Little Women (2019) Review

The 2019 Little Women is, I believe, the second adaption of Little Women I saw, after the 1994 one. (I often like to watch as many movie versions of a book as possible; it’s good fun to critique and compare different versions. I’ve never actually completed any of the other versions of LW, though, although I’ve seen large chunks of two others.)

I had mixed thoughts on this version…I’ll start with some things about the movie that were good, because we like optimism around here.

~ Saoirse Ronan made quite a good Jo, perhaps the best Jo I’ve seen.

~ I liked that we actually got to see Meg and John in their married life. One of the things that bugged me about the 1994 LW is how Meg and John almost completely fade out of the picture after they get married (honestly, their whole romance was ridiculously cut-down in that one, and John gets zero personality), which isn’t the case in this version. So that pleased me.

~ Connected to that, I also liked that it emphasized that Meg’s dreams for her life weren’t inferior because marriage was a big part of them. No, people shouldn’t get married just because it’s expected, it’s just what you do, etc., but a lot of people really are called to marriage, and it’s a very important and awesome calling.

~ I think Beth’s death was well-done. I was glad they included the little scene with her and Jo at the beach together beforehand.

~ Umm…I can’t really think of much else at the moment. I guess we’ll just go on to some of the bad things.

~ …of which, Professor Bhaer heads the list. He is very un-Bhaery, and it’s not good. Except for the fact that he has a foreign accent and seems fairly nice-ish, is there really anything about the man that reminds you of the Friedrich of the book?

~ Speaking of which, I did not like the ending. Yes, I know Louisa May Alcott didn’t get married in real life. I know Jo is supposed to be partly autobiographical (though I’ve also heard that all of the sisters were meant to be partly autobiographical…which makes the take the movie goes with not work in any case). Nonetheless, Jo is not Louisa May Alcott, she is a character in a story, and so is Friedrich. They deserve to be given the story they were written into, not a director or screenwriter’s idea of what may have happened behind the scenes in real life. Humph.

~ Also. Why do the movie versions like to blow so out of proportion the bit with Friedrich reading Jo’s silly sensational stories (which he didn’t do at all in the book, by-the-by)? This wasn’t just an issue with this version; they did something very similar in the 1994 one, and in the 1978 one (which I didn’t see all of…we started watching it, then just skipped ahead and watched the parts with Captain Kirk as Professor Bhaer).

~ The cutting back and forth between times, though an interesting idea, wasn’t executed in the best way. I was already familiar with the story, so I understood what was going on, but I think it would be rather confusing for anyone who was being introduced to the story for the first time – especially since the only real difference in how the girls look in the different times is that sometimes their hair is up and sometimes it’s not. Apparently the passage of years were very kind to the Marches. (They began to call them well-preserved; but unchanged would have been nearer the mark.)

~ I didn’t care for this interpretation of Marmee. The Marmee of the book is supposed to be a peaceful (outwardly, anyway; we know she doesn’t always feel peaceful) person who radiates quiet capability and contentment (and a certain amount of preachiness, but hey), whereas this Marmee seemed more flitty and bustling than quiet and peaceful.

~ If it comes to that, I didn’t like Laurie either. Poor fellow looked like he was suffering from permanent sleep deprivation, for one, and he was very gloomy and un-fun, for another, which is not Laurie-like at all.

I realize I’ve stated more things I didn’t like than things I did (and there’s even more to be said than what I’ve mentioned – others will gladly tell you all about how bad the costumes were, for instance) but let it be stated that I did in fact enjoy watching this movie. I think it was (mostly, at least) a well-done movie – as a stand-alone movie. It just came up a bit short in some ways as an adaptation. (Though I have yet to see a version of Little Women that I could say was a very good adaption…the 1994 one was pretty good, but it had its flaws as well.)

What did you think of this version of Little Women? Which version is your favorite?