Little Women, Big Thoughts

Today I had new food to feed my appetite for Little Women (the story by Louisa May Alcott, not tiny little ladies).  . .wait, I've used that joke before.  .  .

I had the day off from work, and my wonderful husband also arranged to take a day off, so we planned a little date. We drove all the way to Methuen, MA because that's the only theater we could find that was showing the new modern adaptation of the book. I had to see it on opening day because I'm a little obsessed with this story, and I've been waiting over a year now. I liked the PBS mini-series, but it left me hungry for more.

Of course, no film rendition will ever take the place of the 1994 one starring Winona Ryder and Christian Bale because that's the movie I saw in the theater when I was in middle school, shortly after I read the book.

So without further adieu, let's dive right in-

                                              **********SPOILERS AHEAD**********

I was very relieved to see that although this new movie is a modernized version, that everything was tastefully updated. For example, Meg wouldn't attend a "coming out" debutante party in 2018, but she would attend a prom. It would have been easy to steep the sisters in modern technology, but that would have cheapened it. I was glad to see that Jo was writing in a paper journal, instead of blogging or vlogging. And I really loved the camera shots that captured Beth's love of playing the piano; it wouldn't have had the same effect if she was a DJ or singing songs with an acoustic guitar in a coffee shop.

My husband has never read the book, but he has seen the 1994 movie more times than he ever thought he would, and offered the insight that this new movie not only honors the tent-poles of the text, but also seems to pay homage to the previous generation's film. It makes perfect sense, because women my age saw the 1994 movie when we were young, and now we are the age where we would be accompanying our own children to see a film based on a beloved story. For example, the part where Jo accidentally scorches Meg's hair is in the text, and is a pretty funny part in the 1994 movie. The modern film-maker could have chosen to have Jo coloring Meg's hair, and the attempt goes horribly wrong, but the scene still revolved around a regular old curling iron, and it played much like the 1994 one. 

Similarly, when Meg is at the prom and feels self-conscious after drinking and kissing a boy she barely knows, she wipes her lipstick off with her fingers, much like the part in the 1994 movie where Meg (played wonderfully by Trini Alvarado) carefully uses the lace edge of her handkerchief to remove the lip color she allowed the other girls to put on her. And the girl who plays young Amy bears a striking resemblance to little Kirsten Dunst.

Obviously, some things had to be updated in order to make the story believable in a modern setting. Beth doesn't get scarlet fever, she is diagnosed with leukemia. Jo doesn't go to New York to be a governess, she enters the writing program at Columbia University.

The actors who portrayed Brooke and Freddy Bhaer (as they are called) were very pleasant to look at, but the actor who played Laurie annoyed me. Although the character of Laurie is playful and kind of a show-off, this actor came off as flamboyant and hipster. I think Christian Bale has more charm in his pinky finger than this other guy has in his whole screen presence.

In case you're wondering about the Mad Woman in the Attic, she's alive and well.  .  .

No, not that one, the one created by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, circa 1979. Gilbert and Gubar wrote that 19th century literature contains only two types of women: the madwoman in the attic (a la Bertha Mason in Jane Eyre) and the angel of the household (a la Beth in Little Women). In Alcott's text, Beth is the only sister that does not marry, or have any romantic prospects at all. While Meg is married and having children, Jo is striking out on her own in New York, meeting the man she wil eventually marry and Amy is traipsing around France with her longtime childhood crush Laurie, whom she will eventually marry. In this modern version, I could not help but notice that Beth is almost always dressed in blue, and even the light in her hospital room is blue-ish. Light blue is the color of the Mother Mary, and so Beth continues to be shrouded in the image of a Virgin.

She's even wearing a little gold cross necklace

So despite Jo's fiery red Converse sneakers, and the short dresses, this story continues to exemplify a second generation feminist interpretation of a 19th century story!

It's pretty funny, because just this week I was talking about Little Women with the 8th graders I teach. This week is Banned Books week, so I was telling them about how Little Women was first published, some people thought it was too radical (a woman writer? Meg burning the jelly?! what the what?!) but now it is sometimes criticized for not being feminist enough (even rebellious Jo eventually settles down and marries and has children).

I know I am picking apart the movie, but overall I did enjoy it. I think I would like to own this version, and I could even see it in the theater again. I might have to see it in the theater again because I have to wait over a year until the next Little Women film comes out (supposedly it has Meryl Streep, Emma Watson and Bob Odenkirk in it).

I guess for now, I'll have to rely on my trusty DVD's and collection of Little Women books to get me through. As I watch the 1994 movie, I'll rest my teacup on my side table and reread my thoughts on Transcendentalism in the March marriages.  .  .

I guess I really am obsessed.  .  .