Alcott’s unfinished novel gets a different life in the movie. 

 

*This review contains spoilers.

In most fictional realms, the superhero wears a cape and saves the world in one fell swoop. In “Little Women” (2019), it is Jo March’s ink-stained hands that are symbolic of her heroism. Through her uplifting spirit and writing, she paves the way for a new kind of hero — one that puts physical prowess aside to expose a raw truth. 

Perhaps this is the truth the author of the book, Louisa May Alcott, was not able to pen in her novel due to the male-dominated society that held power at the time. 

Film director Greta Gerwig’s adaptation has been applauded by critics for its faithfulness to the narrative’s historical roots, while still running on “contemporary energy,” according to Joe Morengster of the Wall Street Journal. Out of the 20 award nominations that “Little Women” has received, it has emerged victorious in six so far.  

But what makes this version stand out from the 22 existing adaptations?  

While most versions follow a linear pattern, the 2019 adaptation chose to disrupt the chronological order of the storyline. This perspective causes various parts of the plot to have a bigger role in the film, like the development of Amy March and Theodore Laurence’s romantic relationship.

The attention to detail that Gerwig gave her craft resembles the meticulousness with which one would approach the process of printing and binding a physical book in the 1890s— a form of artistic expression. In an interview with the The Los Angeles Times, Gerwig revealed that this approach was deliberate in order to create as close of a resemblance between Jo March and Alcott as possible.When Jo is writing in the movie, she switches hands frequently out of tiredness, just as Alcott did.

The plot itself is woven throughout different stages of the March sister’s lives, pulling on heartstrings as it moves along. In one instance, the audience is celebrating the recovering health of the sweet-natured Beth. In another, they are mourning the tragic death of her soft soul. 

The unspoken emotion, at times, shows a depth of the characters relationships that was previously unexplored in past versions. 

Marmee is also no longer a perfect depiction of a mother, but instead proclaims her raw emotion fearlessly. “I am angry almost every day of my life,” said Laura Dern. The loss of a daughter is hard to put into words, but Marmee has passed her passionate vocal expression onto Jo. 

The film’s ability to tell a well-known story in an unpredictable manner was stunning, and showed the audience that silence can take your breath away.  

If anything, this makes the dialogue exchange between characters more intentional. In the scene entitled “An Economic Proposition,” Jo finds herself speaking to her childhood friend Theodore about marriage and the real trials of growing up in a time where women were belittled for having ambition. 

“I’m just a woman. And as a women there is no way for me to make money,” Florence Pugh said.

Coming from a character that is known for her whining attitude, the vulnerability of this statement is shocking. It leans into the flaws of human nature, for each sister had shown a form of expression through creative mediums such as music, writing and painting that were not considered careers, but hobbies. Despite Amy’s eagerness, she would never be able to support her family with just painting. 

The ending of the film wraps up the plot much like the binding process of a novel, finishing up the final strokes. The feminist cry from each character gets a resolve through Jo’s novel, titled “Little Women.”

In the end, Jo March has found a love that challenges her intellect, but also helps her achieve her dream of becoming a successful author. The heroine of her book does not marry, and is content with her own achievements, reflecting Jo’s independent spirit. 

This ending is one that Alcott would be proud of, as she lives vicariously through her heroine and her novel.