Little Women
Based on Louisa May Alcott’s fairly intolerable novel, Little Women charts the lives and loves of the March sisters in the early 20th century – with the focus placed predominantly on aspiring writer Jo March (Saoirse Ronan). It’s clear immediately that filmmaker Greta Gerwig has done a nigh impeccable job of establishing the story’s very specific time and place, and there’s little doubt, certainly, that the director manages to elicit consistently strong work from her various performers – although it does become increasingly apparent that there is otherwise exceedingly little here worth connecting to and embracing. The uninvolving atmosphere is compounded by a continuing emphasis on the one-note characters’ tiresome exploits, as scripter Gerwig, for the most part, employs an episodic structure that’s focused almost entirely on the protagonists’ less-than-enthralling activities and encounters (eg the girls put on a Christmas play, the girls attend a fancy ball, etc) – which essentially leaves the viewer waiting for something (anything) of consequence or interest to occur. And although Gerwig has admittedly peppered the proceedings with a small handful of compelling interludes (eg Jo and Florence Pugh’s Amy’s short-lived rivalry), Little Women culminates with a fairly ineffective third act that hardly makes the emotional impact for which Gerwig is obviously striving – with the film’s mostly-confusing time-jumping atmosphere ultimately the tip of the iceberg in terms of its various problems.
*1/2 out of ****
Omigod – where to begin. I just watched this version of Little Women because it won all these awards. I’ve seen this version, the BBC version and the one with Winona Ryder (she made a pretty good Joe). So, this latest version seemed so staid; like it was trying to hard to fit in a mold that suited the tastes of today. The “Little Women” didn’t seem like a product of *their* time; the one in which the book was written. The struggles didn’t seem genuine at all. And when I saw Laura Dern and Bob Odenkirk? No, just, NO! Zero chemistry there. I didn’t know Bob Odenkirk was going to be in this and I about busted out laughing. All of Joe’s outfits looked like something from an Anthropologie catalog, and this won an award for costume design? Laurie looked and acted like he was 15 years old the whole way through; showed no signs of maturity and by the end he was supposed to be married? It was just not believable. This version of “Little Women” as a movie, to me, added nothing to what has already been done. Did this movie just get awards based on some big stars being in it? It seems so.
“Little Women charts the lives and loves of the March sisters in the early 20th century … It’s clear immediately that filmmaker Greta Gerwig has done a nigh impeccable job of establishing the story’s very specific time and place”
That’s amazing.
Tried to cram too much into 2 hours, which is one reason the pacing is off, feels like the actors were told to say as much as possible at breakneck speed, and the director cannot stay on one shot for longer than 2 seconds, chopping here there and everywhere. The beautiful cinematography, costumes and settings are wasted when the director only wants them as a backdrop to be discarded as soon as possible when the next scene is quickly ushered in. Big moments fall flat – what was the point of having the father come home when it has zero emotional impact and then nothing is done with the character? Also, the women were not sisters, not in any universe could I believe it, did the director just google the top 4 most famous young actresses and cast them? Florence Pugh was clearly way too old at the beginning when she burnt the novel after screaming like a child. Emma Watson was just bland throughout. I do not rate Greta Gerwig as a writer or director, seems to have no cler vision or creativity or ideas beyond peppering the text with her own clumsy preaching.