But What If They Don't Do It Right?

via

Otherwise Entitled, "My Nervousness Slash Trepidation About the New Adaptation of Little Women, and What I Intend to Do About It."

(Some of you have probably already seen this new release on Masterpiece or PBS.org or the BBC if you're a lucky Brit, and if you have, I'm begging you to not leave too many spoilers in the comments. I, in case you can't tell, have not yet had the viewing pleasure. We'll get to that.)

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, or if you read my old blog for any length of time, you may have caught wind of the fact that I am a stubborn and mulish creature when it comes to Change. Specifically, Change as it pertains to my Childhood Favorites. And Little Women, let there be no doubt, is a definite Childhood Favorite. I was eight when I first read it, and I know I've reread it at least a dozen times in the fifteen years since then. I can quote passages from memory. The March sisters are my friends - almost, you might say, my family. (As someone who grew up in a family of four sisters, the gang-of-girls dynamic is very familiar!)

Now, I know Little Women isn't a work of literary genius. I know it was hobbled together, slapdash, in a period of six weeks and Louisa May Alcott herself felt it had many failings. I know it presents a sanitized view of 1860's adolescence and that the reality of the March/Alcott girls' lives was a lot darker and bleaker. I know some people regard the book as "moral pap for the young" and that the characters within have been done to death on stage and screen and radio and probably even slam poetry.

But it still made a huge impression on me as a child, and as such, I feel a certain devotion to it that I can only ascribe to a very few treasured books. So, it stands to reason that I view film adaptations of this beloved novel with a leery, standoffish side-eye. And, in fact, I haven't yet found one that could do it justice.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen and heard a lot of them. When you tally it all up - I've read the book umpteen times, and just about all the spin-off children's fiction you could think of. (The Little Women Journals, Portraits of Little Women, the Great Illustrated Classics version, the Companion Library of Classics...) I've seen the 1939 film with Katharine Hepburn (though, admittedly, I was so young that I don't remember much), the 1949 one with June Allyson, the 1994 classic with Winona Ryder (more on that later), part of the modern-day web series which was kind of a flop, two stage adaptations (one being the musical, which struck me as little more than a travesty), and listened to the Focus on the Family Radio Theatre production countless times.

That last one, by the way, is probably the only one I can wholeheartedly recommend to someone who wants to experience a dramatized version of the book. It's available here. Not perfect, but pretty darn good - not least because it's fully four hours long and really takes the time to delve into the little rabbit trails the story naturally takes. (Except for the part with Camp Laurence, but - well, nobody's done Camp Laurence justice yet. The new remake remains to be seen.)

But not one movie or TV version has really captured the novel for me, and I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps I'm just too picky. The Winona Ryder film, which represents most people's cinematic exposure to Little Women these days, was a good movie. I like watching it and it's a fun, cozy wintertime classic - but it isn't quite Little Women. Not to me. My qualms over that movie are another topic for another day, but suffice it to say, there was too much added in (Susan Sarandon, shut up about the corsets already), too much taken out (oh, sure, it's not like John Brooke's proposal was important or anything!!) and it was all jam-packed far too tightly into two hours of theatrical release. Just sayin'.

This post is becoming a runaway train wreck very quickly, and it is my bounden duty to harness it before it goes completely off the rails. And stop mixing metaphors.

Here's what worries me about the new adaptation:

1) The costumes already look distinctly un-promising. That is to say, they seem to be suffering from Frilly-Prairie-Dresses-With-No-Petticoats-and-Loose-Unbound-Hair-itis, that rampant disease that's ravaged period dramas since Gone With the Wind. For many viewers, I realize this isn't a big deal, and I'm willing to let it slide if the story is good enough - but, guys, I do 1860's living history for a reason. I truly love this era of clothing (and I know a good bit about it!) and it makes me sad when movie costumes don't even try to do it justice.

2) The current trend in period dramas is to introduce as much Dark Material and Depressing Thematic Content as possible, which elicits a frank eye-roll from my overly opinionated self. Little Women has its dark moments, don't get me wrong. Beth's illness (and... you know... what happens in Part 2), Mr. March's illness, the Hummels' poverty, the constant shadow of the Civil War are all there in the book, clear as day. But the overall tone of the Marches' story is one of happiness and comfort and joy, and I worry that a 2017 director has taken that and cast a shadow over it in hopes of being Edgy and Relevant.

3) The bits and pieces I saw in the 30-second Masterpiece PBS trailer (admittedly, not much on which to form an opinion!) make me worry that the character's choices and challenges may be "updated" too much to reflect a modern mindset. Little Women is very much a product of its time, and though I believe its core message and values are still relevant today, I think we do old-time classics a disservice by trying to make them overly relatable to the modern eye. This is a wide, vague statement, and encompasses a lot of elements all the way from loose, flowing hair on a grown Victorian woman to modernized language to subtle changes in narrative to make it less dissonant on the 21st-century ear. I don't think rewriting the classics is going to make them better - I think looking at them square-on for what they are and appreciating the fact that they are different in many ways from our mindsets and societal norms today will help us to a greater understanding of human nature and how it changes and stays the same.

*steps down from soapbox*

And now, to be fair, here's what excites me about it:

1) So many familiar actors from previous period dramas! I have high hopes for Emily Watson's portrayal of Marmee, and I'm thrilled to see Michael Gambon as Mr. Laurence even though he doesn't look the way I imagine Mr. Laurence in the book (my mental image is a lot more like an elderly Christopher Plummer). Angela Lansbury is playing Aunt March, too, so that should be lots of fun.

2) The girls are all virtually "unknown" actresses, and I love that too. I'm often frustrated by film adaptations of novels that cast whoever's hot in the box office, just to boost their ticket sales, rather than finding actors who are truly right for the roles. (Cough, cough, looking at you, Russell Crowe in Les Mis. And... well, actually, a lot of people in Les Mis. Cough.) I'm cautiously optimistic that this will be a fresh, unspoiled look at characters who ought not to be played by famous leading ladies bidding for an Oscar.

3) It's so long! SO! LONG! It's multiple episodes! Lots of time to delve into all those subplots! I even spotted what I think may be Camp Laurence in the trailer! (Yes, I'm really passionate about that part, but it gives us a lot of insight into Mr. Brooke's and Meg's developing relationship, so I'll go down with that ship.) The fact that the story is not being cram-jammed into standard film length is promising for its adherence to the original book. Yay!

And in honorable mention, a point I'm not sure is a pro or a con:

It's an American book being made into a television series by a British production company, starring mostly British actors.

Uh.

Well, on the one hand, the BBC usually does a very good job of classic book adaptations (see: most Jane Austen miniseries in existence, many Charles Dickens epics, etc. etc.) and I'm happy to see them (hopefully) taking Little Women seriously. But if you've seen the 90's show Jeeves and Wooster, you'll know why I'm worried, and I'll give you just three words: fake American accents. Okay. Moving on.

As you may have guessed by now, I fully intend to watch it! In fact, I'm probably going to end up seeing it twice, since my sister wants us to see it together and my mother-in-law-to-be also wants us to watch it together - in her words, she looks forward to my "running commentary." I am not sure she knows what she's in for. But regardless, I fully intend to view, to take notes, to view again, to probably take more notes, and hopefully to blog about it.  Which is why I wrote this post, as a sort of prelude to an incoming barrage of text which will probably sicken you all to death of Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy.

I know I'm coming into this miniseries with a lot of emotional baggage, so to speak. I'm probably going to hold it to a much higher standard than its target demographic, and I'm not going to be as gentle as I might be with something that packs less impact for me. I've been thinking a lot lately about the importance of opinion, and when and where it is appropriate to share said opinion - and, frankly, blogging about something as inconsequential as a movie based on a childhood favorite book could easily be seen as trivial navel-gazing.

Because, in the end, who really cares if I like the new Little Women or not?

Well, obviously, I care. But I don't want to see that as the be-all, end-all. My opinion does not make that much difference in this grand spinning world, and to think that a review I write and post on my blog is going to be of great consequence to anyone but myself and a few of my friends is simply setting myself up for narcissistic disappointment. Whether I like this new film or not is a matter of my own taste and judgment, and the lens through which I'm going to see Little Women is filtered by my own past experience, impressions, and predisposition. And so is yours - and our opinions, afterward, may not match up. And I am slowly learning to be okay with that.

It used to be of utmost importance to me that every book-to-movie process be conducted in an appropriate manner. I would wax lengthy and rhapsodic about why the 1995 Pride and Prejudice is the only version worth watching, and why the American Girl movies just didn't come close to capturing the original books.  Those opinions haven't changed (and if you think it's because of Colin Firth in a wet shirt, then you really don't know me very well at all...), but as I've gotten older, I've realized that literary taste truly is a matter of taste most of the time, and you are never going to get a one hundred percent agreement on How Good This Movie Was from everyone who saw it. And that is okay. It isn't my job to convince you why the Winona Ryder adaptation isn't good enough for my hoity-toity sensibilities, nor is it your job to convince me that I'm an idiot for not respecting your good taste in calling it your favorite. We can live and let live.

So, I guess that is what my mindset is going to be as I watch the new Little Women - no, they might not get it right as far as I'm concerned. But neither am I the only person who's going to watch it, and if I end up hating it - well, someone else might just end up loving it. And with that in mind, I'll be sharing my opinions afterward with the knowledge that you're free to take or leave what I say as you see fit, and the sun will keep on rising and setting whether I think John Brooke's proposal is a failure or not.

But I'm still probably going to be super picky about the costumes, because I just can't help it.

Petticoats petticoats petticoats petticoats PETTICOATS. THEY ARE NEEDFUL AND NECESSARY.
And also hairpins.

Okay, there. Now I feel better.

Comments

  1. I have mixed feelings about Little Women, period. I love parts and I loathe parts

    I didn't know about the 6 weeks part, but it was published in two parts (I think the speed must have for part 1). And I can feel that. I'm an inveterate Laurie and Jo person or at least a never Laurie and Amy, and I think the writing (characterization) becomes undone over that area.

    And then the transcendental sanctimoniousness gets to me more now.

    Because I had that significant plot point, and I dislike certain aspects and changes of the movie, I usually bail out of watching it. I wasn't sure I'd want to watch this version at all (for one thing, an all British cast for a quintessentially U.S. movie, um NO). I might try though, maybe, for a short portion. I've been reading reviews anyway and am looking forward to yours.

    Oh, my, and the Colin Firth in the wet shirt thing. Is that all some people get out of the movie? Also, some people fail to realize Darcy is NOT a hero and isn't supposed to be liked or likeable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love Little Women to pieces. It's my treasure, and nothing will ever come close to the book - at least in my experiences so far. (Also, I totally agree - why can't movies include John's proposal and Camp Laurence?!?!?!) I saw the mini series on their release days (it came out on my birthday!) and to be honest, I don't really remember a lot about it. I liked it, but I certainly didn't love it (the biggest issue for me was it felt a little modern...). But worth the watch, I reckon. The 1994 is still my favourite movie of it. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. (And I could never get sick of hearing about the March sisters.)

    Also, I disagree about Russel Crowe's Javert. :P Les Miserables is my favourite musical ever, but it's a musical, not a movie. For what the movie was worth, I thought Russel did a brilliant job (I thought his voice, though admittedly it could be much more polished and... ahem, classically trained, was a cool, raspy edge for such a strong, stern character). But perhaps I'm also biased, because he's an Aussie actor (so is Hugh Jackman, come to think of it... !) and that makes me happy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. *applauds long and loud* Preachhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

    You are so right. In the end, our opinions on literature and film are subjective--they are our OWN opinions, shaped by our own experiences and personalities, and that's the way it should be. If they weren't, they wouldn't be so much fun! ;-) I love hearing opposing opinions on books and movies, in fact, because it's a way to learn how and why other people are different from me. And, conversely, it helps me learn more about my own self.

    Like, what IS it about me that made me instantly dislike P&P 95 the first time I watched it, despite my fierce love for the book itself? I don't know :-P But some day, I'll figure it out.

    Little Women and I have an . . . interesting relationship. I read the whole thing through several times as a child and a teenager. What I loved most about it was its "epic" sweep, the way it covered this pretty huge cast of characters over a period of FIFTEEN YEARS. It was like a saga or something. It was expansive. It didn't cut anything short, it allowed each person room to blossom.

    I also loved Beth. Because Beth is awesome <3

    On the other hand . . . well, Jo is pretty much the major protagonist, and I always struggled hugely to relate to Jo. I guess she scared me, kind of, because she was so very loud and determined and sure of herself :-P Now, as an adult--well, I'm not sure how I'd react to Jo if I re-read the book, tbh.

    I also have a tough time with the overall "worldview," I guess you could say, of the Little Women universe? It has a very old-fashioned, Protestant/Puritan feel to it, which is fine, of course, but I myself am Catholic and was raised Catholic and the two things just don't mix super well. And that's another example of what you were saying, about our personal experiences shaping our reactions to things: if I WAS raised in a Protestant household it's quite possible I'd be a lot more comfortable with Alcott ;-)

    Costumes. Yeah. I hear ya on that ;-) I'm definitely not as knowledgeable as you are; but I do have a certain sense of when things on screen "look wrong" and then I'm just shaking my head like . . . nooooooooooooooooooo. (The loose hair bothers me most of all. They didn't DO THAT.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi, personally I enjoyed this new mini series. It does not follow the books to the letter, but it did quite a good job. And, the actresses did wear petticoats. Please, watch these "behind the scenes" or "making of" videos on YouTube. It really was quite nice in my humble opinion.
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLULP5z9s2CVHZIUQ7F7gnxivhRSiu8hwj

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have mixed feelings about all the different versions of Little Women. I'm still upset about how the Winona Ryder version was almost ruined by the Amy recast. I guess that's par for the course when it comes to film adaptations of books. There's always so much room for disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why was it almost ruined by the Amy recast?

      Delete
  6. I like how you've thought this out. Like you, I love the book and have seen almost all the film adaptions. The BBC version is the best version I have seen yet (though I nostalgically hold onto the Winona Rider one). Honestly, I skimmed this post so I didn't catch if you are team Jo and Laurie. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've just found your wonderful blog through your Instagram! I was so excited to see that you wrote a post about the Masterpiece Little Women! I actually wrote a review post on it after watching it, so I'm glad to read another's thoughts on it. So the question is: after seeing it, what did you think?

    I must say that all your "worries" about this film proved to be realities! I agree with you so much about pretty much everything. I might have been just a bit to harsh in my own review, and you have inspired me by your very gracious way of putting things! I never was one to put my feelings about certain movies and books lightly! :) Perhaps I should work on that.

    When you said an older Christopher Plummer as Mr. Lawrence, I completely agreed! And yeah! What's the big deal about Colin Firth! And just why is he so great again? I've never found him preferable as Mr. Darcy, but anyway. . .

    I'm so glad I have found your blog and I can't wait for more posts!

    ~ Megan Joy
    p.s. below is a link to my own review if you're interested! :)

    https://simplymeganjoy.com/2018/06/07/little-women-enthusiast-reviews-pbss-masterpiece-adaptation/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Shop at Sullivan

This blog is a Shop at Sullivan affiliate, which means you can receive 10% off any purchase through this link. Use my code "BlueStocking" at checkout.

Popular Posts