Case Study Little Women
This week I read Little Women and watched the 2019 Little Women film.
The Little Women novel is set in two parts: 1 and 2. In this time there is a 7 year gap where the sisters grow and progress in their lives.
My opinion:
In my opinion, I do not believe that the classical book of Little Women was ruined in the 2019 film. I thought the film was an excellent representation of the book, since they stuck to the original, familiar story line whilst also mixing flicking between Part 1 and Part 2 of the book frequently throughout the film. The stark contrast of this 7 year gap between the parts was much more evident in the film since the audience were transported between the two time periods many times, side by side. Therefore, I think it had more of an impact on the viewer compared to the book where you see the girls grow up slowly and in chronological order.
How close are the cast to the characters?
Meg March
Meg March is the oldest sister of the four, played by Emma Watson. Within the first few pages, Meg is described as a "very pretty" girl who is "plump and fair" with "large eyes" and "soft brown hair". Whilst Emma is clearly a very beautiful woman, she is not at all ' plump'. This may not seem like a big contrast to many people, but it once again proves how fatphobic the world of cinema can be. The notion that they could not find a 'pretty' and 'plump' girl is quite hard to believe, and once again establishes an unfair beauty standard that even Alcott tried to eliminate through Meg in 1868 when publishing her novel.
Nonetheless, with her extensive acting experience and numerous awards and nominations, it was inevitable that Emma Watson would bring the caring, mothering character of Meg March alive in the greatest of ways. Other than the slight irregularity in their appearances, Emma portrayed Meg flawlessly, capturing every emotion and expression we expected of the oldest sister from the novel perfectly.
Amy March
Jo March
The most high spirited and independent sister in the novel was played by Saoirse Ronan. Playing a character of such historical significance such as Jo March would be a challenging task for any actress, but the Irish-American actress pulled it off wonderfully. Her appearance is somewhat symetrical to that of her fictional character Jo, with her ' long limbs', 'thin' stature and 'long thick hair'. However, the main thing that Saoirse was able to do was show the two sides of Jo's character: both the independent and ambitious, but also the helpless and lonely. Her emotional, feminist speech was acted in a way just as I imagined from reading the text. I think the casting here was spot on.
Beth March
Beth March was played by Australian actress Eliza Scanlen. Beth is a character who we are told little about her appearance, but when we are, she is described as very youthful and rosy. I believe that Eliza was able to bring that child-like appearance alongside her acting, even thought she was around 20 at the time of filming.
Also, when Beth became ill, Eliza's pale skin was enhanced to make her look weak and fragile, just as she is described in the novel. Although Beth is the only character unconcerned with her appearance, the similarities between the actress and her character are quite startling, particularly her famous 'bright eyes'.
Amy March was played by beautiful, British actress Florence Pugh who, even at the age of 22, was able to bring the spirit and innocence of 12 year old Amy in the early scenes of the film. Amy is described to have 'yellow hair' and 'blue eyes', and a cute nose which she is never fond of. Florence's appearance is very similar to the descriptions given, and despite her maturity, that sense of childhood still explodes through her incredible acting. Although many people disagree with the casting and characterisation of Amy in the films, I think her character was able to contrast her sisters in a way that never appeared in the book. She speaks in ways before her time, and although this may slightly differ from the book, it in no way ruins it.
Friedrich Bhaer
I think the character that is most adapted from the novel is Friedrich Bhaer; Jo's writing companion and eventual husband. In the novel, Bhaer is said to be forty which is of a much older age than Jo and leaves approximately a twenty year age gap. However, in the film, Louis Garrel, although being 36, looks a lot younger, almost the same age as Jo herself. Therefore, the age difference in the movie is almost unnoticeable for viewers who have not read the novel. He's also described as unattractive and silly, whereas in the film Bhaer is played by an attractive actor who keeps a somewhat serious demeanour throughout his time on screen. Their relationship on screen is a lot more ordinary and sensible than how Alcott has written it in the book. This makes sense since Alcott never wanted Jo to marry, but was forced to by the Roberts Brothers who believed her book would never sell otherwise. To allow her book to be published, but also to spite those controlling her work, Alcott created a very unconventional and questionable match with Jo and Friedrich, which somehow Greta Gerwig managed to salvage on screen and form a successful romance which could be rooted for by the audience.
How close is the plot?
The plot of Little Women is very well followed in the film, only certain parts of the dialogue have been cut out, but for good reason. One main part of the storyline that was not shown on screen was Meg's struggling home life with her children and husband. Although the film presented small aspects of her challenges, it does not go anywhere near as in depth as the novel does. I think this is a positive thing as it allowed the viewer to focus on other aspects of Meg's character rather than purely focussing on her as just an ordinary housewife.
Gerwig also removed the argument about poor economic marriage between Meg and Aunt March, perhaps hoping to create less tension in the family to then make the loss of Beth more emotional to the audience. However, it could also show that Meg didn't require her Aunt's disapproval to realise her feelings for Mr Brooke, and rather it was love at first sight.
Secondly, we do not see much of Amy's travels around Europe on the screen, which was most likely to keep the film down to an appropriate length. If every single page of the novel was transformed into a visual, the audience would be sat in the cinema for hours on end. Nonetheless, we do see the most important parts of Amy's travels, and all the events that are essential for a good storyline. Furthermore, the film misses out a few more aspects of Amy's childhood, including her trying to fit into upper class society by inviting over important friends, which inevitable ends up as a disastrous day.
As mentioned previously, in the book, the events happen in chronological order. However, in the film, director Greta Gerwig decided to put snippets of their childhood and adulthood side by side, continuously flipping between the two. The memories of the past were presented through golden, warm lighting, with a homely setting and a sense of nostalgia about it. Meanwhile, the clips from seven years in the future where must more cold, with a stern white and grey light and a feeling of solitude. By pairing the time zones side by side, they dramatically juxtapose and make the skip feel more saddening, whilst when reading the novel, you have to think back to how the characters once were compared to how they have evolved later.
Positive Differences
I'd argue that one positive difference is some of the dialogue given to female characters in the film, making up for the slight lacking of feminine resistance that Alcott was pressured to avoid in her novel.
One example is Jo March's heart breaking realisation that she doesn't want to be alone, and would agree to marry Laurie even though she doesn't love him in the way she should.
Although in the novel, Jo expresses her discontent of the societal norm that all ladies must marry and give up their ambitions, the actual quotes in the movie script have been taken from another of Alcott's novels, one entirely different to the Little Women franchise.
The original quote came from Louisa May Alcott's novel Rose In Bloom which was published in 1876, 7 years after the publication of Little Women. According to Wikipedia, Rose in Bloom is a sequel to Eight Cousins and is about a girl named Rose Campbell finding her way in society. In many ways, this is similar to the character development and journey into maturity taken by the March sisters, so by taking this quote from another one of Alcott's novels, Gerwig may have wanted to show the inherit similarities between women growing up in that era, and how many of the protagonists acted as a microcosm for Alcott herself.
Rose in Bloom 1876:
“Neither should it be for a woman: for we've got minds and souls as well as hearts; ambition and talents as well as beauty and accomplishments; and we want to live and learn as well as love and be loved."
Jo March - Little Women 2019:
"Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they've got ambition, and they've got talent, as well as just beauty. I'm so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for."
The tone used by Alcott through the character of Rose Campbell seems a lot more sincere and seems to be used as an attempt to educate her readers. Whereas, Jo's words in the film are a lot more hostile about society, and she presents her frustration and disapproval through her emotional outburst when in conversation with her mother. If Alcott had attempted to show such hatred towards the patriarchy in the 19th century, it is unlikely that her book would have been published since she was writing in a phallocentric environment where all her superiors were male. However, in modern day, when series of feminist movements have succeeded and continue to fight for equality, it is acceptable for a female character of that time to show her resentment towards the unequal, traditional society since we now see how poorly and unfairly women were treated. We can now openly understand and sympathise with Jo, and I think that using and enhancing one of Alcott's other quotes strengthened the authenticity of the film and revalued Alcott's intentional perspective.
Another similar positive difference occurs through a scene including Amy and Laurie. In the novel, a long dialogue occurs between Amy and Laurie in the chapter called ' Lazy Laurence'. Many aspects of that chapter are portrayed accurately on screen, such as Amy being aware of her art career being restricted due to her gender. The famous quote, 'I want to be great or nothing' inevitably made its way to the screen, proving one of the most positive similarities between the plots. It shows a deeper side to Amy and awakens the audience to how observant she truly is of the world around her.
In an interview that the director, Greta Gerwig, did with The Atlantic, she reportedly said, 'Amy was the one who struck me as having some of the most interesting things to say and having the most utterly clear-eyed view of the world. I think I started seeing her as this equally potent character to Jo'.
I think Gerwig's perspective is really clearly portrayed through the film as Amy is given as substantial a role as Jo, and it would be difficult to argue who the main protagonist actually is. Particularly with this part of the script, it is clear that Amy was intended to be a socially aware young woman who knew when to speak her mind, and when to remain quiet in order to climb the hierarchy. Whilst Gerwig has admitted that this was her view of the youngest March sister, it can be inferred through Amy's original character development that Alcott had similar intentions.
Amy March - Little Women 2019
"I'm not a poet, I'm just a woman. And as a woman I have no way to make money, not enough to earn a living and support my family. Even if I had my own money, which I don't, it would belong to my husband the minute we were married. If we had children they would belong to him, not me. They would be his property. So don't sit there and tell me that marriage isn't an economic proposition, because it is."
Although this is not an original quote from one of Alcott's novels, it could be easily mistaken for one as it has the ferocity and societal understanding that she consistently portrayed through her writing.
The irony of the first line is suited to Alcott herself as she was both a poet and a woman, yet even she could see the economic flaws and marital illusions that were hidden behind the wonderful promise of romance.
This links to the fact that Alcott never married, and wrote poetry about her desire to travel the world and the hardships that people experienced rather than joining the Romantic poets such as Keats or Wordsworth.
Once again, a positive difference was that Meg's drawn out domestic problems that appear repetitively in the novel were not transferred to the screen. It is likely that these scenes would have made for boring, unnecessary intervals between the more interesting experiences of Jo and Amy. Therefore, by cutting Meg's domestic life down to a minimum, Gerwig allowed the audience to appreciate snippets of the oldest sister's home life, whilst not growing unamused of it. It also enabled the film, and actress Emma Watson, to highlight the individual characteristics of Meg and her challenging growth as the oldest sibling and role model in the limited scenes she did lead.
A final positive difference is that Aunt March is not pushed into the background in the film as she was in the novel. It would almost be impossible to relegate a character played by Meryl Streep to the background, and consequently, Greta Gerwig made Aunt March a much more influential part of the storyline. Her old fashioned views symbolise the indoctrination society had been placed under, requiring women to not work and to marry well. The opposing opinions between herself and Jo are able to juxtapose and show the extent of resistance Jo had to go to in order to have a writing career. It made perfect sense for her to have a larger role to show an alternative perspective from the more ambition and forward thinking protagonists.
Negative differences
One of the biggest and few negative differences between the novel and the film is that Beth's death is supposed to be a building event foreshadowed over a number of months, whereas in the film it is more of a sudden shock. The point of the chapter ' The Valley of the Shadow' is to show the slow and tragic decline of Beth's health, creating a slither of hope that she could survive her returning illness, but ultimately crushing that faith at the end with her death. Although the shock factor is useful on screen, the novel allowed for a more powerful array of emotions to be felt by the reader as they followed the lengthy subplot. Nonetheless, it is hard to criticise the film in this way as they only have a limited amount of screen time and would have to have removed other crucial parts of the story to incorporate more of Beth's illness.
Critical Reviews
From my research, I found that one of the most prestigious and well-renowned book reviewers is Goodreads, so I found an article where they had done a review on Louisa May Alcott's Little Women.
Part of the review says that the novel 'explores such timeless themes as love and death, war and peace, the conflict between personal ambition and family responsibilities, and the clash of cultures between Europe and America.'
Ultimately, Goodreads believes that the novel's intention was to cover a variety of topics that allows every reader to relate to some aspect of the novel, whether it be the characters or their situations.
In comparison, one of the most well-renowned film reviewers is Rotten Tomatoes who allow their reviewers to have their say, and also the audiences too in a separate ranking system. Out of 425 professional reviews, the 2019 Little Women film scored 95% which is clearly an extremely high ranking. Out of the 86 top critics that reviewed the film, it received a 98%, proving that this new adaptation did not fall short of the high standard expected of it.
One top critic, Wendy Ide from The Observer, quoted, "One-hundred-and-fifty-year-old literature never felt so alive." We can infer from this that film adaptions are necessary, not to change a story, but to restore and rejuvenate it so that modern audiences can resonate with literature written before their time.
She continued to say, "There’s a reason why Little Women, in print continuously since its first volume was published in 1868, has been such an enduring phenomenon, and that is Jo March." Little Women has been frequently described as a book written ahead of its time because of it's strong minded female protagonists, so in the 21st century, the film industry is able to bring these characters to light in a way that would have been heavily criticised in Alcott's time. We need these film adaptations as a positive way to reflect on the past and push for positive change in the future.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film received an audience rating of 92%, proving once again that it had a positive influence on those viewing it.
However, amongst the hundreds of praise filled reviews, there have been some negative ones.
Hadley Freeman from the Guardian said that whilst Little Women was her favourite novel, she did not enjoy Gerwig's adaption as much as she expected. She found that certain changes led to her disappointment of the film as a whole. Freeman expressed her upset at the differences between Professor Bhaer as an old, ugly gentleman in the novel compared to a young, dashing Frenchmen in the film.
Nonetheless, despite the odd negative response to the adaptation, the general consensus from audiences and critics is that the 2019 film was a positive restoration of the 1868 novel. Although it strayed slightly from the original, it did not divert far enough to ruin its authenticity completely, and therefore, Columbia Pictures created a successful revamp.
Comments
Post a Comment