FILM ADAPTATION: Let's Talk About Little Women
We all knew it was bound to happen. I was just waiting for the right time and now seemed like the perfect opportunity. I've done some recent research, I've rewatched all of the adaptations this month, and I think it's time we talk about this once and for all.
So everyone knows that I will defend Greta Gerwig's Little Women until my dying day. However, I have had many a conversation with many a friends about the other adaptations of Little Women (mainly the 1994 version with Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, and Kirsten Dunst and the 2017 BBC mini series version with Maya Hawke, Jonah Hauer -King, and Angela Lansbury) and which one is considered "the best".
I have done a film blog on adaptation and my opinion stands the same: a good adaptation runs the fine yet difficult line between sticking to the source material and interpreting it into a modern context to give purpose. However, I did also mention in that same blog that with popular material, you are bound to have a large audience that will just not like a new adaptation (whether that be because they grew up on a certain version or they didn't like how an adaptation handled their favorite scene or whatever). So, with Little Women being so popular and there being so many different adaptations, this brings in another layer of comparisons, judgement, and an overall scale of success and failure.
To keep things fair, I will first be going through each adaptation, comparing them to the book (the source material) and then to each other (obviously while sprinkling in my own opinion of how each one was handled artistically as well). I think this gives ample space to do a deep dive into this work. So buckle up buttercups.
Hands down, I think the adaptation that sticks best to Alcott's book is the 1994 movie. It doesn't take too many risks in straying away from the storytelling. It introduces all the characters in due time and gives them the set ups and screen time as told faithfully in the book. I had the same reactions watching this movie as I did reading the books (I cringed at the Amy and Laurie's engagement, I was disappointed at Meg and John's anticlimactic wedding, I was irked when Jo and Friedrich kissed under the umbrella (even though now that I'm older, Freidrich gives dilf vibes lowkey in this movie)). Winona Ryder (Jo), Gabriel Byrne (Professor Bhaer), Kirsten Dunst (Young Amy), and Christian Bale (Laurie) truly stand out to me as terrific performances. The set design and costume design were all quite lovely, especially in color and accuracy to the time period. I believe sticking faithfully to the book helped them in some aspects (the scene in the carriage with Amy and Laurie felt particularly earned and well done, along with Meg and Laurie at the debutante ball). However, this movie could have easily been cut down by a half hour in my opinion, as the end drags. The uneventful "wrapping up" of plot-lines isn't exactly that riveting in the book either, and it feels very fabricated and forced in this adaptation (maybe that's just because I usually check out once Beth dies and Amy and Laurie get married anyway? I'm not sure).
Overall, I find this adaptation safe. It feels correct, like everything was placed perfectly in order to get the best possible, overall representation of this story. I'm curious as to know why the creative team felt the need to produce a new Little Women adaptation... The only logical guess I concluded from was the fact that the most modern adaptation before 1994 was the 1949 adaptation, so it likely needed some reworking to bring the story back to relevance in society. Otherwise, I couldn't tell you the cultural significance of making this new Little Women in the 1990s, especially by making an adaptation that strayed so little from the book. It's missing the "why now?"
I believe that the 2017 adaptation brought a sense of whimsy and youthfulness that can be difficult to catch on camera, especially on such a highly adapted and beloved story. There were choices on locations and casting specifically that I particularly enjoyed, and moments I appreciated being added (Jo and Laurie in front of the publisher's office after she has sold her first story is probably my favorite). I particularly enjoyed the performances of Willa Fitzgerald (Meg), Jonah Hauer- King (Laurie), Julian Morris (Mr. Brooke), and Emily Watson (Marmee) as well. However, this adaptation still kept some details that I didn't find all too appealing from the original source material (Meg kissing Marmee first after exchanging vows with John, the girls receiving new Bibles for Christmas, etc.). A lot of those details (while I appreciate came straight from Alcott's writing) felt unnecessary, and dragged down the momentum of this adaptation. I think this version specifically should be treated different, because it is a three part mini series and not a movie. So, it's given about forty five minutes more run time than the other two adaptations we are comparing. I think this adaptation could have taken great advantage of this extra time by developing the characters more. Unfortunately, that was not really the case, and it felt as though more time and effort went into minute details and not big picture arcs.
However, there were some points in the story that did receive extra time that I felt were well deserved; Meg and John Brooke's relationship being developed a bit more was really a nice change of pace and very thoroughly thought through, as I often see them overlooked and swept past in attempt to get more to Laurie and Jo's arc.
I find this adaptation as a step in the right direction. I believe this adaptation had a cast that felt more like an ensemble than the 1994 version, which is admirable. I also think that this version may be more for a younger audience (ages 14-20) as it has more youthful undertones and plays into the romances a bit heavier. I also think, because of the details it sticks to within the books, that younger audiences who may be new to this story find a sense of comfort in continuity.
Now, I am going to try and be as unbiased as possible, but obviously my favorite is Greta Gerwig's 2019 Little Women. I do not think this is the best adaptation when it comes to sticking to source material and the honesty of the story. However, I think this adaptation frames this story as it relates to present day women and sisters, and the values young women hold close to them as they move up and into the world. So this adaptation definitely leaned more onto the side of adaptation that questions "how can I make this relevant and important in today's world?" in the purpose of adaptation. I think a huge risk was taken telling this story out of order, but I think juxtaposing certain scenes side by side gave certain parts of the story much more importance.
I think what I truly love about this adaptation is the fact that everything feels earned. Every moment, every relationship, every action feels genuine and logical. I think most people will agree that the highlight of Gerwig's adaptation is de-villainization of Amy March. The way she puts Amy and Jo side by side is so innovative and puts them on an even playing field (rather than Jo always being the favorite). I particularly enjoy the performances of Florence Pugh (Amy), Saiorse Ronan (Jo), Timothee Chalamet (Laurie) (also duh), and Chris Cooper (Mr. Laurence). I believe editing and writing are what really made this adaptation soar. I believe stepping off the source material and somewhat into interpretation land allowed for really great moments in this movie (Jo's monologue in the attic about women, Amy's monologue about only being a woman and not a poet, and Marmee's monologue about being angry everyday of her life are all personal favorites). Within all its joy and ensemble like energy, I appreciate Gerwig's approach to grounding the movie in the relationship rather than the story; however, at times the characters felt distant from the story. And, from the book, it feels as though this book thrives on the pacing of the story rather than some of the characters (as they are wonderfully flawed). I believe Gerwig was forced to ground her Little Women in characters, because she disrupts the natural pacing of the story. But with character grounding comes some great rewards (Laurie and Amy's relationship not feeling rushed, Jo and Bhaer's relationship feeling different yet more mature and justifiable, Hannah's relationship with the girls feeling more important, and Beth's relationship to Mr. Laurence and alienation sometimes to her sisters pushing her along more in relevance).
So, overall, I think each Little Women adaptation brings something exciting to the table that floors all the others. I believe production design and intimate detailed scenes from the book thrive in the 1994 version. Steps towards justification in relationships and a delicate, dream like tone bring forth a new set of favorite moments within the story of the 2017 mini series. And the 2019 adaptation hashes out and digs deep into important relationships within the character and brings modern context to each character's decisions.
My opinion? Obviously, as a young woman who, much like Jo, "loves [her] liberty too well to give it up", I adore the 2019 Little Women. But adaptation wise? I don't believe it is the most accurate to the story. I think because each of these adaptations brings something new to the table within Little Women, they can all serve a certain purpose in bringing justice to the story. And that's the great thing about stories being adapted over and over again: the lens of the story evolves with the times and it culminate all these different opinions and interpretations of one story, allowing you to pick and chose your favorite parts. It gives the power to the viewer to decide what resonates with them, individualizing the story. And that, is pretty damn cool. So go see all the adaptations! It's so worth it.
PSA: I think, as long as women keep struggling to find themselves in their own relationships within our deeply patriarchal society, Little Women will continue to be relevant in more ways than we'll all ever be alive to know of.
Comments
Post a Comment