Little Women (2019)

Director: Greta Gerwig

Somewhat surprisingly, I found this movie excellent and highly entertaining.

For a touch of perspective, I'm a mid-forties Gen X dude who thoroughly enjoys sports, Marvel movies, and dirty humor. Like, a lot. But those aren't my only interests, and I'm able to appreciate things outside of my normal comfort zones. Exhibit A: I found Little Women to be a delight.

The movie mostly follows four sisters who live with their parents in Massachusetts during and several years after the American Civil War. As with many families, the four siblings have different attitudes, talents, and temperaments. Jo is a free-spirited rebel; Meg is something of a romantic; Amy has an eye for sophistication and feels rivalry with Jo; and the youngest, Beth, is sickly but possessed of considerable musical ability. Over the course of roughly seven years, the four sisters deal with interpersonal drama and tragedy, as they and their mother deal with their own aspirations, often while their father is away for the war.

The story is based on an immensely popular novel written by Louisa May Alcott, aimed at young female readers and published in the 1870s. Given that, it was no surprise for me to find that the story has a relatively gentle mood, and it never gets terribly dark. It also wasn't surprising that there was a bit of sappiness and sentimentality laced into the overall work. Despite this, though, I found the movie completely enjoyable. It helped that Gerwig made some very smart creative decisions in her changes to Alcott's original story. Melding Jo with Louisa May Alcott herself (whom the character was based upon originally, anyway) was an organic and highly effective choice. It also allowed for a bit more direct commentary on gender biases and a certain amount of progress which bold young women had carved out for themselves during times when such things were far from easy.

Just one of the many, many shots that is composed and framed
so well that you may not even realize how pleasing it is to
simply look at. There's often a coziness to the film that makes
one feel quite welcome, especially during the "good" times.

Probably the primary reason is just how technically excellent the entire film is. The narrative is laid out in a perfectly-executed, non-linear fashion, often using visual cues to let us know that we have jumped either backwards or forwards in time, drawing poetic connections along the arcs of characters' lives. Beyond that, all of the visual elements are stunning. Thanks to top-notch costume work, set design, lighting, and cinematography, the various tones and moods come right through the screen with every ounce of power that you would hope.

Then there's the acting. It's as good as it gets. Yes, there's the aforementioned sappiness here and there, but that's outweighed by some solid drama and innocent humor executed masterfully by an outstanding cast. Once again, Saoirse Ronan shows why she's one of the best young actors around, nailing the primary role of Jo. Not to be outdone, though, Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great as Meg and Amy March. The one prominent male character, "Laurie," is played to with impish, self-absorbed charm by the waifish Timothee Chalamet, whom I hadn't seen play a major role before this.

Obviously, all of the elements are there, and it all comes together as well as possible. Yes, the film is geared for a very wide audience, so older and more serious viewers will find themselves rolling their eyes in a few moments. But this is such a well-told story that it's difficult for even a fairly cynical 'Merican fella like me to not appreciate its clear merits.