Little Women (4 Stars)

It took me a long time to begin to write this review. While watching the film I felt disadvantaged by not having read the book. I've already decided that I'll read the book before I watch the film again, and the Kindle edition only costs 95 cents, so there's nothing to stop me buying it. To help me with this review I've read a few articles about the book and the differences between the film and the book. I shan't repeat what I've read, neither verbatim nor in summary, but it's helped my understanding.

Rather than being a strict adaptation of the book, the film tells the tale of how the book was written. It's well known that "Little Women" is Louisa May Alcott's autobiography, with the names changed. The film adds another layer around the book, a type of meta-narrative, which helps us to better understand Jo March, the name that Alcott gives herself in the book.

The film's narrative is told in a non-linear way, even within the meta-narrative layer. That's something that confused me as someone who's never read the book. The same four actresses play the March sisters in their younger and older years, so at times I didn't realise that the timeline had switched until something happened that made me say "Ah ha". I repeat, this is a film for people who already know and love the book, not for outsiders like me.

The film tells the story of Jo March and her three sisters who live in semi-poverty in Massachusetts during the American Civil War. The book evidently goes into their financial situation in more detail. They have enough to eat, but not enough for any of the pretty clothes that young girls like to wear. They perform works of charity for those poorer than themselves, but they thankfully accept gifts from their richer neighbours.

Jo March is a free-spirited independent woman who wants to become a writer. She doesn't want to rely on a man to support her. Her older sister Meg is a vaguer character in the film. She gets a lot of screentime, but at the end of the film I felt I didn't know her. The reason for this became apparent when I read the online articles. The book presents Meg as the opposite to Jo: she's a traditional woman who sees her purpose in life as marrying and having children. The director, Greta Gerwig, reduced this aspect of her personality in the film, leaving a vacuum.

The third sister, Beth March, is a sensitive girl who loves music. The youngest sister, Amy, is a talented artist. It's a beautiful family that any parents would be proud of.

The girls' father is a pastor. I was somewhat shocked when I first saw him wearing a dog collar in the film. I wasn't expecting it. In the early scenes he's away from home with the Union army, so I assumed he was a soldier, but he was actually an army pastor.

Religion, or rather religiousness, plays an important part in the novel. This is missing from the film entirely. The good deeds performed by the family are humanitarian rather than Christian. This is why the girls' father and his importance in the family is downplayed. Evidently, Greta Gerwig's intention was to make a feminist film, and traditional Christianity is an enemy of feminism.

The film's meta-narrative emphasises the biggest difference between Louisa May Alcott in real life and in her auto-biography. The novel ends with her marriage, even though she remained single all her life. That's a strange change to make to a true story, but it's carefully explained. The publisher says that women in novels have to end up married or dead. That was probably the attitude in the unenlightened world of 19th Century America, but it's not the case now. Greta Gerwig adds Jo March's romance in hurried fashion towards the end of the film, but then we're told that it never really happened. The film ends with her alone and happy. That's the way Greta Gerwig would have written the book.

It's a film that I greatly enjoyed, but it's far from perfect. The non-linear storytelling causes too much disruption. Meg's character could have been fleshed out more. It's not a problem for me that the Christian element is downplayed, but the father's job as a pastor could at least have been better explained.

Maybe I'll give a more positive review after reading the book for myself. Wait till next year.