I read the novel ‘Little Women’ for the first time when I was almost eight years old. It was an old, abridged copy, rather a children’s version of classics that my Dad had brought along with a copy of David Copperfield. This ‘Little Women’ however had beautiful illustrations of the different incidents in the story, and I could picture Jo and the March sisters in my mind even before I saw the 1994 movie.
As I grew up, I read and re-read the original novel, watched and re-watched the original film, till every scene, every dialogue, the smallest of details are lodged in my memory irreversibly. If I took up writing, it was because Jo March made me believe so. Every time Beth approached her death, I cried. It felt like losing a loved one in my own life, and coming to terms with it with quiet grace and acceptance. “The ones that love us, never really leave us”, writes a writer, years later, who was also inspired by Lousia May
The novel and the movie both had a huge impact on my life. So, when it was announced that a new version of the movie was being re-created by Greta Gerwig, and with a stellar star cast none to less, I was determined not to watch it. I could not believe that the attempt to replicate the novel would be possible with the same tenderness and finesse as that of the 1994 movie. I did not want to betray the old version. Until peer pressure made me do otherwise.
A comparison with the old version and the book naturally followed. I do not endorse the new one, for sure. But this version did manage to get a few things right, and I cannot let my bias get the better of me and not mention it.
To begin with, the new movie is more vocal about its feminist views. Of course, Louisa May Alcott was herself a feminist, far ahead of her times, and it reflected in the novel, whether it was the March’s unusual way of raising their daughters, Jo and Amy chasing their dreams in foreign lands, or the girls making their own choices about marriage. The old movie follows that. The new movie, however, takes it a step forward and actually gives dialogues to the sisters that validate this. “I just want to enjoy this one night” Meg tells Laurie, when he censures her choice of decking up for the party. Again, in the later half, Amy says “Marriage is an economic proposition” to Laurie and vents out the unfairness of the legal system that left little choice to women to marry for love.
Secondly, Meg’s character is given more justice in the new version. In the 1994 movie, she seemed to be overshadowed by Jo’s strong personality. The trials of her domestic life with John Brook that feature in the book do not find a place in the movie. Here, just like the novel, she is the most beautiful of all the sisters, virtuous but somewhat demure and commonplace. In the new movie she is more confident and at ease with the choices she makes. Her dilemma of wanting to own ‘all the pretty things’ and dealing with the paltry income generated by her husband is also given its space. I do believe Emma Watson, who plays Meg in the movie, has something to do with it. Even when Jo is cajoling her to run away from marriage, she says “just because my dreams are different from yours, that doesn’t mean they are unimportant”.
Aunt March’s is given more shades (again, how can they not when Meryl Streep steps into her shoes). Her wish that her nieces should marry into a wealthy family stems from a pragmatism, however misplaced Jo feels it to be so. Watching her sister in law struggle to raise four daughters in the absence of her idealistic husband had convinced her of the consequence of marrying in a ‘morally different’ family like the Marches. In both the above examples, the new movie inches closer to the novel then the old one, by picking up the essence of the women’s struggles that Louisa May Alcott tried to highlight.
The new movie also addresses something of the issue of slavery on which the civil war (where Mr March had gone) was fought for, and a tiny glimpse of the Marches standing for equal rights for all, at a small cost of being different in their social circles.
Finally, the scene in the book in which Jo and Beth go off to the seaside for their little holiday, is beautifully captured by the new film. This one thing that they have nailed (or rather sketched for the use of a better word) to perfection.
Can I safely turn to bashing the new movie for everything it took away from the loyal readers now? Facts first.
The Lawrence and the March houses were not miles apart, as shown in the new movie, but so close that Laurie knew the name of each of the sisters by heart even before he met Jo in the ball.
Again, in the novel and the old movie, Mr Bhaer was 15 years senior to Jo, a fact that had much to do with Jo falling in love with ‘a man who has seen the world’ rather than a young lad of her own age and experience
In the book, Jo never ever wished or expressed to her mother that she wanted to say yes to Laurie’s proposal, much less write a letter to him. She always held to her reasons in rejecting him, even if she was sad about losing a friend (as she thought she would) when he married Amy. This part in the new movie was perhaps based on the popular sentiment among a lot of little women’s fans of shipping Laurie and Jo together (against the writer’s will, of course).
In fact, the whole part in the new movie where Amy rants at being the second fiddle to Jo was also added on. There was plenty on which the sisters disagreed and consequently took opposite paths, but the disagreement translating into jealousy and resentment between them was simply forced.
The 1994 movie sticks to these facts as given in the book, and there is a sense of comfort in not losing Alcott’s thoughts in the interpretations of the director.
I also felt that more space should have been given to the development of Laurie and Mr Bhaer in the film, especially introspecting into the reasons why Amy and Jo fell in love with them, respectively. Greta Gerwig took great liberties in trying to bring the thought process of Jo as she re-considered Laurie’s proposal in the aftermath of Beth’s death. She could have taken the same liberty in bringing to the audience her own interpretation of why the men fell in love – and out of – with the sisters.
In the book (as per my own analysis) Jo was something of an idealist (like her father) and headstrong (like her mother). Mr Bhaer’s company allows her to live an unconventional life and chase her dreams like she always desired. On the contrary, Laurie was always worldly and a connoisseur of all the beautiful things, just as his privilege allowed him, and Amy was the one who could complement both his social position and appreciation of art. Something of this is attempted to be showcased in the 1994 movie. However, in Greta’s version, both the male protagonists appear to be lackluster, serving only as an object of the love interests of Jo and Amy.
I was also not in favor of the disrupted timeline, somewhere in the back and forth of the story, things got rushed and we missed the evolution of the girls into little women.
Finally, the end. I gave a lot of thought, measuring the pros and cons till I decided it is best to confess that it left me disappointed. It is a known fact that the novel is based on Lousia May Alcott’s own life, and that she remained a spinster until the end. In the book, however, Jo finds a perfect match in Mr Bhaer and marries him.
Greta Gerwig explores one such possibility of why the writer took the decision to let her beloved character, in which embodies herself, marry. According to her interpretation, in the end Jo (who is representing Alcott now) decides to make the final edit after her editor convinces her that the masses would never accept an unmarried female protagonist.
Now, it is possible that this would have happened.
Or it would also be possible that Alcott wanted Jo to have, which she herself could never find, true love and an equal partner. Who are we to say either? The novel, though based on her own story, is but a piece of fiction. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to create a biopic of Alcott and merge the story of how she was inspired to write ‘Little women’? Something like that film, Shakespeare in love?
I personally recall the minutest detail when Jo chases after Mr Bhaer in the rain in the 1994 film. “My hands are empty,” he says. “Now they are not,” Jo says by placing her own hands into his before they steal a kiss under the umbrella. The old romantic in me wants to believe this fairy tale and wants the movie to end just like the writer chose it to end.
I will bad for those who only saw the latest version and may not consider reading or watching the original ‘Little women’. The incarnate detailing of the story of each sister’s life, their desires and their dreams in the book will be lost to them. Something of the magic, something of the beauty, something of the charm of Wionna Ryder and Christian Bale will also be lost to them. I would say, like a die-hard fan would, reading and watching all the three would also leave us wanting for more. Every version after all, opens a new window of thought in mind and once again we are lost in the lives of the March sisters.