Thoughts on "Little Women" (2017)

Having just rewatched this series, I've tried and failed several times to write a coherent review. However, I really wanted to get my thoughts down before I forgot them all! As I am short on time and energy this week, instead of a "normal" review, I've written a list of "things I like" and "things I dislike" about the 2017 adaptation of Little Women.

Things I like:

• It's very true to the book, covering almost all of the main events. Although they mess up the chronology a little, it's only to make the film cohesive and improve the flow.

• It feels so warm and happy!

• A major good thing is John Brooke! He's likable! He's young! He's a real presence, not just the staid love interest for Meg! Just because he's older than Laurie doesn't mean he's boring/not worth any real screen time, and this adaptation really gets that.

John Brooke, played by Julian Morris 

• Mr. March! (In fact, this adaptation really scores on the main male characters.) They show how he's meant to be wise and at the centre of the family, rather than sidelining him as the convenient minister who can perform Meg's wedding ceremony and then take a back seat.

• Because he's an actual character, Mr. March's illness was very poignant. I actually felt quite choky when Marmee told the girls what the telegram said.

• The sweet romance between Meg and John. It's true to the book, romantic without being over-the-top, and adorable. 

• Beth was very good. I liked how they made her shyness almost a fault, so she was less irritatingly perfect than she is in some adaptations. 

Beth, played by Annes Elwy

• The harmonies during "Land of the Leal" make me feel happy, and the song is a good way to bridge the gap between the two books. 

• I also liked how they made Meg a real character, and didn't just write her off as soon as she got married.

• The March family all look like they could actually be related. Sounds minor, but they don't in many other adaptations.

• Jo is awkward and not particularly beautiful, which is how she's meant to be. Meg is lovely, which is accurate. Amy is conventionally pretty - again, accurate.

• Marmee is a very maternal figure, and they show how she gives advice and guides the girls. They also show her relationship with Mr. March in a very realistic and sweet way.

• It's true that there are lots of details that irritate me about this film. However, I really love the overall take on the books. The spirit of the book (warm, cosy, innocent, with a dash of realism) is captured perfectly. The best way to put this is that when I finished watching the film, I felt warmed and uplifted.

Things I don't like:

• Amy. This is the big one. She's given almost no character development from spoiled brat to mature woman. She's still almost the same at the end as she is at the beginning, and even her romance with Laurie seems selfish. They have a couple of scenes where they try and get in some character development, but it's not enough and it's not developed or even acted that well.

Amy, played by Kathryn Newton

• Laurie's change of heart doesn't seem fleshed-out enough. It comes across as more like he was on the rebound and proposed to the most convenient person around, rather than he matures and comes to love Amy in a truly adult way.

• The philosophical conversations with Mr. Bhaer. They aren't in the book, and while I wouldn't have a problem with that if they propelled the plot forward, they do very little apart from show a small connection between Jo and Friedrich in a rather awkward way. I think there are subtler and less clunky ways of showing the truth: that Mr. Bhaer fulfills Jo's need for a more intellectual and mature person in ways that Laurie couldn't. 

• Mr. Bhaer's proposal. In the book, it's one of the sweetest moments. In the film, the "under the umbrella" moment is basically an invitation to dinner. Although Jo tacitly accepts Mr. Bhaer's offer, it isn't nearly as sweet as it is in the book and needs more resolution.

• The scene where the twins are born isn't in the book and it felt far, far too modern and very awkward. Although it adds to the dynamic between Meg and Marmee, again, it lacks subtlety and it's extremely anachronistic. 

• The random shots that seemed like stock footage/a failed attempt at artiness. The shots of random black laundry after Beth died (again, lacking subtlety); the random chickens; the random dewdrops on grass. 

• The death scene with Beth; it's better than I remembered, but the first time I watched it I didn't even realise she'd died. I also felt that, considering the context, it would have made more sense to have a definite religious reference instead of the vague "You're going on a long journey". In the book, it's clearly implied that the family feels that death is a happy release for Beth, and they believe she's gone to Heaven. That's not in the film, and its absence takes away from the poignancy of Beth's death. 

• The music. It's weird. The humming - the randomness - irritating and anachronistic. This, combined with the "stock footage" shots mentioned earlier, made the film feel a little low-budget.

• The fact that Meg goes off to the party when Mr. March is ill. It makes her look heartless.

However, despite those things, I did enjoy it very much. Although the film felt less substantial and a little less professional than I had hoped, it did an excellent job of capturing the spirit of Little Women and Good Wives - probably more so than any other adaptation I've seen.

In terms of rating, I'd give it 8/10 as an adaptation of the book, and 6/10 as a stand-alone film.

Overall rating: 7/10.

What do you think? Is this your favourite adaptation of the film? Do you agree with my thoughts? Would you be interested to hear my thoughts on Greta Gerwig's 2019 adaptation of Little Women (hopefully in more of a review-style post, as I'm having more and more time to write as I gradually unpack boxes)?