A contemporary adaptation of Little Women?
The first time I saw the trailer, I was like NO THANKS, DON’T NEED THAT. #skeptic But then . . . a dear friend and fellow book-connoisseur assured me that the casting and themes were spot-on and that it deserved a chance. Accordingly, I went to see it last night.
My verdict? Overwhelmingly positive.
It inspired me. It made me laugh. It made me cry. Yes, there were a few changes I strongly objected to–but overall, Real Good Stuff.
First of all, you should know this isn’t a straight-up chronological retelling. The childhood stories from the original book are mostly inserted in flashback form.
29-year-old Jo March is a starving struggling artist in present-day New York City, trying to finish an epic fantasy novel which somehow won’t quite gel. Meanwhile, her editor, Columbia literature professor Freddy Bhaer, keeps hinting her talents are far more suited to telling real-life stories, such as (he suggests airily) her own growing-up years. “Jo, you are far more interesting than anything you write.” [HE LEGIT SAYS THAT. Pick Up Line 101.]
But Jo won’t listen. She wants to write something . . . big. Something important. Something that will force the world to remember her name forever. And she simply can’t see where her own ever-so-dull life story could possibly fit into that picture.
It takes the passing of her beloved Beth from leukemia–in a sequence of ABSOLUTELY HEART-WRENCHING scenes, let me just warn y’all–to show Jo March the magic and the wonder and the beauty of this ordinary earthly path we all trod. So she sits down in her old attic playroom, surrounded by mementos of the happy childhood she shared with her sisters, to write a new novel: Little Women.
Which is a major success. Cue happy tears.
(Seriously, the book makes PROFESSOR BHAER cry. #small victories)
The major plot arc in this movie is Jo finding her voice as a writer. Its emotional core is her relationship with Beth. Her muse, her better half . . . her soulmate, in a sisterly sort of way. “You’re my person,” Jo tells Beth about halfway through the film, and it’s true. Everything Jo writes stems from love for Beth; and she can only break through to the level of really really really good storytelling through the pain of losing her.
It was profound. It was horrible, and wonderful, all at once. Especially since Beth has always been my favorite character from the original Little Women. You know the beach scene? Where Jo takes Beth to see the ocean for the first time, and that’s where Beth reveals she knows she’s dying? Boy . . . oh boy. BRING TISSUES. LOTS OF TISSUES.
So yeah. This is Jo’s movie, and Beth’s movie. If you’re more a fan of Meg or Amy you won’t necessarily be pleased by this adaptation. But if you want to see Jo March’s life torn apart and put back together again while she discovers the storytelling magic we knew she had, all along? Definitely watch it.
Also, can I just say, Sarah Davenport and Allie Jennings absolutely nailed their respective roles. Much love to you, ladies. You were brilliant.
Now, as for peripheral matters I didn’t like so much:
I think Lucas Grabeel was miscast as Laurie. He was much too calm, too affable, too . . . relaxed? This Laurie actually wouldn’t have made such a bad match for Jo. Whereas, in the book, Laurie and Jo split up because they’re too much alike: two passionate, aggressive, fierce-hearted individuals who don’t know how to Take A Chill Pill. That dynamic just didn’t come through here.
I hated (and I say advisedly–hated) the book-burning scene in this movie. The filmmakers were so terrified of ‘letting’ Amy appear unsympathetic [let’s face it, guys: CHILD AMY IS NOT A SYMPATHETIC CHARACTER] that they decided to make . . . Jo . . . a bully for that one scene? Deliberately tormenting Amy, embarrassing her in front of her crush Laurie, trying to make her feel worthless–all so Amy’ll look a little better when she decides to toss Jo’s life’s work into the flames? Except, surprise, surprise, it DIDN’T make me like Amy any better!! Because it was so wildly out-of-character for Jo!!! Jo March may have many faults, my friends, but she never engages in calculated cruelty. Never. But do you know who is deliberately cruel, in canon, in the original novel?
Amy.
Amy March was a self-centered child with a dangerously low capacity for empathy, growing up in a dangerously lenient environment [seriously, Marmee, GET A GRIP]; and that unfortunate combination led her to bully her sisters on occasion. That’s the simple truth. Like . . . oh, I don’t know . . . that time she deliberately destroyed the only existing copy of Jo’s book out of revenge for the petty slight of Not Being Invited to a Party?!?
It was not acceptable. It will never be acceptable. And making Jo out to be a bully when she WASN’T does not miraculously make it acceptable.
Are you listening, movie-makers? If you’re too chicken to deal with the very real ugliness of Child Amy’s character flaws, then rewrite her to make her nicer. Do it. I don’t care. But do not rewrite Jo’s character in the hopes that Amy might look better by comparison. It just. won’t. work.
‘Kay, I’m done ranting now. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
*seethes quietly offstage*
I also have to say, I didn’t much enjoy the two ‘partying’ scenes in this movie. You know, where Meg gets all dolled up and goes out for the evening with her lame fake friends? The music was way too loud, and there were way too many people, and it was just incredibly stressful all-round. I hate sensory stimulation. I was sitting there the entire time like “Please let this be over please let this be over please let this be over.” There’s a reason I don’t party, after all
Overall?
I had some quibbles, sure, but it was a precious story and it brought me to tears. Several times. And I do think most, if not all, fans of the original book would love it. It captures the heart of Little Women beautifully.
So sweet.
“I’m counting on you, Jo. You have to do all the things . . . for me.”
*sniffles*
Have you seen this version yet?
Who’s your favorite character in Little Women?
Let’s chat!