The News Herald (Willoughby, OH)
‘LITTLE WOMEN’
Saoirse Ronan stars in Greta Gerwig’s charming, if sometimes disorienting, adaptation of beloved novel
Greta Gerwig loves “Little Women.” ¶ You don’t need to read the press materials for the filmmaker’s new adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s beloved 1860s novel — in which it is stated Gerwig read the tale of the four March sisters so many times when she was growing up that she can’t recall when she first did so — to understand this fact. ¶ That love is evident in every minute of the movie.
“‘Little Women’ has been part of who I am for as long as I can remember,” Gerwig, the film’s writer and director, says in the production notes. “There was never a time when I didn’t know who Jo March was, and she was always my girl, the person I wanted to be and the person who I hoped I was.”
For the purposes of reading this largely positive review, you should know that my experience is the complete opposite of Gerwig’s. I’ve never read the book, and, to the best of my recollection, I haven’t even seen a previous adaptation, such as the 1994 film that starred Winona Ryder as Jo.
Gerwig’s take on ‘Little Women” has Saoirse Ronan — star of her acclaimed 2017 coming-of-age dramedy, “Lady Bird” — at the heart of the story as Jo, with other talented young actresses Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, and Eliza Scanlen (“Sharp Objects”) portraying her sisters: Meg, Amy and Beth, respectively.
And, as if that weren’t enough topnotch firepower, Laura Dern (“Big Little Lies”) portrays the girls’ mother, Marmee, and the great Meryl Streep (“The Post”) plays Aunt March.
Notable male characters Theodore “Laurie” Laurence, Father March and Mr. Laurence are in the respective capable hands of Timothée Chalamet (“Call Me by Your Name”), Bob Odenkirk (“Better Call Saul”) and Chris Cooper.
It is completely charming, Gerwig’s “Little Women,” from its performances to its lovely cinematography to its incredibly beautiful score by Alexandre Desplat.
It is also, I suspect, designed for others like Gerwig.
Gerwig has taken a nonlinear approach to a tale Alcott — who originally saw the story be published in two halves — and other adapters have told chronologically. This creative choice is likely to give those very familiar with the narrative a fresh experience, one that allows for a closer examination of how events relate to one another — or at least how Gerwig sees them as relating.
For me, however, the structure was at times jarring — especially at first, as I struggled to get my bearings. At one point early on in the film, on-screen text announces the story has jumped backward seven years, but from that point on, you’re pretty much on your own to figure out when things are happening. That certainly became easier once I had a feel for the characters, namely Jo.
Ah, Jo. In the hands of Ronan and Gerwig, you get an idea why so many young women identified with her when they first experienced “Little Women.” The character is smart, loving and fiercely independent; she’s not so interested in marriage — the goal society essentially is screaming at her to have.
“Little Women” is set largely during the Civil
War, in which the girls’ fa- ther has left home to work as a pastor, leaving his daughters to live with their mother in genteel poverty. Jo and Amy — who’s constantly jealous of Jo — each spend time with the aforementioned wealthy greataunt, who firmly believes one of the young ladies will need to marry rich for the good of the family. (Streep is so good in her few scenes that it’s disappointing Gerwig
didn’t expand the character’s role in the story.) While Meg chooses to wed, she does not marry rich. (Like Streep, Watson — a talented mainstay of the “Harry Potter” movies — feels a little under-used here.) Meanwhile, Beth, who is shyer than her sisters, falls ill.
While Laurie — who becomes friends with the sisters — has his eyes on marrying Jo, it is Amy who would seem to be much more amenable to that.
Nonetheless, Amy also pursues a goal of becoming a famous artist, while Jo’s interest is in the written word — fictional stories, specifically. Unfortunately, a publisher (Tracy Letts, “Ford v Ferrari”) isn’t all that interested in her particular brand of storytelling, explaining to her that if she is going to have a female lead character, that character had better be married — or at least dead — by the tale’s end. (“Little Women” was a semi-autobiographical effort from Alcott, who based Jo largely on herself.)
As for Beth, her piano playing hits home emotionally with the wealthy Mr. Laurence. He is a minor character, but in the hands of the excellent Cooper (“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”), he provides us with one of the film’s most touching moments.
Most importantly, Ronan is always engaging as Jo. You may want Jo to make a different choice here or there, but you will always root for her.
And what a year it has been for Pugh, who follows up strong work in “Fighting With My Family” and the tremendous “Midsommer” with a fine effort here — even if the nonlinear structure makes Amy’s character arc a bit tricky to follow.
Nonetheless, Gerwig has done enough with Alcott’s story to make a new generation of little women fall in love with it.
It is completely charming, Gerwig’s “Little Women,” from its performances to its lovely cinematography to its incredibly beautiful score by Alexandre Desplat.