Little Women (2019)
Review of Little Women (2019), directed by Greta Gerwig
It actually took me over two years since its release to end up watching Little Women, although I know that everyone around me, being a college student at a liberal school in New York City, was absolutely raving about its release. I do remember that upon seeing the trailer, I knew that this was basically the update for the novel version of Little Women for Generation Z.
That was especially confirmed after I specifically saw that they put Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, and Timothee Chalamet as the main characters pivotal to the plot. It’s like squinting and trying to decide which actors are representative of this new generation in a way.
Not to bash on Little Women at all, but I do have some major qualms with it that I’ll discuss in this review. There’s some major criticisms about it that are actually quite relevant, but let’s dissect that later in this. Onwards with the review!
In the late 1800s, a group of sisters grapples with what it means to grow up as a woman.
First published in 1868, Little Women made quite the splash with girls in that era. In a time where there wasn’t movies or television to find female icons in, the characters in Little Women, specifically Jo, became role models for these girls because literature was literally the only avenue where they could find women to represent their dreams.
In 1868, gender roles were still fairly traditional in American society but there was a growing dissent among women about their role in society and how they were treated politically, particularly by white women.
A decade before we see the Seneca Falls Convention, where women gathered to discuss and fight for their rights. But Alcott’s dream was very auto-biographical for Little Women; she depicted several characters based on her family members and their dynamics.
This, however, is adapted in 2019 with some of the hottest young talent that Hollywood has to offer and we have Greta Gerwig of the Lady Bird fame behind the camera. The period costumes are light, often frilly, allowing us to frame the narrative through clothes that these are rather simple girls at times, ones who are still in the early years of their development.
They've got a long way to go before they’re quote-on-quote truly women. Our focus is on the four March sisters: Jo, Meg, Amy, and Beth. Jo dreams of being a famous writer, despite being a woman, Meg a famous actor, Amy a painter, and Beth—well, I’m not too sure. Didn’t pick up on that, she’s the youngest of the sisters.
But what’s interesting about this movie is how is depicts feminism: Jo, considered to be headstrong and destined to be some great writer, sees marriage as something that hinders you. When Meg chooses to get married, Jo is astonished because it means that Meg is going to give up her dream of being an actress.
But that’s the point, Jo realizes behind the end of the film. The power to choose is what being empowered is. You aren’t pigeonholed into one or the other; instead, you have the freedom of choice.
The film very much is about growing up as well. Suddenly Meg is getting married and Jo’s best friend, Laurie, is desperately proposing to her in some field. Amy, who has been jealous of Jo because of Laurie’s affections to Jo and not her, almost drowns in a lake and ends up with Laurie at the end of the day.
Beth ends up dying of scarlet fever, truly marking the end of their childhood and fantasy make-believe that they would do in the attic. With the loss of a sister, a hole that cannot be filled has been created.
For me, there’s something hollow about this movie. It’s a rehashed concept in twenty-first century, something that we see again and again in new content created in literature and entertainment.
There’s always something rewarding for Hollywood about returning to classics, especially when they can get such a star-studded cast, just because they know they can get butts in seats and a lot more money that way.
There is value in this, but why do we need this film to be updated for each and every new generation? Besides wanting to be a writer, which isn’t revolutionary for a woman in that era as there were many women writers active during this time, it seems as if Jo is the only one doing this. There were women actors too that were prominent too, so it’s not like we’re completely deprived.
It also misses the mark because of how white it is. It feels like a film that tries to be a fourth wave feminist movie, but it lacks any sort of intersectionality.
Our main actresses are too pretty, too pristine, and end up getting everything they want with little criticism. Even Jo gets the book published, despite the initial backlash. There is little to no conflict, which is what makes it try to be a family story about growing up rather than a feminist film.
Overall Thoughts
On a superficial level, it’s a decent movie. It seems like it’s feminist, it’s got some nice visuals and pretty shots, it gets the job done. But if you’ve read the original 1868 novel, then you may have some qualms with how easily aestheticized this movie is.
Our characters are much too perfect compared to their literary counterparts, leading us down this rabbit hole of who gets to be feminist in film and literature. Who even gets to be depicted, one may say.
I’d say this film is trying too hard to appeal to modern audiences by deconstructing what made it unique for its time era, simplifying and streamlining its main message so that we’re like, “Wow! She wants to be a writer? That’s so rare during the time!”
I would’ve preferred to see this film in dialogue with its era and our own, allowing us the chance to critically think about where we’ve come from as American women and the legacy on who we are today.
