I read the Louisa May Alcott book some decades ago but remember no events from it, bar one dramatic incident. No doubt I saw the 1994 film version as well - every bit as big-name studded as this latest is - but also can't recall it.
The 'March' sisters central to the story are played here by Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Eliza Scanlen, with Laura Dern as their mother. It follows the trials and fluctuations of affection and rivalries between the four younger characters and their romantic interests, though in the latter case it's writer Jo (Ronan) whose main motive for living lies more in getting her novel published than engaging in romantic liaisons. Timothee Chalamet is the principal 'beau' in various entanglements while the girls' ageing aunt is played in a few slightly comedic scenes by Meryl Streep and which, I must say, did play a part in maintaining my interest, though not that I was especially bored. The sisters' struggles to find their own particular niches in life while maintaining their sisterly bond is the engine which drives the story right up to its satisfying, if implausible in some respects, conclusion.
Director and adaptor from the novel, Greta Gerwig, (this being only her third as director), adds a few modern touches especially in the script to a film which, visually at least, looks as authentically old-fashioned as its mid-19th century setting, and I've no quibble at all with that. Colours are mostly subdued with occasional splashes for ball gowns etc.
All in all, pretty good I'd say, without especially blazing any trails, which it probably hadn't intended to anyway. If you want to watch a pleasurable, laid-back version of a literature classic, this should more than do the job................7.
( IMDb.................8.3 - Rott.Toms..........4.6/5 )
I'm still crying when Claire Danes died in the 1990s version
ReplyDeleteIf I saw it - and I surely must have - then it would have been on its release. Certainly not seen it since then, so some 27 years ago. Can't remember Claire Danes being in it, but if you see this then with a different actress you may well cry all over again.
DeleteI managed to not have read the book(s); I sense I will miss the movie as well.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. I'm sure there are a lot of readers and film-goers (overwhelmingly male, I'd guess) who'd not be interested in giving their time to this work in any form.
DeleteHope you don't mind me commenting. I do read your blog regularly but never comment. I have however, seen both versions (ie the one John Gray mentioned and the new version) and am very familiar with the book. I must admit despite all the plaudits given to the 2019 film I preferred the earlier one. Because of the going back and forth in time I found it quite choppy. You were just getting your teeth into one scene and then suddenly it was seven years hence or before (I'm exaggerating slightly) so it was hard to make a meaningful connection with the minor characters in particular, The way it was constructed made it feel as if everyone was a minor character except Jo (and to a lesser degree Amy), whereas in the 1990s film more attention was paid to the other sisters. Having said that the acting was very good. I did like Laura Dern as Marmee, My eternal quibble about LW is that when casting a stout, bearded middle aged German they have gone for Rossano Brazzi (handsome Italian), Gabriel Byrne (handsome Irishman), both beardless and not stout and this current film - a handsome young, lean, beardless (well, a bit stubbly) Frenchman whose name I have forgotten. What is wrong with bearded stout middle-aged German Professors? Sorry bit long-winded.
ReplyDeleteI don't in the least mind you commenting here, N. In fact I feel privileged when anyone does, particularly when it's via intelligent remarks as yours.
DeleteI only wish I could recall that 90s version that you and JayGee refer to. I've no doubt that I DID see it (I've misplaced my 'register' for that period so can't readily check) as at that time I'd see anything and everything that came along. But my memory regarding it is, annoyingly, a complete blank.
You're right in this newie about the confusing back-and-forths. I would have preferred the briefest of on-screen labels to give us the bearings. (I also dislike it immensely when contemporary novels do the same thing,, making you feel stupid if you can't follow that that is what's happened).
Getting the proper balance between the sisters in a film version might be tricky given that cinema audiences tend to be generally less sophisticated (so THEY say!) than theatre audiences and avid readers like you and I, so it might have been something to do with pandering to a cinema audience's expectations. But as it's so long since I read the book myself (1980s?) that aspect didn't trouble me unduly when watching his, though clearly a re-read is long overdue.
I'm pleased that Laura Dern has left behind her that alarming tendency to 'gurn' her face up at emotional moments which she frequently did in her earlier films. I agree she was first-rate in this.
Btw: Since you mention him I first became aware of Rossano Brazzi way back in 1960 with his appearance in 'South Pacific', playing a FRENCHman! I often think with that performance and those of others the film-makers were thinking "Well, foreigners! They're all the same!" It would be nice to think that we've progressed beyond that now but it still does go on, even if at slightly less frequency than before.
Do comment whenever you wish to. It'll be appreciated, I can guarantee that - AND it'll be answered too!
Thanks RayB. The 90s version was (apart from tv series) the first new version since the 50s version (the Rossano B one) with Winona Ryder as Jo and Susan Sarandon as Marmee, Christian Bale as Laurie. Every book made into a film is changed, not always a bad thing, but we are seeing it through the author's eyes as interpreted by the director -possibly a more sophisticated (hopefully) kind of fan fiction. And then we interpret what we see on the screen not always in a way the director would expect.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Rossano B - I did see him actually play an Italian in a film with Katherine Hepburn set in Venice I think. Starting to ramble -will stop here
I don't know if you're familiar with Halliwell's, that 'bible' of film reviews and ratings, N, but I see that the earlier film you mention above (1949 actually) was there awarded just one star while it gave the 1994 re-make (which I surely DID see) two stars (out of four) with the special commendation that it stuck close to the novel. But I see there was a yet earlier version, in 1933 with Katherine Hepburn (whom you coincidentally mention), to which it awards a rare THREE stars. Of course we all know that all reviews and ratings are merely one person's opinion and cannot be regarded as inviolably true. Nonetheless this early version has aroused my interest and am now curious to see it, though it seems to have disappeared without trace.
DeleteRegarding Rossano B. once more, I'm always slightly bemused when I see him appearing briefly in what has now become a 'cult' film here - 'The Italian Job' of 1969 (also containing Noel Coward's final, and disappointing, film appearance - when Brazzi just appears in the opening few minutes and dies even before the film's opening credits come on. Oh, the ignominy of it! ;-)
Yes, familiar with Halliwell's, Not sure I've seen the Katherine H version - or if I have it was a very long time ago. I think the 1949 version may have had June Allison in it! I have seen the Italian Job but don't remember Rossano B at all I suspect he was probably typecast in English Language films and flourished in Italian ones.
ReplyDelete