Movie Review: "Little Women"

"Little Women": C+.  I am 50% Italian. Both of my maternal grandparents were born in the old country.  Italians like to hug.  I am no exception. There are few things I like better than being on the receiving end of a hug, especially if it’s coming from one of the Plethora Of Pulchritude, i.e., my four granddaughters. But even hugging has its limits. For example, if I’m watching a movie, I don’t want or need to see the characters embracing in virtually every scene. But that’s what you get in the latest version of Little Women. Two-plus hours of almost perpetual hugging.  The four sisters and their mother can’t be in the same room without administering a big ol’ hug. What ever happened to a nod, a wave or even a simple, warm smile? Do those gestures not sometimes suffice?  And these characters are not Italian!  Are they pretending to be?  I wish writer-director Greta Gerwig had switched it up a little bit, just for variety’s sake.

Now on to more serious reflections.  Almost exactly a year ago I watched the 1994 version of Little Women, directed by Gillian Armstrong.  As most adults already know, it is the story of the March household with four mostly disparate daughters lovingly headed by a mother whose husband is away fighting in the Civil War.  I gave it an A-, as noted in my thirty-fourth Quarterly Cinema Scan posted last January 31.  The Armstrong film was the sixth time a full length motion picture adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868 classic had been produced.  Given the critical and commercial success of that movie, I wonder what the primary motivation was for yet another film adaptation so relatively soon after its predecessor.  Did the story of the March family really need to be told again?  Both the '94 and the '19 films follow Alcott's novel.  Unless a filmmaker is going to significantly depart from the original source material, thereby offering a new "take" on a well known and beloved story, I believe the answer to my posed question is "no."  Despite misgivings, in my perpetual quest to be a cooperative spouse I accompanied Momma Cuardito, at her request, to the screening.

The aspect of the 1994 film which I found most memorable was the acting by Winona Ryder, who plays Jo, the smart and spunky second oldest March daughter.  Most literary scholars consider Jo to be Alcott's alter ego.  Ryder's performance won her an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, thus presenting a high bar for her successor in the 2019 film, Saoirse Ronan, to surpass.  Ronan is equally good as Jo and, just like Ryder, is the strongest attribute in her respective movie.  In the last five years Ronan has been nominated for a Best Actress Oscar three times, including this year for Little Women.  Such a resume is even more amazing when you consider that the red headed actress is only twenty-five years old.

Gerwig's film has other strong points, such as the comfy costuming by Jacqueline Durran, the rich interior set decoration by Claire Kaufman and the New England cinematography by York Le Saux.  Laura Dern is an excellent choice to play mother Marmee.  Her work here may be overlooked, however, because she was spectacular as a divorce lawyer in the contemporaneously released Marriage Story.  Florence Pugh has been nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of youngest daughter Amy, an honor which surprised me a little for reasons I'll explain below.  The Academy voters have selected the film as one of its nine Best Picture nominees.

The most problematic facet of Gerwig's script is the confusing and totally unnecessary jumping back and forth among various years.  As I have written before, I don't object if a narrative is not presented in chronological order provided that the choice works to the advantage of the viewers.  Here, it fails.  Two examples in Gerwig's film substantiate my objections.  There is a funeral scene in which one of the female characters is buried.  Seconds later, the scene switches to a wedding in which the deceased is celebrating with the bride.  Huh?  To further complicate matters, Gerwig decided to have Amy played by a single actress, twenty-three year old Pugh.  When the story opens Amy is a very young girl -- you might say a "little woman."  At the end she is a married woman.  By comparison, Armstrong, the '94 film's director, wisely chose to have Amy played by two different actresses, twelve year old Kirsten Dunst and twenty-four year old Samantha Mathis.

A quick note about three other things which don't add up.  The March family owns a beautiful house, and appear to have many of life's comforts without having to perform hard labor.  They wear extremely nice clothing and are well educated.  Yet when Marmee needs to travel to visit her wounded husband in Washington, D.C., Jo cuts her own hair which she sells to help pay for her mother's train ticket.  (This sets up the funniest line in the film when one of Jo's younger sisters, referring to Jo's hair, laments, "Oh, Jo, your one beauty!")  Secondly, the story includes the romantic interests of the sisters with young men.  Why aren't those guys off to war instead of the girls' middle-aged father?  And thirdly, why does one of the sisters hurriedly and surprisingly get married en route from Europe back to Massachusetts instead of in the presence of her loving family?  Whose fault are these puzzlements, Alcott or Gerwig?

Although I did not enjoy this movie as much as I'd hoped, Momma Cuandito "absolutely loved it."  In the grand scheme of things, that's what counts the most.  Happy wife, happy life.