Now Reading
LITTLE WOMEN: A Bland Adaptation Of Not-So-Little Proportion

LITTLE WOMEN: A Bland Adaptation Of Not-So-Little Proportion

LITTLE WOMEN: A Bland Adaptation of Not-So-Little Proportion

Modern retellings of old works are tricky business: On the one hand, contemporary tastes necessitate some tweaks to formulas that may have worked in the past, yet distancing the new work from its predecessor runs the risk of alienating fans and newcomers alike with some Frankenstein of an adaptation. More importantly, a modern retelling fundamentally fails if the writing department cannot grasp with the ideas of the source material adequately enough to shift it into a contemporary setting. Little Women, the umpteenth take on Louisa May Alcott’s beloved protofeminist novel, is a prime example of a modern retelling gone wrong, not only by failing to take advantage of the hundred-plus years of cultural change, but by grossly mischaracterizing the characters – and, by association – the soul of the original tale.

After Gillian Armstrong’s take, one of sound mind might figure a footnote be placed on the cinematic legacy of Alcott’s tale. A masterpiece by no measures, it remains most viewers’ definitive version of the film through a balanced sense of sincerity that never teetered on the saccharine, as well as some lively performances from Winona Ryder and Susan Sanderson among many others. But in the 24 years since the film, countless adaptations have been made, including a television series, a recently announced film to be directed by Greta Gerwig, and a few operatic iterations as well.

This year’s rendition comes from first time director Clare Niederpruem and is distributed by Pure Flix Entertainment, the company which can be likened to the A24 for Christian film buffs. They’re the party guilty of disseminating low brow propaganda like God’s Not Dead, a revered title for the easily manipulated and garbage-tier cinema enthusiasts alike. Unlike their hallmark franchise, Little Women leans more toward Hallmark territory: Boring, inoffensive, and a structural mess.

So close yet so far

In a plot spanning a clearly defined but chronologically muddled 16 years, Jo March (The Hatred star Sarah Davenport) takes center stage in the family drama. She is surrounded by her sisters Beth (Allie Jennings), Meg (Melanie Stone), and Amy (Elise Jones), as well as the March matriarch, Marmee (Lea Thompson). While the crux of Jo’s personal arch is her quest to find her voice as an author, the main story is less defined by an overarching goal than it is by interspersed happenings that affect the March women in a variety of ways, often to add conflict.

LITTLE WOMEN: A Bland Adaptation of Not-So-Little Proportion
source: Pure Flix Entertainment

Some of these conflicts are relatively simple alterations to the original formula, like replacing scarlet fever with a much stronger illness which modern medicine has yet to defeat, like leukemia. This makes sense, and is a simple, effective change. Others, like replacing Amy’s near-drowning to bring her and Jo closer together with a horse-riding accident, are merely odd creative differences. By and large much of what happens in the film happens in the 1994 adaptation, only much worse, and often with more unintended humor (especially the horse riding scene, which was certainly only inserted to pander to Pure Flix’s horse-loving demographic).

But a substantial deal of this unintended humor is more unfortunate than it is a blessing for those watching out of morbid curiosity to satisfy their so-bad-it’s-good cravings. It feels rotten to laugh at some of this film’s shortcomings, if only because the sincerity that couples the accidental goofiness is palpable at every turn. Little Women may not be a work of commendable standing, but at least it isn’t a cynical cash grab – or worse, God’s Not Dead.

Auld acquaintance: Forgotten

The first misstep was the role of Jo: Davenport shows glimpses of believability as the passionate and likable March sister, but can’t seem to tone it down a notch when it’s most needed. This Jo is an unlikeable mess of a protagonist whose most evident traits are obnoxiousness and arrogance, a far cry from the fiery yet pleasant personality she ought to be. The older sisters and Marmee fill the roles relatively well – if only because their presences are not at the forefront like Jo – but they lack anything outside of single trait characterizations that limits the extent to which we can identify with them.

LITTLE WOMEN: A Bland Adaptation of Not-So-Little Proportion
source: Pure Flix Entertainment

Equally important of a failure was the casting of Lucas Grabeel as Laurie Lawrence, the March’s next-door neighbor and admirer. The actor saw great success as a 22-year-old masquerading as a teen in the High School Musical series, and though his baby face allows him to pose as a teen yet again, the awkwardness is stinging. Laurie is devoid of any charm that would pair him with audiences enough to welcome him as an unofficial March brother, and it’s painfully evident how out of touch with contemporary notions of style, etiquette, and simple friendliness the film is the very first instance he meets Jo. In so many words, watching Laurie on screen is a cringe-fest.

The effort to contemporize Little Women, a novel so indebted to the cultural contexts that supported it, is dubious in theory and worse in this execution. Niederpruem and co-writer Kristi Shimek cast the 21st century with minimal surface levels changes that fail to address such changes in times. More than a change in scenery, the move to set Little Women demands, not suggests, addressing certain elements rather than copy-pasting the events of the past; is it not suspect, in 2018, for professors to have relationships with students? The advent of feminism as a dominant ideology pervades viewers’ minds come the time when the March sisters finally marry, but at only one instance is anything remotely tangential to the subject brought up. It’s lazy writing, and purity to source material is an even lazier shield.

Conclusion: Little Women

Little Women will cater to a specific demographic of viewers who are not picky when it comes to the movies they watch, passing off Lifetime and Hallmark movies as good times. That’s fine, and it’s certainly not too bad that this film is spared the heinous Pure Flix religious propaganda insert. But anyone appreciative of the novel or any one of its well-made adaptations will recognize the shallow hunk of junk this really is.

What do you think about Little Women? Is there room to explore the novel further today or should these adaptations be halted? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below! 

Little Women was released in theaters in the US on September 28, 2018. For all international release dates, see here.

Does content like this matter to you?


Become a Member and support film journalism. Unlock access to all of Film Inquiry`s great articles. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about cinema - get access to our private members Network, give back to independent filmmakers, and more.

Join now!

Scroll To Top