(by Aparna Namboodiripad, who comments here as tonks)
I’ve often asked myself why I am so fond of 19th century novels. I never get tired of re- reading them, and find myself repeatedly moved when I do. One reason probably is that classics are stories that have withstood the test of time, so there are qualities in such books that make them ever entertaining. Another reason is that for me, personally, more than plot, or even quality of writing, what makes a book worth reading are the depth, and the believability of its characters. And these century old stories are mostly very strong on their characterisations ( be it Darcy, Tess, or Heathcliff) unlike most modern books. One more reason, I think, is that these books were written before the sexual revolution came to the West, so the prudishness in the society described is similar to that in the middle class South Indian society I belong to. So these stories are perhaps more identifiable (for me) than modern Western books, whose characters’ thoughts and behaviour sometimes feel a little alien. Elizabeth Bennet’s mother plotting schemes for a suitable groom for her daughters could easily be someone I know in real life. I enjoy the romances depicted in these books that are mostly in the mind, and do not/cannot for social reasons become physical, much like the ones seen in our conservative Indian middle class society.
“Little women” is a novel by American author Louisa May Alcott that was originally published in two volumes in 1868 and 1869. I have however read it as one novel, once when I was a teen, and once later in life. Though I did really enjoy the tale of these four young women, I remember being just a little put off by some of the book’s moralising or preaching, the bits where the girls are told to be self- sacrificing. I was looking forward to watching the movie when it released, especially on learning about all its awards and nominations, and was finally able to watch it on Prime some days back.
The million dollar question asked whenever one watches a movie after reading a book is : does the movie live up to the book? Even though I understand how certain situations and events in the book need to be modified to suit visual representation, and how many characters may need to be trimmed or left out altogether to fit the story into the shorter frame of a movie, non withstanding all that, it leaves me traumatized when major changes are brought to the plot in the movie version. This is because the story in the book has happened in my mind already, and showing a slightly different story on screen, is akin to lying (for me). So even though my last reading of the book was many years back, and my memory rusty for a detailed recall, I was happy to see that the movie seemed to be more or less true to the book, in almost all the major plot details. Jo’s character in the book was that of a tomboy, and though that has been well brought out in the movie too, Saoirse Ronan is altogether a lot more pretty than the Jo March I had made up in my mind’s eye, but she got into the character so much that I could forget that after a while. And I belong to one of the majority who likes their leads to be easy on the eye, so that was easily forgivable. The movie goes back and forth through two different time frames, until they merge in the end, and because the characters do not change much in looks between frames, I found this a little confusing at times when scenes changed, not knowing which was the present and which the past. Perhaps it is because this is a modern day retelling of the story, but the element of women’s empowerment in the story that Jo’s character’s behaviour and ultimate fate gives us, to me seemed very much emphasised in the movie. I do not recall that in the book, though the original story is admittedly that of achieving equality, that of a girl frustrated by the fact that there were then so few options open to a girl other than marriage. I suspect the movie has been modified a little to suit modern sensibilities of equality. Jo March is a character who is truly ahead of her times as is evident from some of her dialogues :
“Women have minds and souls as well as just hearts, and they’ve got ambition and talent as well as just beauty. And I’m sick of people saying love is all a woman is fit for.”
“I intend to make my own way in this world.”
And the cynically witty observation when her editor tries to sell her short after suggesting changes to her story :
“If I’m going to sell my heroine into marriage for money, I might as well get some of it.”
While Saoirse Ronan excels as Jo, Timothée Chalamet gives a convincing performance as the rich, but purposeless Laurie. He had played a similar shallow character opposite Saoirse Ronan in Ladybird, a movie that is streaming on Netflix. Emma Watson is perfect as Meg March, the less ambitious of the sisters who prefers marriage and family to ambitions, and when Jo questions this, she tells her, “Just because my dreams are different than yours, it doesn’t mean they’re unimportant.”
The heart of the story is about how Jo successfully overcomes her hurdles after a few years of frustration, but it is also a coming of age tale, of the sisters growing up into young adults and of the ways in which they achieve their very different expectations in life . The direction is skillful, and almost all the major details of the book are smoothly incorporated into the much shorter duration of the film, which made it one of those rare movies that live up to the standards of the book it is based on.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Anu Warrier
May 23, 2020
Like you, I have a great fondness for the novels of those times. And Louisa May Alcott has been a particular favourite. But of those four books, my favourite has always been Jo’s Boys. I did like the adaptation very much, though I too, thought, Jo was too pretty to be Jo. After all, in the book, she bemoans her lack of looks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
May 23, 2020
One other observation I had is how these old books have characters dying of diseases that are harmless now. Scarlet fever and its complications in the heart that Beth dies of, is easily treated in modern times by Penicillin, and is quite a benign disease now. Another disease that kills off many a character in books of this time is “consumption”(TB), again now fully curable. It’s also quaint how they believed that the air of the sea-side had healing properties.
LikeLike
tonks
May 23, 2020
The book is autobiographical. The events that happened in real life are very similar to what happens in the book, too.
From Wikipedia :
In 1868 Thomas Niles, the publisher of Louisa May Alcott, recommended that she write a book about girls that would have widespread appeal.[4]:2 At first she resisted, preferring to publish a collection of her short stories. Niles pressed her to write the girls’ book first, and he was aided by her father Amos Bronson Alcott, who also urged her to do so.[4]:207 Louisa confided to a friend, “I could not write a girl’s story knowing little about any but my own sisters and always preferring boys”, as quoted in Anne Boyd Rioux’s Meg Jo Beth Amy, a condensed biographical account of Alcott’s life and writing
In May 1868 Alcott wrote in her journal: “Niles, partner of Roberts, asked me to write a girl’s book. I said I’d try.”[8]:36 Alcott set her novel in an imaginary Orchard House modeled on her own residence of the same name, where she wrote the novel.[4]:xiii She later recalled that she did not think she could write a successful book for girls and did not enjoy writing it.[9]:335- “I plod away,” she wrote in her diary, “although I don’t enjoy this sort of things.”[8]:37
By June, Alcott had sent the first dozen chapters to Niles, and both agreed these were dull. But Niles’ niece Lillie Almy read them and said she enjoyed them.[9]:335–336 The completed manuscript was shown to several girls, who agreed it was “splendid.” Alcott wrote, “they are the best critics, so I should definitely be satisfied.”[8]:37 She wrote Little Women “in record time for money,”[7]:196×2 but the book’s immediate success surprised both her and her publisher.[10]
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
May 24, 2020
Louisa May Alcott is from my neck of the woods. I’ve visited the original Orchard House.
Re: TB – yeah, the idea was that a move to a more salubrious climate would help ease the suffering. But that’s TB; I remember being rather taken aback as a kid, reading about the Famous Five being quarantined for colds, and sent off to Wales to recuperate. 🙂
LikeLike
Doba
May 24, 2020
Thank you so much for writing this article. I watched Little Women and have been longing to discuss it with someone.
In the climax of Little Women, we see Jo March watch, with that exquisite mixture of pride and joy, her book get published while her family seems settled and happy. It was a wonderful scene, a departure from the books and previous versions but oh so fitting! I have been a fan of Little Women right from my childhood and am usually very protective of childhood favourites. When Peter Jackson modified (massacred?) Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, I wanted to explore the legal rights of fans of the written word against the butchery of movie makers. But here, I was very forgiving and in fact applauded the changes that Greta had made.
Again and again, the books and movie show that Jo was “wed” to her family. She, unlike Meg and Amy, is not looking for a husband. In a funny scene, she is actually jealous of Mr. Brooke for taking Meg away from her. We see Jo bring in money for the father’s illness and for Beth’s treatment. This “married to the family” notion of Jo’s is shared by Beth which explains their closeness despite the closeness of age between Meg and Jo and the similar artistic ambitions in Jo and Amy. Jo thinks of Laurie again (in the movie) due to loneliness after Beth’s death. Her heartbreak is not that of losing a lover but that of losing her family. Greta completely got this. So we see the “happily ever after” scene at the end of the movie where Jo is publishing a book that will realise her ambitions and secure her family’s future. Did Jo marry Mr. Bhaer? Greta teases us saying “do you really care? Did Jo really care?”
The second point that Greta captured from the book was the conflict between ideals and the pragmatism of money. Should pretty Meg marry for money or marry for love? Should Jo write popular or sensational books? Should Amy marry Fred Vaughn or the slightly less rich Laurie? Marmee suggests that it should always be ideals. But the little women have to find their way. The climax of this conflict is captured in a worldly wise speech about money from Amy to Laurie. The speech was splendid and I can imagine Amy (from the book) saying it. But would she know so much about law? The movie suggests that she learned these lessons from Aunt March. I could buy that somewhat.
My quarrel with the movie was that I wanted more of Beth. Very shy, completely unambitious, almost a saint and yet so loveable. I wanted that beautiful heart wrenching sentence from Jo in the book, “Beth is my conscience.” Also, Alcott definitely lost her writing plot in her later two books. They had no humour, the good became irritating and Jo became utterly domesticated. I don’t know what happened there.
Lastly, what a pleasure it is to see such good acting (except Emma Watson). An intelligent script and sensitive performances made this movie a real treat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
May 25, 2020
I remember the Five being quarantined too, but my distant memory gives the reason as Scarlet fever. I do not think it likely to have been a simple cold.
Actually though good air does play a small role in preventing illness : Scarlet fever, and its dreaded complication Rheumatic fever (both are caused by the same Bacteria) are more in crowded surroundings. That is true for most contagious air borne infections, I guess. And when one does not have a cure (as in the 19th century), quarantining and distancing would be the only remedy. And as we have found out in 2020, too 😀
LikeLike
tonks
May 25, 2020
Doba : Great comment, beautifully articulated thoughts.
In the climax of Little Women, we see Jo March watch, with that exquisite mixture of pride and joy, her book get published while her family seems settled and happy. It was a wonderful scene, a departure from the books and previous versions but oh so fitting!
Yes, that final scene was exquisitely taken, and was very satisfying.
Did Jo marry Mr. Bhaer? Greta teases us saying “do you really care? Did Jo really care?”
Since Jo seems to have been an autobiographical character, and Jo is shown to be told explicitly by her publisher to rewrite and make her heroine happily wedded at the end of the book so sales increase, I am guessing that this happened to the author in real life, too. She herself remained unmarried to the end.
From Wikipedia :
Alcott was an abolitionist and a feminist and remained unmarried throughout her life. All her life she was active in such reform movements as temperance and women’s suffrage
So the movie is probably being truer to the book Alcott originally wrote than the final published version by leaving that question open ended.
I loved these thoughts :
The second point that Greta captured from the book was the conflict between ideals and the pragmatism of money. Should pretty Meg marry for money or marry for love? Should Jo write popular or sensational books? Should Amy marry Fred Vaughn or the slightly less rich Laurie? Marmee suggests that it should always be ideals. But the little women have to find their way.
And I get exactly what you mean by this :
When Peter Jackson modified (massacred?) Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, I wanted to explore the legal rights of fans of the written word against the butchery of movie makers
Hilarious, but though Tolkien’s writing is beautiful, and his imagination unparalleled, I’ve always personally felt he could have used a little tighter editing 😀
LikeLike
tonks
May 25, 2020
Jo March’s character with its tom-boyishness, dislike of behaviour thought to be lady like, and dislike of the idea of marriage/ romance had lesbian/queer overtones. Perhaps the movie, by leaving the question of her marriage open ended, serves to tilt towards the idea of a queer/ transgender Jo.
This thought is explored in the following piece :
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.them.us/story/little-women-greta-gerwig-jo-march-queer/amp
LikeLike
brangan
May 25, 2020
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doba
May 25, 2020
Thank you Tonks for sharing that link.
While the thought of Jo being lesbian is really appealing, I just don’t find that clue in the books. Probably it is there, as pointed out, in the movie. The book Jo does not have a meaningful interaction with any woman who is not an immediate relative.
Regarding Tolkien, what can I say 🙂 ? I loved the prose but accept what you say.
But the man began writing the book when he was in the trenches. He was disgusted by the violence and pointlessness of war and has privately acknowledged his won cowardice when it comes to physical acts of bravery. Hence the heroes are not the swashbuckling warriors but the quiet farmers. To watch those books transformed into a Hollywood action adventure was beyond painful. Plus what did he do to Frodo? That was criminal.
LikeLike
tonks
May 25, 2020
Wow. Thank you for sharing that link, BR.
That is a very thorough review of the movie, and it alters the way I had seen it. I loved the point he makes of the movie opening with Jo’s scene with her editor putting her ambition right in the centre of the plot, and showing the past timeline in brighter colours giving it the hue of memory/ making it scenes in Jo’s Little women book. It makes perfect sense. So does his interpretation of the two alternate endings.
LikeLike
Rahul
May 25, 2020
@Tonks – I think the wording here is very important – >
“get over [her] disappointment in being a woman.”
as against –
“get over [her] disappointment in being BORN AS a woman.”
The former is a lamentation on the state of women, while at the same time affirming her identity as a woman. The latter is not what was said but will be closer to a trans identity.
It is notable that some famous women in literature like Daniel Defoe’s Roxana and to some extent Moll Flanders by the same author shunned the traditional role of women and also rejected the institution of marriage as an “economic proposition” (specifically Roxana) , just like Jo March.
My point is that while looking for a trans identity, are we unintentionally (and ironically) reducing the space for what is considered as expected behavioural patterns for women?
LikeLike
tonks
May 26, 2020
The former is a lamentation on the state of women, while at the same time affirming her identity as a woman. The latter is not what was said but will be closer to a trans identity.
Point taken, absolutely, because nowhere in the book is it explicitly stated that Jo March is lesbian/ transgender.
Another dialogue in the book from her, “It’s bad enough to be a girl, anyway, when I like boys’ games and work and manners! I can’t get over my disappointment in not being a boy.”
Which can, of course, be interpreted to be just a girl who prefers masculine activities, but to me, it seems open to other interpretations, too. Especially because books of those times boringly so rarely had characters that were not straight (the editors probably did not allow that), it is interesting and fun, to conjecture.
LikeLike