MOVIE REVIEW: Latest edition of 'Little Women' is 'best movie version of the novel'

Little Women

(PG)

Three and a half stars out of fourAdapting a classic work of literature has its pluses and minuses. One of the upsides is not having to get the audience to try something new; they already have an idea what’s coming.

Even if you modernize it (think recent versions of Shakespeare’s “Othello,” “Hamlet” and “Romeo & Juliet), if you stick to the basic story blueprint and don’t get too cute, you’ll likely please many and disappoint only a scant few.

In the case of Louisa May Alcott’s “Little Women,” there are now eight different film adaptations, and all but one has stuck to the original text and middle 19th century setting. The sole exception — taking place in the present day — was a 2018 straight-to-video title which was rightfully panned. Some would say in the right hands, setting “Little Women” in the 21st century, in the future or even in another country could work, as its themes are universal and timeless.

Fresh off of her stunning debut, “Lady Bird,” director/former art-house “it girl” Greta Gerwig could have taken “Little Women” down a multitude of different paths, yet she stuck with the tried and true with just one minor but superb tweak. The result is the best movie version of the novel ever made.

Drawing largely on her own upbringing in Massachusetts, Alcott based most of the characters on members of her family with lead Jo (Saoirse Ronan) as her counterpart/stand-in. The second oldest of the four March daughters, Jo is a headstrong, upstart writer wishing for the near impossible: to be professionally and artistically successful without having to marry.

Eldest sister Meg (Emma Watson) has every intention of marrying — even if it’s to the wrong man — and becoming a teacher even though everyone thinks she would be better suited as a stage actress. Third sister Beth (Eliza Scanlen) shows signs of major musical talent but is given little to do and less screen time for character development.

At the risk of upsetting “Little Women” purists, the Beth character could have been left out completely without being sorely missed. This is not in any way a slam on Scanlen or those who’ve played Beth in the past; she exists solely for the purpose of providing bad news down the road.

Arguably the most interesting of the March offspring is Amy (Florence Pugh), a precocious sort prone to tantrums and snap decisions who nonetheless possesses the same raw talent as a painter as Jo does as a writer. At the chronological start of the story Amy is just 13, and it is to the 23-year-old Pugh’s credit she behaves rather than acts like a young teen without actually looking the age. Although some might think otherwise, Amy enjoys the most satisfying character arc of anyone else in the entire story.

Delivering appropriately brief but crucial performances are Laura Dern as the girl’s mother Marmee and Meryl Streep as their miserly and cantankerous Aunt March whose tendency to not practice what she preaches verges on the abrasive and hypocritical.

Not far removed from the role he played in “Lady Bird,” Timothee Chalamet appears as Laurie, the smooth-talking young man living next door to the March household with his grandfather (Chris Cooper). Purposefully aloof and fancy free, alternately fraternal and calculating, Laurie gets dangerously close to being a scoundrel on many occasions yet by the time the story is over he redeems himself with utmost sincerity.

More from this section

+6

MOVIE REVIEW: These spies should have stayed in disguise

Kourtney Kardashian gets a puppy for Christmas

+4

Obsession Records: The Tables Are Turning…

Although no big secret, the novel is actually comprised of two companion books: “Little Women” — which covers life during the Civil War — and “Good Wives” — what happens to the girls after the war as they enter young adulthood.

Rather than tell the story in a traditional, point A to point B linear manner, Gerwig — much in the same way as Francis Ford Coppola did with “The Godfather II” — fractures the narrative and switches back and forth between the two books. This jumbling of time lines (the two opening scenes actually take place in the second book), completely transforms the way the story is perceived, often lending it mystery and thriller elements and pushing it far beyond its usual period piece “chick flick” trappings.

This is not to suggest groups of grown men are going to be rushing out to see the movie; the title alone will keep most males at bay. Toss in the period setting and those numbers will dip even further; it doesn’t matter how many critics think it’s great. You can only push the hardwiring of men so far.

With any luck — and it won’t take much — Gerwig’s fresh and invigorating take on such a revered classic could become a huge cult favorite among women of all ages, backgrounds, income levels, political leanings and ethnicities. Thanks to some recent awards notice it will certainly do respectable business at the box office. But it will be in the home video afterlife where “Little Women” will rake in serious coin and lead to countless watch/slumber/theme parties well into the next decade and beyond.

(Sony/Columbia)