By Tom and Marilyn Jozwik
Published Dec. 26, 2019
HE: I have no problem recommending “Little Women.” Highly.
About the only negative I can think of—and it’s not a major negative—is that, at 2:14, the movie’s a bit longer than average, and than necessary, kind of dragged out at the end. The familiar, somewhat reality-rooted Louisa May Alcott yarn from 1868 is one that suffers not at all from retelling—not from director Greta Gerwig’s (“Lady Bird”) retelling, anyway.
SHE: I’ve seen stage and screen versions of “Little Women,” but this is the most enjoyable. The story is classic and just the sort of celebration of family that we need to be often reminded of. This version is edited in such a way that it tells each sister’s story with clarity, showing how each of the four fits into the family dynamic. While all the elements of the period are kept—costumes, settings, etc.—these women often seem like they could easily step into the 21st century.
HE: Just wondering whether Gerwig might not get the Oscar for Best Director. Timothee Chalamet, as neighbor “Laurie” who loves, and is loved by, a couple of the March sisters, is a talented and likable performer, but he comes off as immature for his part. Saoirse Ronan, who, like Chalamet, has worked with Gerwig previously, is probably my favorite among the actors. She plays Jo, the writer sister and protagonist. It’s about Oscar time for Ronan, to my way of thinking; she’s already had two Best Actress nominations
and another for Best Supporting Actress, and she’s excellent in this. “Little Women” also stars Emma Watson as traditional sister Meg, Florence Pugh as artist sister Amy, Laura Dern as selfless mother Marmee, Meryl Streep as irascible Aunt March, Bob Odenkirk as the March girls’ minister father, a not easily recognized Chris Cooper as old Mr. Laurence, and Tracy Letts, one of my favorites, as a stereotypical editor.
I agree that this is a worthwhile (if perhaps overly idealized) “celebration of family” and I always enjoy seeing classic literature come to new life through an excellent motion picture. I like how the movie hit the ground running, got down to the business of characterization and plot development right away while moving among the four sisters’ individual stories.
SHE: What really impressed me about the show is its energy in the family/sister scenes, the lovely scenery of the countryside and the general pacing. Gerwig seems to have had a very clear vision of what she wanted here. The messages come through loud and clear, especially of how women had to work so hard to be recognized—some just gave up on their dreams, like Amy, who realized that marriage was “an economic proposition” and would have to depend on a husband for financial survival. Jo, on the other hand, would not be deterred in her quest for independence through her writing. The dynamic between those two characters is marvelous, made even more interesting by the traditional Meg and the charitable Beth (Eliza Scanlen). With its first-rate cast, marvelous storytelling and editing I’d give “Little Women” an A rating.
HE: I can readily grade “Little Women” A as well. Few movies
I’ve seen in 2019 (two or three, maybe) are its equal.
