Some Ramblings on "Little Women" (2019)

I wrote this post about my thoughts on the 2017 adaptation of Little Women. Now I'm back with my thoughts on the 2019 version! (On a side note, I'm enjoying this sort of mini-review and comparison of different versions of the same story... I might do it again for something else.) This time, I'm going with things I dislike first, so we can end on a positive note. (Oh, yes, I'm keeping with the same style of review! I'm hoping to review other films sometime in a review-style review, but for tonight, I'm keeping it short and sweet.)

From what I can tell from other people's thoughts and posts on this film, opinions differ wildly. Some love it. Some hate it. I'm in between. My thoughts are often rather mixed, so my likes and dislikes aren't as clear-cut as they were for the last one.

Let's start with what I don't like:

• Emma Watson's acting of Meg. Personally, Watson isn't my favourite actress, and she just wasn't good enough. She sounded as if she were merely reading Meg's lines off the page, and hardly ever conveyed the real Meg without sounding forced. Also, (and I don't normally notice this as to me a British accent sounds "normal", so when accents go from American to British I don't normally hear it) her accent was not amazing and it slipped badly a few times. However, to do her justice, she acted well for a few scenes, especially the romance. 

Meg March, played by Emma Watson

• I didn't like Mr March's total absence. He just isn't there for most of it, and it's a real shame. Mr March is supposed to be the centre of the family, but in this adaptation he's not and I don't like it.

• As an actual adaptation of the book, it wasn't amazing in terms of spirit. The events were all there, but the general feel of the film was "childhood was golden, adulthood can be wonderful, but ultimately, we can't go back." I finished the film and felt ever so slightly deflated.

• Marmee was too bubbly at times. Most of the time, she was all right, but sometimes she was (I know many people have said this) like a sister, not a strong, helpful woman who guides her daughters lovingly.

Marmee, played by Laura Dern

• Professor Bhaer... he wasn't amazing. The thing is, in the book, he's an older man who's not remotely good-looking (and has bad table manners) who attracts Jo anyway because she can see past that. In this film he's too young and too good looking. Also, he sounds French (because the actor is French) so that's inaccurate too. Finally, if they were trying to convey the fact that Louisa May Alcott had to write the ending where Jo gets married just to please her publisher, then why did they make him so handsome? Surely it would have been better to have kept him being unattractive? 

Louis Garrel as the Professor

• I wasn't quite sure about the conflation of Jo with Louisa May Alcott and the subsequent slightly confusing ending. Either Greta Gerwig meant to show that Jo was creating the happy ending to please her publisher, but it didn't really happen, or she is really supposed to marry the Professor. I want to believe the latter, as she seems at least a little in love with Professor Bhaer. Some people have opined that Greta Gerwig wanted them really to marry, thus making the claim that women can have both love and professional fulfillment. I'm not sure whether I agree with that or not.

• Jo's big speech, the "women have minds and souls..." one, irritated me, mainly because it felt completely out-of-place. I quite liked Amy's speech, as it was really well acted and made what were probably fairly valid points, but Jo's was awkward.

This speech

• Basically, I thought that this was an excellent stand-alone film, but, as it didn't capture the spirit of the book very well,  it wasn't as good an adaptation.

Things I like:

• Amy! Amy! Amy! She's my favourite sister in the book so I was prepared to be critical. I didn't need to be. Florence Pugh acts her so well, and she's given real character development and some seriously lovely clothes. In this film, she's an actual character with a real story arc and character progression - like Louisa May Alcott wanted her to be.

• It looks extremely well-made. That might sound superficial, but when films look bad quality, they shoot themselves in the foot. This film looks well-made, well thought-out, and also extremely beautiful.

• Meg's actual script is very good. I liked how they show that marriage is a worthy and legitimate calling, and Meg's dreams are just as important as the more ambitious ones of her sisters.

• Eliza Scanlen (Beth) actually learned how to play the piano for this film, practising for several hours per day! That she can play the piano really shows - her performance is very convincing. And I find it pretty impressive that she learned an instrument so well and reached such a high standard in that amount of time.

• The CLOTHES!!! I spend far too long thinking about costumes in films, but they are gorgeous. I know they sparked a lot of controversy as they are inaccurate. Personally, however, I don't mind inaccuracy as long as it's for a reason and in keeping with the spirit of the film; and these inaccuracies are. The director and costume designers chose to include the inaccuracies with clothes and hair to illustrate the true nature of the characters, and I'm here for it. (However, I do understand if you hate it. There are some moments, such as Meg's hair at her wedding and the Jo-wearing-trousers-under-a-dress scene, that I don't like.) Let me share some photos of the dresses as I love them. 

• I really liked the mixed-up chronology. It puts an interesting perspective on the whole story, once you get your head round the different lighting indicating the different periods of time. To be fair, if you hadn't read the book as many times as I have, it probably would be harder to follow.

• Laurie was actually played pretty well (though I dislike the whole drunk-at-the-ball scene). I really liked how we saw that he and Jo really couldn't have been more than chums, how Laurie eventually acknowledges this, and how he and Amy really do suit each other.

Timothee Chalamet as Laurie

• I loved the dynamic between Jo and Amy. They're both pretty similar, actually, in that they're ambitious and talented, but there are key differences: Jo wants to fight her own way, while Amy is willing to admit that she can't get all the way there by herself, so accepts help. She's also realistic enough to realise she'll never be a genius. But I love how they show these similarities and also how Jo and Amy's dynamic develops from finding each other unbearable to being loving sisters with a rewarding relationship - perhaps even more rewarding than any of the other relationships.

• Amy and Laurie's secure, intelligent relationship is shown very well.

• I liked how we get a snapshot of the sisters' future life.

• Overall, this was an excellent stand-alone film. It's well-made and sophisticated with lovely costumes, an excellent score, and beautiful cinematography. 

My overall rating would be 5/10 for an adaptation (mainly because of the ending and the feeling of the book not being captured); and 9/10 as a stand-alone film.

Overall rating: 7/10.

Compared to the 2017 version, this was a better film but a worse adaptation (I thought that the 2017 version captured the spirit of the book far better than this film, but it wasn't as well made.) The acting talent was pretty evenly spread, I thought. This one's big problem was its failure to recreate the spirit of the books.

I see I've rated both versions the same! I enjoyed them both, this one probably a little more. What about you? Do you like or dislike this film? Let me know your thoughts!