Name: Retro Film Review: Little Women (1994)
Item: Little Women
Rating: 70
Author: @drax

(source: tcmdb.org)

In good old days Hollywood movies served one important purpose besides being simple entertainment for the masses. They presented imaginary worlds usually better than our own and, as such, created tiny glimmer of hope that things might get better one day. In 1990s it was usually quite the opposite. The movies were dominated by life extinction meteorites, cannibalistic serial killers, philosophical assassins and other things that made even the worst possible reality preferable to the imagination of an average Hollywood screenwriter. Fortunately, there were still some movies that had applied the values of an Old Hollywood era. One of such was Little Women, 1994 drama directed by Gillian Armstrong.

The plot of the film is based on the semiautobiographical novel by Louise May Alcott (1832-1888), book that turned out to be one of the first bestsellers in the history of American literature. Alcott's book continued to be popular in 20th Century and served as a basis for numerous films and television adaptations. The plot is set in the city of Concord, Massachusetts during the American Civil War. The times are hard for everyone and that includes the March family. Father went to fight in the Union Army, so his wife Marmee (played by Susan Sarandon) must take care of her four adolescent daughters. Two older daughters - Meg (played by Trini Alvarado) and Jo (played by Winona Ryder) - are afraid that they would end up like spinsters, since every available man seems to be fighting in the war. The ordeal seems to be over when they discover young handsome neighbour Laurie (played by Christian Bale) and his equally handsome tutor John Brooke (played by Eric Stoltz). Yet March sisters' romantic woes are nothing compared with tragedies and other ordeals that await the whole family.

Period setting and the casting of Winona Ryder in the main role are reasons why this film is going to be compared with Scorsese's The Age of Innocence. The similarities between two films are only superficial, though. While Edith Wharton used her novel for cold and almost scientific depiction of American upper class in the second half of 19th Century, Louise May Alcott dealt with characters belonging to middle class and her approach was more subjective, resulting in March family and their surroundings being portrayed almost idyllically. Robin Swicord's screenplay adopted such views, paying only lip service to modern sentiments by putting few mild feminist elements in the characters of Marmee and Jo. Australian director Gillian Armstrong, unlike Scorsese, dealt less with a visual splendour of an age long gone and emphasised characters. In it she was helped by really good cast. Winona Ryder made good impression as a young woman torn between her romantic inclinations and artistic ambitions, and in this she was followed by the actresses playing her sisters. All of them - Trini Alvarado, Claire Danes (as young and sickly Beth), Kirsten Dunst (as younger Amy) and Samantha Mathis (as older Amy) - looked like the future of Hollywood.

Yet, despite good casting, interesting sets and costumes and Armstrong's good direction, the viewers still might feel somewhat cheated - instead of an interesting period piece they received ordinary melodrama. The filmmakers shouldn't be accountable for this, since they only followed Alcott's novel. On the other hand, the limitations of 19th Century novel also turned out to be beneficial for this film – all characters are noble and good, there aren't any villains and human beings generally seem to be kind to each other. Because of the time in which this film was made, Little Women should be recommended for therapeutic reasons.

RATING: 7/10 (+++)

(Note: The text in its original form was posted in Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.reviews on September 13th 2002)