[rating=7.00]
I guess at this point it’s safe to assume that every generation needs their version of Little Women. It’s been 25 years since Louisa May Alcott’s titular little women hit the big screen in director Gillian Armstrong’s seminal adaptation, which starred Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, and Claire Danes. I guess that means it’s about time.
The necessity of a new version of Little Women feels almost irrelevant. This is a story that has been adapted countless times on stage and screen (both big and little) over the years and the continuing thirst for Alcott’s story is, perhaps, reason enough alone. At this point, however, one has to wonder what can be brought to a new adaptation.
Writer/director Greta Gerwig attempts to answer that question in her version of Little Women, even if the conclusion that is reached is, ultimately, “not much.” Indeed, there really isn’t much of a point in bringing the story to life except, perhaps, as an exercise in pure cinema. Gerwig, coming off the tails of her debut film, Lady Bird, does indeed have a keen cinematic eye and it serves the narrative well here.
Still, even with a cast of some of the most profoundly talented women working in movies today—which includes Lady Bird star Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Harry Potter alum Emma Watson as Meg, Midsommar’s Florence Pugh as Amy, and Sharp Objects breakout Eliza Scanlan as Beth—the film struggles to define itself against the countless adaptations that have come before it.
Which isn’t to say it’s bad. Not at all. Gerwig is quickly becoming a master of telling quiet stories with emotional resonance, and Little Women is nothing if not that. As far as updates go, this one is fine and Gerwig imbues the tale with a modern sensibility that will make the story somewhat more accessible for modern audiences. In her hands, the March sisters are paradigms of the modern feminist ideal and Gerwig uses them to explore gender roles and feminine ideals.
While much of that isn’t exactly new, Alcott’s story is more subtextual than Gerwig’s vision, and it works well here. One can’t help but feel the empowerment of Gerwig’s presentation and it does serve to create a more modern sentiment and feel for the narrative.
Surprisingly, Gerwig’s biggest innovation to the narrative is the reordering. Her Little Women begins near the ending, with the now disparate sisters receiving word of their sister’s impending death and gathering at their family home. Her chronology here is somewhat confusing. There are no real overt visual cues about when we are in the narrative, and those unfamiliar with the story may have a hard time keeping up.
This does have the added detriment at making the ages of the March sisters stand out more grossly. The story, of course, takes place over a period of about 7 years, and while for most of the sisters this isn’t a real problem, for Amy it is a little silly. Amy starts out the story at about 13 years old, and surprisingly Pugh plays her throughout the whole span. It’s a bit unsettling watch her play both 13 and 20, with her younger years being a bit hard to swallow for an actress of Pugh’s age. It would, perhaps, have been better to split the role between Pugh and a younger actress, and it’s a bit baffling to consider why they chose not to.
Still, the enduring power and draw of Little Women is hard to deny. Even if it struggles to define itself against the near countless number of adaptations that have come out over the last century, Gerwig does a fine job at bringing new resonance to the story. Additionally, her cast all look to be having the time of their lives inhabiting these classic roles and each brings an intriguing dimension to their characters. At the end of the day, ultimately, it’s still Little Women and if we must revisit these waters again, we could do a whole lot worse than what we’ve been given here.
Little Women opens everywhere on Christmas Day.
