Spoiler Alert! This post contains a lot of spoilers. Like. All the spoilers. Please don't read if you don't want to know how Little Women ends.
Little Women has had many iterations. First published in two volumes in 1868 and 1869, it has also been performed on stage, television, radio, and been made into seven different films. The 2019 adaption, directed by Greta Gerwig, received critical acclaim, and was chosen by both the American Film Institute and Time magazine as one of the top ten films of 2019.
I saw the film the day after it came out, and read the book earlier in the year in anticipation. I wasn't sure how I'd like either, and found the book to be a very religious guidebook for young girls rather than the fun story of sisters which the film trailer suggested it could be...turns out I was right about the film...
Okay so before we get into it, I'm just going to remind you that I am not a professional film reviewer. Far from it, I don't think I've ever published any writing about a film. Incorrect terminology will be used. I've also only seen the film once, so we're working off memory here. (To be fair, I've only read the book once, so maybe we're on even footing here).
That being said, shall we start with the cast? I thought this film was brilliantly cast! Saoirse Ronan encaptured the spirit of Jo perfectly, performing a headstrong, emotional young woman finding herself as she tried to support her family as best she could. I loved her performance.
Jo's partner in crime, Laurie, was well done by Timothee Chalamet. Separating the story from the acting (because I don't particularly like all of Laurie's story), Chalamet put on a wonderful performance of a boy who doesn't really know what he wants. This Bustle article summed it up perfectly to be honest. Chalamet performs the character perfectly, but the character has a myriad of problems.
I also want to take a moment to appreciate Florence Pugh as Amy. When I read the book, I did not like Amy. She is written to be unlikable. And yes, all the girls develop and learn throughout the story, trying to be better than they are when we first meet them, but Amy seemed to me the worst of the lot; she was spoilt and brattish, epitomised by her burning Jo's book when she wasn't allowed to go to the theatre with her sisters. Florence Pugh not only acted this brilliantly, but made me feel more for Amy than I ever had. She remained a brattish child, but seeing the more grown up Amy become disappointed in her lack of painting progress and struggle being second to Jo completely changed things for me.
Overall, I felt more for the sisters in the film than I ever did in the book. A large obstacle in my enjoyment of the books was the unnatural way the girls talked to one another; they were sisters, they spent all their time together, and yet they were always felt so formal and stiff in the book. The film brought them to life.
This was similar to the entire feel of the film versus that of the book. Where Alcott's story feels preachy and didactic, the film made it fun and real. Everything in the book was intended as a lesson and frequently connected to God. Whilst I have no problem with the religious side of things, and am a little confused as to why religion was taken almost entirely out of the film, when reading the book it really slowed the pace of things and took away from the more fun sections by turning everything into a lesson. When compared with the film version, there was such a change in the atmosphere, with a bigger focus on emotion than progress.
Soooo to address the story. I guess I can only comment on half of the film as I only knew half the story. Turns out the book Good Wives, which my mum (from whom I have borrowed Little Women, Jo's Boys, and Little Men) does not own a copy of but is considered a continuation of the story of the March sisters, covers the rest of what happened in the film. Which is interesting because I kind of hated the second half.
Let's break it down sister by sister.
Meg marries, has children, and struggles with the family being poor. That was fine, realistic, felt in line with her character and what I knew of her story. Not massively interesting but I got it, it followed on from where I left her at the end of the book.
Jo heads to New York after rejecting Laurie's proposal. Brilliant. Wonderfully adventurous and befitting a girl who wants nothing but to write and have her freedom. Whilst I liked her and Laurie together, they were much more a double act than a romantic ideal in my eyes, so I can't even be disappointed by the way their relationship ends. I'm not too fussed about her falling in love with Professor Bhaer, but we really needed more of their relationship to be able to judge it. I thought it was very strange when he turned up at the end and the March's all pushed Jo to tell him she loved him, but ya know, I respect where the story took her.
Beth dies. So you know. There's that.
Amy. Amy Amy Amy.
She frustrated me so much.
And for a totally different reason to my dislike of her in the books. In the books I think she's vain and spoilt and doesn't learn the lesson that is laid out for her. In the film I fell in love with her. Granted this might be that Florence Pugh is gorgeous, but the development you see in her, the maturity, and the understanding of marriage as a value exchange. Oh. My. God. I loved her.
And then she decided to marry Laurie and I hated her decision. This may be a return to the fact Laurie is awful, but I just hated that she was a) happy to be second to Jo even though she broke down about the fact she always came second b) in love with Laurie when he was a bit of dick to her to be blunt about it and c) willing to let Laurie have his way without much of a fight. So yes, my issue is mostly with Laurie, but I felt like Amy had such development, shown in her competitiveness with her sisters, her artistic ability, and her unwillingness to indulge Laurie when they first met again in France, that I was disappointed her story ended with marrying him. She deserved better.
The story was well portrayed through the flashbacks (though this did confuse me terribly at the beginning seeing as I hadn't read the section on which the film opened) and I really enjoyed the different feel between the timelines and the way the lighting indicated where (when?) we were. I loved the way letters were filmed by having the writer talk directly to the camera, I only wish this could have been featured more heavily. There was a lot of letters - or at least, there is in the books - but only 3 or 4 were filmed in this way. It could have been much more of a Thing than it was if they'd included more, because I thought it was a really cool addition.
Overall, I thought the film was beautifully done. The casting was brilliant, it was fun and emotional and I'd definitely watch it again. I certainly enjoyed it more than I enjoyed reading the book and though I know it won't be for everyone, would definitely recommend it to people.
Comments