Little Women; an iconic piece of literature that has made its mark worldwide. Following the 2019 adaptation, many question if this modern portrayal of classic literature has paid tribute to Louisa Alcott. Brimmed with rich language and complex characters, is it truly possible to make a movie as impactful as a book; better even?
Scroll down to find out more...
*movie spoilers ahead*
Picture or Prose?
One of the greatest American novels; Little Women; has been carried on throughout the generations, and still influences the world that we live in today.
Greta Gerwig, first female director of the 13th adaptation of Little Women, has put her own unique spin when structuring the movie.
The picture adheres a non-linear approach that encompasses frequent flashbacks between the past and the present. This could betide confusion for an audience that is unfamiliar with the plot.
However, Gerwig has directed the different periods through the use of camera filters, i.e. a rich, orange tone represents the past while a pale blue was the present; this helps the audience *click* and easily shadow the storyline.
A few know of 'Little Women’s' unprecedented followups; Good Wives, Little Men and Jo’s Boys. Many could also claim that the movie was misleading, confusing even, as it did not particularly follow the plot of ‘Little Women’ alone. There are many key events that were peppered throughout the novel series which magically appear in this movie.
First of all, would be that two of the sisters are married: Meg and Amy. This does not fall in place with the original story line of 'Little Women' as the sisters only got married in the second book, 'Good Wives'.
On top of this, the continuous flashbacks between the time periods may come across as jumbling as there are scenes where Meg is a young prospective maiden; others a tired mother and a doting wife.
Even little baby Amy gets married! To who, you may ask? None other than darling Laurie, childhood friend, first love.
This cacophony of incredible events draws in on us, making us wonder; did Gerwig think there was not enough content in the first novel to create a gripping movie?
Nevertheless, the audience had the privilege to witness each and every character grow and blossom into the very best versions of themselves.
This alone is what made the picture somewhat more fulfilling compared to the novel; with beautiful character arcs drawn to precision; making this 2019 adaption one of the most well received and commerated movies by far.
Jo March vs the World
Jo March is the thread that loops the storyline together in the picture. This wasn’t the case in the novel where Jo represented a prominent strong minded character, yet was not particularly highlighted as an individual. Being the lead, many questions followed; why Jo March?
One word; Power. Jo is an embodiment of pure vigor and persistence that distinguishes her from her sisters. From the way she dresses to her fantastical ideologies, Jo March lives to defy the ordinary.
In the 21st century, a strong female lead is what the audience craves; a lead they were given. Gerwig particularly moulded Jo’s story to stray away from the idea that a woman’s happy ending is only when she is married; rather Jo is shown to have both: she set up her own school (Plumfield Academy) while being perfectly content alongside her partner, Friedrich Bhaer.
In an interview, Gerwig was delighted to say that she completely abandoned Louisa May Alcott’s ending where Jo ‘stocks up her ink stand’ and never finds happiness. It is often interpreted that Alcott played Jo’s story in line with hers, i.e. Alcott never got married in real life, thus did not want Jo to have a happy ending of a marriage along with a career. However, eventually she had to alter her original plan of spinster-Jo in order to get her book published.
Jo March, portrayed by American-Irish actress Saoirse Ronan, was the family’s silent breadwinner while their father was away at war. Even though she was disappointed she could not join her father, she instinctively took up the reponsibility to look after her family.
Her bold actions stretched from working throughout the night to sell her stories to cutting her hair to provide cash for her mother. Jo fueled her family's survival and only empowered herself to go on.
Despite frequent disdain at her boisterous , tom-boyish, behaviour, Jo strove on and continued to live her life to fullest.
Gerwig has not only given us a captivating character; she has given so many young minds a role model that will always remind them that their opportunities are endless.
Jo March; the daring, determined, dreaming damsel.
Ludicrous Love
Love, what a mess.
Not only is family love floating in the air, romantic relationships are formed; some of them potentially strong enough to break blood bonds.
Laurie, a loving lad, formed infinite memories with the sisters’ that they will never forget. Unfortunately, childhood was broken the moment a proposal was made.
Tensions rise; a love triangle appears.
Jo and Laurie; best friends from the start and inseparable by heart. Memories were limitless: from ice-skating to plays, to wreckless dancing; the list goes on.
Friendship was golden, but little did Jo know that Laurie wanted more. Meanwhile, a jealous sibling sulks, bubbling with envy.
Gerwig has perfectly portrayed Amy March, subtly highlighting her flaws, yet still upholding her unique character.
Alcotts initial vain, spoilt, nose-obsessed, painter was definitely brought to life, however, instead of only focusing on her flaws, Gerwig showed Amy’s growth into a woman, eventually finding the love that she deserved.
If you watched 'Little Women' in the theatres, I know you could hear hearts break during this scene (picture on the left).
Gerwig executed this anguishing scene not only by keeping Alcott's intentions of spinster-Jo, but did not fail to include Jo’s aspirations and ambitions. This gratifies the audiences’ hearts as they know that Jo declined Laurie’s proposal due to her love for freedom; not her fear that she will never be loved.
Even though Gerwig has shown Jo at her weakest, melting with agony, Jo finds love in fellow work friend, Friedrich Bhaer. Thank God for happy endings.
Being both an avid reader and a movie buff myself I truly cannot come to a conclusion on which creation was better. The two showcased different perspectives of the plot, both of which were riveting.
The book had maintained a momentum of high anticipation throughout the novel, making the readers yearn and crave to find out more.
On the other hand, to visually witness the growth of each character was equally gratifying and heartwarming.
Did the 2019 adaptation form a fresh, innovative interpretation, or should it never have been adapted in the first place? I'll leave it to you to decide.
super impressed by this young lady who writes so well. proud to know this talented lady..
It's incredible how you captured the essence of both the movie and the novel. The flow was seamless. Not an avid reader when it comes to novels, but this definitely got me curious. Would definitely give it go. Again, well done!
Interesting!!!
A good read!❤️
The title itself suggests a very humble notion, 'little women'. Very demunitive, but nothing can be further from the truth. "I want to be great or nothing", I think that really stuck with me. We all somehow live vicariously through Amy. This book has taught me about how important writing is - writing something down makes it important. Jo says it aptly when she says writing something down doesn't confer importance, it reflects it..
Very engaging article, looking forward to more of your work. Brilliant mind you have, much love to appreciation ❣️