Throughout its ambitious 134-minute runtime, you can sense the faux self-satisfaction oozing from Gerwig and her on-screen performers. This is not a movie that will convert people to read Alcott’s novel, nor will it convert detractors of the “American heritage cinema” genre. Rather, Gerwig’s film is likely to die a slow and meandering death with movie audiences, despite the critical acclaim it is currently getting. It doesn’t help that Gerwig, and admirably so, decided to shake up Alcott’s dry novel by telling her story in non-linear flashback mode. This sort of jigsaw narrative doesn’t stop the fact that told in straight fashion or otherwise, “Little Women” is still a very conventional story at heart. One presumes that most viewers will be well aware of the story of the March sisters; after all, this a novel that has become mandatory reading at high schools across the county. The fact that audiences will not find anything fresh or new added to Alcott’s vision will be its biggest detriment. Gerwig’s cast is mostly composed of Anglo-Saxon actresses. Saoirse Ronan takes the lead as older sister Jo, a writer and alter ego of Alcott. Ronan is a pleasure to watch as the impulsive and passionate Jo, and yet there are few surprises within the character. There is a lot of fluffy back-and-forth flirting between Jo and Laurie (a miscast Timothee Chalamet). I was also mildly taken with the scenes between Jo and Tracy Letts’ “Mr. Dashwood,” the latter a hard-nosed publisher with a gift for bargain dealing. Florence Pugh (“Midsommar”) is a standout, giving us a tart rendition of Amy, the most vocal, but problematic of the March sisters, not to mention friendly rival to Jo. A miscast Emma Watson, who is mostly wandering through Gerwig’s film with no real purpose, plays Meg. Eliza Scanlen is the youngest March sister, Beth, Laura Dern is Marmee, while Meryl Streep has a blast playing Aunt March. The first half of “Little Women” flips around in time with no markers aside from wardrobe and hairstyles to tell you where you are in time. Despite all that, this latest Alcott adaptation rambles all over the place. It’s a scattered piece of storytelling that feels, at times, like an overly long rough cut. [C] Contribute Hire me
Advertise Donate Team Contact Privacy Policy
