Little Women reviews

dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by dws1982 »

I actually saw this again and softened towards the ending myself.

From the moment Jo comes downstairs from writing, the movie--in the way its scripted, shot, scored, and acted--has a different feel. Maybe the ending with Bhaer is reality, maybe it's fictional, maybe it doesn't really matter. On a rewatch, the film can support either (or neither) reading. Gerwig's script (which was posted, I think, on the Sony awards website) is intentionally vague on the ending. But what I said in my original post was wrong--to play the romantic ending as the straight ending, Gerwig would've had to write and direct it very differently. To just edit out the scenes involving the novel being published would've made the ending incredibly jarring and at odds tonally with the first two hours.
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by danfrank »

Great observations, Tee. The more I think about the ending, the more I like it, too. I hadn't made the connection with Lady Bird in the way both films approached the topic of class, but you're spot on. Little Women is much more nuanced in its messaging about class than, say, Parasite. Of course, Bong Joon Ho is never subtle about his social messages, though I like his films for other reasons.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

A few days-after thoughts (because, yes, this is that much-hoped-for movie, the kind that sticks with you and yields further insights):

Based on this and Lady Bird, Gerwig is one of the few American directors who knows how to deal with the subject of class without turning it into an obvious screed. The class-difference between the Marches and the Lawrences has always been part of the story (not to mention Aunt March's elevated status), but Gerwig finds many other ways to weave the subject into her narrative (Meg's envy-driven purchase of the cloth the most direct, but also Jo's need to auction her hair, and her haggling with her publisher). In Lady Bird, Saoirse's need to both devalue her upbringing (referring to her neighborhood as "the other side of the tracks") and attempt to deny it (pretending that more glamorous house is hers) shows what a driving issue it is for her, even at a point (in youth) where it's beyond her control. In Gerwig's world -- unlike in many American movies -- economic status is a constant low-flame element in all her characters' lives. This is a remarkable thing to touch upon in movies that strive to be mainstream entertainment.

For most of my life, I've disliked the (to-me cliched) plot that has a budding writer churn out lurid stories, then finally get published by writing a story about his/her home town (generally the one we've just spent two hours watching). Little Women may well have inaugurated the genre, but My Sister Eileen and I Remember Mama do the same, and there must be more I'm not recalling right now, because I feel like I've seen the plot over and over. As I think about it now, though, it may be that (as in the cases I've cited) 1) these are mostly women's stories; 2) it reflects both their attempts to appeal to a man's world (with swashbuckling narratives) and their finding their niche as "women's writers" (a 20th century middle-class genre); and 3) that to-me cliched ending is, as this film demonstrates, a major happy ending for the women involved (financial independence) that doesn't revolve around them landing the perfect man.

Which is to say, I may have come around on the ending: I may now think it's one of the most radical, and certainly most interesting, parts of the movie. And -- just putting it out there -- it may be the thing that's causing the movie to stick in some men's craws.
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by MaxWilder »

Mister Tee wrote:We've seen many actors-turned-directors over-rewarded with prizes over the years for mere competence. Gerwig might be one who wins awards because she's genuinely among the best at her craft.
Someone tell the clods who keep nominating Todd Phillips over her.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

What I said about Noah Baumbach in my Marriage Story comments -- that he's not a natural director? I don't expect I'll ever say that about Greta Gerwig.

This is, as dws suggests, a major step beyond Lady Bird -- which was itself wonderful in many ways. But I now see it only hinted at her gifts: while the earlier film was very well-written, and an acting feast, it didn't have the visual splendor or the conceptual panache of this new effort. This is one of the absolute best of the year -- maybe my second favorite behind The Irishman.

I wouldn't have thought a chronological rearrangement like this could do so much to enhance the (to me) familiar material. But it enriched everything: the associative nature of the narrative -- the way a present-day scene would be placed next to a flashback that might touch on related material -- gave deeper meaning to each, even while telling interwoven stories.

And there's so much more to what Gerwig has done, as both writer and director. She's found a core of reality in the story that's never quite emerged in any other version I've seen. Those earlier films, however solid they were (and I like both the '33 and '94 versions), have a 19th century feel to them -- the characters seem a bit distant, and plot developments can border on melodrama. Here, the same events feel more demonstrably human...seem like they proceed from recognizable human behavior rather than the demands of plotting. Gerwig is also both very generous and very clear-eyed about all her characters: Amy can be horrible and selfish at one moment, perceptive and kind in another, and we accept it all as the nuance of a multi-faceted character. No one is all right or all wrong -- it feels almost like a Renoir film in that regard (and I've never felt the impulse to say that about any other version).

I fully agree, that this not being on the SAG Ensemble list is ridiculous. Every character registers, down to the smallest bit part. And the prime characters all emerge in full focus. I realized that my memory of all the other versions has been a vague "There's Jo the heroine, Beth who dies, and two others" -- I wasn't quite sure which was which, and couldn't remember the actresses who played them. But here I feel they're burned in my memory. Pugh is a standout, especially in her scenes with Chalamet -- she's a powerful second source of gravity in a story that often is just Jo's story. In fact, if there's any explanation for the as usual excellent Ronan not getting acting nominations, it might be that, while the story begins and ends focused on her character, there are sections where she disappears a bit. The film lives up to its title: it's a story about an entire family of women.

As for the ending: it is a tiny bit meta-, and attentuates the climax a bit more than necessary. But I feel like it does full justice to Ms. Alcott, and I admire the daring of it, even if I wonder a bit about the execution. But that's only the tiniest nit, in the context of a perfectly wonderful film -- one out of which I emerged wondering just where Gerwig will go next. She's already shown she can create an original script; now she's shown she can work miracles with an adaptation. Where might she go when she applies her imagination to another original story but gives it the complex craft she's displayed here? We've seen many actors-turned-directors over-rewarded with prizes over the years for mere competence. Gerwig might be one who wins awards because she's genuinely among the best at her craft.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by Okri »

I ended up where dws ended up. Thought the ending was a bit whiffed, but overall thought the film was funny, humane and very tender. This ensemble is terrific.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

I re-watched the 1933 and 1994 versions back-to-back the other day. Both versions are just under two hours and tell the same story, but there are differences in the telling.

The 1933 version puts more detail into the early scenes, whereas the 1994 gives greater depth to the later scenes. The 1933 version omits the birth of Meg and John's twins, the death of Aunt March and her willing of her house to Jo setting up the sequel, Little Men, in which Jo and Prof. Bhaer run a home for boys out of Aunt March's old home.

My one argument with the 1994 version is the short shrift given to Aunt March, which is a shame because this was Mary Wickes' one chance at playing a formidable character on screen, one who wasn't a wisecracking housekeeper, maid or nurse. The early scenes in which her character is established are practically non-existent. She shows up to cart Amy off to Europe, and is killed off off-screen upon her return. Would Edna May Oliver (1933), Lucile Watson (1949), Greer Garson (1978), Angela Lansbury (2017) or Meryl Streep (2019) have played the part had it been whittled down to nothing like that? Of course not!
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

This was rather enjoyable but I don't think Gerwig really needed to fragment the story telling in the manner that she chose to.

Its greatest strengths for me were in the performance and the sumptuous direction and production values but it is not a story that I've ever had any passion for to begin with.

I should point out that I have never read the book and have only ever seen the 1933, 1949 & hideous 1994 film versions all during the early 1990s. Gerwig's is the most potent and fresh and I'd been curious to revisit the 1933 & 1949 ones again. For some odd reason I have the 1949 on DVD but not the 1933 version, which I thought I did but an audit of my Blu Rays/DVDs a couple of years ago revealed I was mistaken (and I say that with 100% confidence knowing that I have only had one disc stolen in all these years).

Funnily enough my partner who is probably one of the most well read people on the planet has never read Little Women or seen any of the previous adaptations (I went to the 1994 by myself) and I had to drag him off to this because I can only see it at a discount price if he comes with me. Anyway, he enjoyed the film and had no problem with the establishment of the characters within the framework of the story but did comment he would have preferred it was told in a linear fashion.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by Sabin »

Big Magilla wrote
If the whole world isn't chomping at the bit to give Gerwig's film the awards her devoted followers insist she deserves, it may be that they just like other films more. I don't see it as a man versus woman thing at all.
I don't totally agree with you but the goal post is certainly moving around on this one. Last week, the outrage were that the film was going to flop because men weren't going to see it. Now the outrage is that it may be a hit but male critics and dudes on Twitter don't like it enough. If it gets Oscar nominations, the outrage will be that it won't win.

The more I think about Little Women, the less I like it. It's entirely my fault for going into this film unfamiliar. Plot devices pop in and out at random that are emotionally disconnected: Amy going abroad, Beth dying, Meg's longing for a basic life, whatever Lorrie is about... It's all happening at the same time which from a text perspective is very interesting but I also didn't find it emotionally engaging. One of the reasons is it's essentially a film without an established status quo. All at once, they're never little girls and they're never little women. On the one hand, the film is a success for doing something new with the material. It's full of surprising, moving moments but they never really hung together for me. I found myself appreciating it in bits and pieces, which is a shame bc there were few films I was more there for than this one.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

I get that there are disagreements on this one, but I don't see that the disagreements are between men and women, as social media has played it up, but rather between conservatives and progressives as most things are these days.

I get that the film is well acted and beautiful to look at. I get that everything that follows Jo's last meeting with her editor is supposed to be fantasy, the way she wrote the novel under pressure, but as the purists (or conservatives) point out, that's Louisa May Alcott's story, not Jo March's, and it isn't Little Women's.

I get that Greta Gerwig wanted to make a pro-feminist (or progressive) version of a story that has been traditionally done as a fairly straight translation of a beloved novel in which love conquers all, and did. I get that for her Jo, the triumph was in getting her book published, not settling down with a man, but had that not happened, the two sequels that followed, Little Men and Jo's Boys would never have been written, or written in a completely different way in which young girls of the 19th Century would have been anxiously awaiting Jo's marriage to someone as marriage was, rightly or wrongly, the be-all and end-all of most girls' dreams. The story of Louisa May Alcott's life and struggles might have been a better take on the era, but alas, that probably wouldn't have sold.

If the whole world isn't chomping at the bit to give Gerwig's film the awards her devoted followers insist she deserves, it may be that they just like other films more. I don't see it as a man versus woman thing at all.
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by danfrank »

For me this was a totally sumptuous experience; I loved just about everything about it. Though not as fresh as Lady Bird, Gerwig has certainly brought a freshness to this well-worn material. It was a visual feast, had terrific pacing and rhythm, and some terrific acting (I agree with DWS that Chalamet and Cooper were both terrific, as were the more heralded Ronan and Pugh). Gerwig is emerging as a major talent, much to my delight.

As for the ending—minor spoiler alert—, I can see that it might be a bit jarring in that it takes you out of the story, but I think that it was a great choice by Gerwig to integrate a more modern feminist sensibility while still staying true to both “Little Women” as it was published and to Louisa May Alcott, the real-life Jo who indeed never married.

I, too, hope the Oscar voters fall hard for this one.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by OscarGuy »

What strikes me most about this film is how much it stays away from the maudlin. Modern movies seem to overly focus on the sorrowful aspect of anything. These movies get to the point where they feel like they are trying very hard to manipulate the audience. Gerwig avoids all that. Every time there's an emotional connection or a tear to be shed, the movie comes by it organically, honestly. She lets the emotions flow when needed and doesn't push Alexandre Desplat to over-score those scenes, some of which even go without music altogether, adding weight to the situation.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by dws1982 »

The AV Club has a good piece on the ending. I'll try to find the link when I get home. I find myself softening towards it on a conceptual level, although I still think it's a little blunt compared to the rest of the film.

Agree with Oscar Guy about this deserving two supporting actor nominations. My two would be Chalamet and Cooper, although I can imagine that with a few more scenes James Norton (who has done some excellent work in TV over the past few years) might make a play for my ballot. I think Chalamet is the only actor I've seen in that role to genuinely get Laurie's deep desire to be part of a family; it's not just a teenage boy wanting to date (by mid 19th-century standards) the girl next door; you really get a sense of how moved and envious he is of the closeness that the March sisters share. And Cooper, without a ton of screen time, brings a ton of weight to every glance, every line of dialogue, every smile. That character could've so easily faded into the background, but Gerwig and Cooper don't let him, and I think it really serves the film well, and makes the Beth storyline more moving than it might've been otherwise. They might be my two favorite supporting actors of the year.
Last edited by dws1982 on Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
I think both beginning and end are perfect. The decision establishes Jo March as the central figure and this novel she's writing, about these Little Women is the narrative we are being told. Her agreement to end the book the way the publisher wants it is told exactly as the publisher wants it, but the real ending is the one that follows, namely the new school where Jo and her family are now living happily beyond what is written on the page. It was a compelling way to establish the film.
I completely understand that instinct. I think it's conceptually brilliant. Striking.

As someone who is new to this world (and I get that I am the exception to the rule but as it is a Little Women for a new generation I am also the target in a way), I found it very distancing to not meet them together until the second act.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Little Women reviews

Post by OscarGuy »

I think both beginning and end are perfect. The decision establishes Jo March as the central figure and this novel she's writing, about these Little Women is the narrative we are being told. Her agreement to end the book the way the publisher wants it is told exactly as the publisher wants it, but the real ending is the one that follows, namely the new school where Jo and her family are now living happily beyond what is written on the page. It was a compelling way to establish the film.

I would be most disappointed if it did not earn major nominations at the Oscars. It would be deserving of just about everything. It won't happen, but seven acting nominations would be excellent, four in supporting actress, one in actress, and two in supporting actor (or even one of those in lead).
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Post Reply

Return to “2019”