While watching the latest cinematic adaptation of "Little women", I became painfully aware - and for the first time in my life genuinely so - that the world is passing me by and my way of seeing and perceiving might actually belong to some previous era. Not that I ever felt right in any decade, thought 1980s were forever etched in my heart as I was young and full of spark, spunk and energy at that particular time. However, watching this - to my eyes completely nonsensical - re-telling of famous children's classic, I was constantly annoyed because it was completely wrong and nothing like novel + its success was obviously a result of pandering to modern day audiences who recognised God knows what archetypes in Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth. The tickets are selling like crazy, cinemas are full, so the movie is doing a great business - and I seriously doubt that any of these women giggling in the dark actually bothered to read the novel.
With all the finances, talents and obviously enthusiasm at her disposal, director Greta Gerwig decided that she will create something that was not done before - despite the fact that novel itself is hugely popular and had never been out of print for 150 years + Hollywood had chewed on it for decades, Gerwig wanted her "Little women" to be all about female empowering, taking control of their own lives, strong willed she-boss and independence. Great - except that we are talking about the novel published in 1868. where, if I remember correctly (since I did actually read the novel, back in my school days, together with its sequels) the focus was on religion, spirituality, meekness and obedience, sacrifices and making the ends meet in a poverty during civil war. The original little women were actually poor and, just like The Brontës, created their own entertainment out of books, papers and scissors from the sheer necessity. It was done very gracefully, naturally, but readers were constantly aware that March sisters lived on a shoestring, which made their sacrifices even more poignant as they lovingly gave, without having much themselves. Jo didn't sell her long hair out of spite, but from desperation.
The way Gerwig made this movie, spirituality and religion couldn't be further from the table - to make story more interesting to modern day audiences, she creates basically modern, feisty and argumentative March sisters who just happen to wear historical clothes. Nothing in their behaviour (or even in visual styling, come to think of it) is reminiscent of the way people actually walked, talked and behaved back than, since sophistication and style, wit and charm were order of the day - youth kept quiet if not being asked, men politely bowed to the ladies, women had their head covered, always wore gloves, etc, etc - there were some social graces definitely very, very important and the time but neither Gerwig nor her audience are aware of this, because in the current time people are actually against such thing as etiquette (ignoring it or fighting against it is the casual way to deal with lack of sophistication, since its easier to poke fun at it than to admit that one simply lacks home education and manners). A case in point: Gerwig's March sisters are walking on the street like gang of uncouth fisherwomen and lifting their dresses like can-can dancers on every occasion - in one scene, Jo is running in the street so oblivious to her surroundings that she is actually showing her undergarments. The point is, she is running and oh-so-concerned. However, dear reader, girls in that era were not even walking alone in the streets (always chaperoned and preferably in carriages), not to mention running with one's dress above one's head. Come on. Gerwig pulls no punches in order to keep movie very attractive visually, again against the presumed original poverty of the sisters - since father's absence on a front line is mentioned only in passing, what we got here are four giggling sisters obsessed with theatre, dancing and marriage plans, really. To show that she is "creative" and "original" Gerwig also avoids linear storytelling and decidedly goes backwards and forwards, little bit flashbacks than present day, just to go back to beginning - unnerving and completely unnecessary since half of the audience lost the plot in the meantime (me included) and finally it was really difficult to tell what happened when.
Meryl Streep is a biggest plum here and as a star attraction she does her best Maggie Smith imitation - as expected, she shows her formidable comic timing and is a joy to watch, but its a cartoonish turn, blink and you will miss her. I actually liked Laura Dern as a mother, but didn't care for any of March sisters at all - mainly because it was all about female empowerment, chest beating, we can also do it, give us weapons, space ships, tanks and newspapers, kind of feminism-before-feminism and I found it annoying considering that eventually all roads lead to white wedding dresses and questions who will marry whom. Than there is a famous spiteful monologue that Amy spits at her future husband "Well. I'm not a poet, I'm just a woman. And as a woman I have no way to make money, not enough to earn a living and support my family. Even if I had my own money, which I don't, it would belong to my husband the minute we were married. If we had children they would belong to him not me. They would be his property. So don't sit there and tell me that marriage isn't an economic proposition, because it is. It may not be for you but it most certainly is for me." - which is all fine until you realise it does not exist in the novel at all, Florence Pugh is basically preaching to the choir (girls in the audience) and not to her potential husband who 150 years ago would either turn and leave from such vulgar fisherwoman or slap her in the face for such impudence - women, specially unmarried women, did not talk to men like that. Some victorious critics are carried away with too much enthusiasm and claiming Louisa May Alcott herself would love and appreciate this adaptation - nonsense, its like saying Homer would just love seeing Brad Pitt's buttocks and how they amazingly fit into Greek mythology. The way I see it, its all complete pandering to modern audiences who need to recognise themselves in characters from classic novel (otherwise they would not visit cinema) so hey, let's make them like modern girls on the streets but without cellphones, all fun and giggles, shoes and flirt, boys, boys, boys, marriage and occasional drama. The way it is, this Little Women is all about girl power, hell why not Heidi about global warming, Odyssey about human trafficking and Moby Dick about endangered species. Since US movies can't possibly be just entertaining, they must have some weighty message and life affirming lessons preferably connected to something topic, so we will twist and turn every classic until it suits our agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment