there's the 2019 version, which boasts the likes of Meryl Streep, Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Chris Cooper, and Laura Dern. It currently has a 95% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and it received several Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Actress (Ronan), Supporting Actress (Florence Pugh as Amy), Music (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design. (As a quick note -- if nothing else, I hope it wins for screenplay and music. The music was beautiful. More on the adaptation in a moment.)

Okay, so spoiler alert, if you haven't seen this version and plan to do so, maybe wait and see it and then come back and read this afterward.

* * *

For the most part, I really enjoyed the 2019 version.

But I can't help wondering... how many people were able to actually follow it?

Because the whole thing begins with the four girls as adults -- Jo in New York, Amy in Paris, Meg with kids, and Beth loitering about.

Then it jumps back in time to when the four sisters are teenagers. Or, in other words, to where the novel begins.

Then it jumps to the future again.

And back. And forth. And back. And forth.

And it's never super obvious WHICH time period they're in whenever a jump is made. If you're incredibly familiar with the story, you can figure it out for the most part. But the clues are so subtle. I'm thinking about other movies that jump back & forth -- Forrest Gump makes the transitions with narration, and Now & Then's two time periods feature completely different actresses. Those are just two films that come to mind.)

Here, the clues are basically: The girls' hair. Pay attention to their hair. Of course, even then, it's not always clear. Does Jo's hair look short  because we're in the time period right after she lobbed it off, or does it just appear to be short because she's got it pulled back? Speaking of hair, would it have killed them to give Laurie a mustache when he got older? They gave Christian Bale one in the 1994 version once he got older and more worldly.

Okay, yes, in some cases you can tell it's the future or the past by paying close attention to the surroundings.  (Is someone in New York? Okay, it's the future.) Other times -- like during two separate visits to the seashore and two instances of Beth being gravely ill -- the two events happening in different time periods are presented as parallels, with quick cuts in between, and it's like... wait!? Stop!? When ARE we?

For a viewer who isn't familiar with the work, were they just left utterly confused?

Well, if you, like me, ARE familiar with the work, and you can get past the constant hopping through time, what you are left with is a version of Little Women that is unlike any that has come before it. (I am considering the films of 1933, 1949, and 1994, as well as the TV versions from 1970 and 1978.) And if I may say so, that's a GOOD thing. Whenever there's a "new" version of a classic work, it BETTER be different and interesting -- otherwise, what's the point?

When I first began to see trailers for this version, my immediate impression was that yes, it was going to be different -- and not particularly true to the book. But honestly, I didn't care. NONE of the films have been 100% true to the book. Several of the older versions had subplots involving Laurie and his Grandfather having a dysfunctional relationship, for example. Even the 1994 version chose to focus on Jo rather than focus on all the sisters in their later years, the way the book does. (This was fine, though, because A) Jo's plots are the best, and B) Nobody cares about your toddlers, Meg. No one!)

So, I have to say, after seeing the full film, I'm surprised how closely it DID stick to the book. If you were to rearrange all the scenes into chronological order, you'd get something very similar to the book.

Oh sure, there are a few differences. One, in this film, Friedrich is played as a little bit younger (mid-30s as opposed to the usual mid-to-late 40s), which I don't mind. Two, in this film, Jo opens a co-ed school, whereas in the book it was an all-boys school. (Again, I like this change.)

But then there was the whole thing about Jo's letter to Laurie towards the end. Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, Josephine March! That was -- I mean, it's not really fair to tease us like that! Make the audience think, Hmm, yeah, this is a NEW version of Little Women, where they might finally make things "right" and get those two crazy kids together! And then it's like, "Nope! Fooled you!" MEAN.

My biggest surprise was that they included several post-marriage scenes between Meg and John, which I don't recall seeing much of before in any of the films. (In the 1994 version, Meg gives birth and that's about it.) Well, no, my surprise was more with the fact that the scenes were tolerable -- good, even!

But perhaps the biggest difference between the book and this film (and the 1994 one, too, if we're being fair) is the overall message.

The book: Morality wins the day! Be good wives, and thou shalt prosper!

This movie's message: Feminism! Bucking traditional roles and going one's own way! You'll never reign in Jo March, oh no!

The 1994 version went in that direction, too, but the 2019 version pushes the message even further. And that's great. We're 150+ years removed from the novel. A movie about four girls growing into "good little wives," and basically dumbing down as they do so, would be insulting, even outrageous, to most Americans today. (Yeah, I'm sure you'd still find a few people who'd be into it, but I'm not sure those people even go to movie theaters in the first place.)

Anyway, first impressions:

*Chronological time-and-space jumping is a little confusing (at least upon a first viewing).

*Acting is great.

*Music is wonderful.

*Story is familiar, and yet presented in a way that's not stale.

*Someone PLEASE teach Eliza Scanlen how to actually look like she's playing a piano. (ETA: Okay, apparently she knows how to play. Hey, let's blame a sound editor instead!)

*I hope it wins an Oscar or two.

Watching Little Women (1994)... With My Mother

Watching Little Women (1994)... 

                                                                    ...With My Mother

Her: "I know you said I wasn't allowed to ask questions during this, but can I ask just one?"

Me: "Okay...."

Her: "Aren't there supposed to be five daughters?"

Me: "What, you think there's a fifth one hidden in a closet somewhere, just waiting to make a grand entrance?"

Her: "Yes. Maybe."

* * *

Me: "Ugh, Amy is the worst."

Her: "Yes, and good things always happen to her."

Me: "Right? She gets to go to Europe, marry Laurie.... Sometimes I like to imagine a different ending for her, though."

Her: "Like what?"

Me: "Like one where she has to marry Mr. Wickham."

* * * 

Marmee March, talking to Meg about John Brooke's proposal: "Yes, but I'd prefer [John] had a house [before you marry]!"

Me: "If you were required to have a house before you got married nowadays, nobody would ever get married except for middle-aged people going into their second marriage."

Her: *sad nod*

* * *

Laurie: *proposes to Jo*

Me: "I'm kind of glad she says no at this point. They're both so young."

Her: "No, they're older! Remember, it said 'Four Years Later'."

Me: "Yes, but look at his face."

Her: "Yes, such a baby face."

One scene later:

Laurie, growing facial hair as we speak: "YOU WERE SAYING...???"

* * *

See also:

Watching 'The Natural'... With My Mother

Watching 'Cranford'... With My Mother

Watching 'Pride & Prejudice'... With My Mother

Women's Stuff

Recently I decided that I wanted to, and should, and by gum would read Little Women.

I had read Little Women -- or thought I had -- back in elementary school. I remember someone in my class trying to spoil it for me partway in by telling me that Beth dies. Prepared for the worst, I read on -- but, lo, Beth didn't die! She got ill, but she lived. My classmate was clearly a liar.

Then I saw the 1994 Winona Ryder movie, and... oh... yeah... Beth dies. Plus there's all this other unfamiliar stuff going on. Jo gets married? Meg has kids? Amy and Laurie... OH NO THEY DIDN'T.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that "Little Women" is actually two books, the original and its companion, or sequel, Good Wives. The latter is the one where Beth dies. And the two have been regularly paired, as one book, for over a century. However, when re-printing Little Women for young readers, often just the first volume is included.

In conclusion, I had not read BOTH volumes until recently.

Survey says?

Louisa May should've stopped at one.

Okay, okay, the second volume is interesting as a sequel; I mean, it's sort of... nice... to see what happens to the March sisters as they become, ugh, good wives. It's actually pretty depressing from a 21st-century standpoint to see what these ladies do with themselves in Volume 2. Except for Jo, of course, who's awesome. Unfortunately, the second volume gives us very few chapters about Jo. Instead we get a bunch of mush about Amy and Laurie, and how Amy wants to be wealthy and marry rich, but she loves Laurie despite his richness; and all this other jazz about how Laurie transfers his romantic affections from one sister to the other. Ew. We're also treated to The Life & Times of Meg And Her Husband, John Brooke, getting a look at their domestic trials, and being subjected to chapters about the misadventures of their precious, brilliant toddlers. 

Which is why... I think... this is one instance in which the movie adaptations kind of improve on the novel. 

In certain ways.

Let's talk about the movies. Actually, there have been many. But there are four that are widely available:

The 1933 Version

Starring: Katharine Hepburn as Jo

Katharine is great in the role of Jo, but the other sisters look like painted dolls. Overall I liked it, though.

Speaking of that version, a few years ago I ran across this printing of the novel:

Four famous girls... and Laurie, the boy two of them loved.

I don't know what's up with that tagline. It could be argued that ALL the March girls "loved" Laurie, as a brother and a friend. Only one of them ever did romantically, and that was Amy. And the girls certainly aren't "famous" in the novel.  They're famous to readers, yes... but otherwise.... Anyway, it made me laugh because it's just so weird.

Okay, so then we have....

The 1949 Version

(which is very similar in to the previous film, as if they were working off the same script)

Starring: June Allyson, Margaret O'Brien, Janet Leigh, and Elizabeth Taylor

I liked this one slightly more than the 1933 version, even though they were so similar. This one sort of improved on its predecessor. It's interesting to see how far the film industry had come in just 16 years as far as technological improvements were concerned. The 1949 version LOOKS better than the 1933 one, and the actresses don't look as creepy.

The 1978 TV Version

Starring: Susan Dey (The Partridge Family) as Jo, Eve Plumb (The Brady Bunch) as Beth, Meredith Baxter (Family Ties) as Meg, and William Shatner (Star Trek) as Professor Bhaer

I didn't expect this version to be that good, considering the era -- other 1970's TV adaptations of classic books, such as BBC's Anne Of Avonlea and The Secret Garden, seem low-budget and look pretty mediocre today. But I actually enjoyed this one. Sure, there are some cheesy moments, and the movie, strangely, twists Laurie and his Grandfather's relationship into a rather dysfunctional one. But Susan Dey is great as Jo, and I have to give props to Eve Plumb for doing such a good job as Beth that I momentarily forgot she used to be Jan Brady.

However... all three of these versions suffered from one awkward problem: They employed only one actress to play Amy. Amy's supposed to be 12 when the whole thing starts, and by the time things begin to wind down -- pretty much when Jo and Friederich get together -- about ten years have passed. While some actresses could, perhaps, play 12 to 22 convincingly, Amy is an odd character who starts out whiny and bratty and horrid, and then evolves into an elegant, stylish lady. And anytime you get an actress who's outgrown her teens (in the case of the Amy-actresses of 1933 and 1978, who were in their 20's) playing a bratty pre-teen, it starts to feel like you're watching one of those Freaky Friday-type movies where the daughter is now in the mother's body. It's just hard to buy.

SO. When 1994's version of Little Women rolled around, they decided to hire TWO actresses to play Amy.

Who, I always thought, looked nothing alike.

 But in these pictures they kind of do. Except for the eyes, the lips, and the facial shape. 

OH NevERmIND

The 1994 Version: 

Starring: Winona Ryder as Jo, Claire Danes as Beth, Trini Alvarado as Meg, and Kirsten Dunst AND Samantha Mathis as Amy.

And Susan Sarandon as Marmee.

And... and... HIM....

LAURIEEEE!!!

Laurie, you may be kind of obnoxious in the book(s), but on-screen, you're smokin' adorable.

Although let's get one thing straight: facial hair? BAD.

Sad fact: when I first saw 1994's Little Women, in the theater, I was not impressed. A few years later, I ended up renting the movie from Blockbuster. Then again. And again. And many more times until I finally just bought it. And now it's actually one of my favorite films.

And I will probably continue to watch it as often as I ever did.

The book, on the other hand...

Okay, so reasons why the book may be superior to any of the films:

*It's long. Lots of little vignettes and subplots going on. If you tried to make a faithful film adaption, we'd be talking about a 10-hour movie. If you're one of those people that likes to spend as much time as possible with a group of characters, the book should meet your needs.

*There's a lot of morality stuff which would probably bore modern moviegoers, but, when given out in small doses in the novel, are actually kind of inspiring. Until things start to get preachy. Then not so much.

*The language, especially in the first volume of the novel, is lively and often funny. While any of the films could replicate the words or dialogue, a film would be hard-pressed to capture most of it, and definitely couldn't get all of it (unless the film was 10 hours long; see above.)

*Every actress I've seen playing Jo has portrayed her in a slightly different way. I've seen tomboyish and hot-tempered, decorum-less and goofy, and loud, awkward and wild, and yet none of them quite capture ALL of who Jo is in the novel, though they certainly try.

*The dad, Mr. March, gets seen and mentioned a lot more in the book than in any of the films. In fact, in the 1994 version, after he returns from the battlefield you barely see or hear from him again. You almost forget he even exists, unless you're paying close attention and see that, oh yeah, he IS there in the background occasionally.

*If you're a huge fan of Amy or Meg, the book should be right up your alley. In the films, the focus sometimes swings toward Jo and she becomes the central character -- it certainly does in the 1994 version -- and the others' plots don't get as much attention. On the other hand, if you ARE, in fact, a huge fan of Amy or Meg... Seriously? SERIOUSLY? We need to talk.

So those are some of the things the book has going for it.

Would I read it again? Sure. But I may only re-read the first volume, if I do.

And I'll continue to love the films, of course.

Fun Little Women Novel Fact: The word "feminine" isn't found once in Volume 1.

Volume 2 uses the word "feminine" eight times. We have:

Feminine appreciation (chapter 24)

Feminine respect (chapter 34)

Feminine eyes (chapter 37)

Feminine ideas (chapter 38)

Feminine delusion (chapter 41)

Feminine interest and curiosity (chapter 43)

Feminine devotion (chapter 45)

and

Feminine fib (chapter 46)

That's a lot of femininity.