The film follows the experiences of four sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth - as they enter adulthood and have to navigate their way through the labyrinth of life by overcoming obstacles and finding happiness in their own unique ways.
Saoirse Ronan's acting is profound. Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Eliza Scanlen are marvelous. Timothée Chalamet is amazing. And, of course, there are Laura Dern and Meryl Streep who deliver contrasting - yet, in their own right, powerful - performances. The result is a star-studded medley of impeccable acts, leading to this sublime film.
 |
| Courtesy of Sony Pictures |
The cinematography plays a huge role in capturing and accentuating the characters' expressions most effectively. It has been used, quite subtly, as a lens through which to view the happenings from Jo's (Ronan's character) perspective. It also plays a crucial role in creating parallels between scenes that is an underlying part of the non-linear narrative that is elaborated on in the next paragraph. The score, composed by the acclaimed Alexandre Desplat, is silvery yet stirring, precisely capturing the essence of every scene.
Gerwig has employed a very creative non-linear narrative, where the setting intermittently switches between two timelines, the sisters’ adulthood and childhood, and the way that it has been executed is beautiful. Their childhood is presented as a string of memories, being recounted by Jo. Gerwig has taken scenes with, either, different themes and similar settings, or vice versa, and connected them in a smooth, cohesive flow.
 |
| Courtesy of Sony Pictures |
The synergy between the aforementioned elements is the root of what really stands out about Little Women: the emotions and how they have been depicted. The way Gerwig was able to portray the depth and nature of the distinct bonds between each of the characters in a mere two hours is astounding. The film invokes an overwhelming mélange of emotions in the audience that are just so pure and unadulterated, be it of elation or sorrow; this is what makes it as memorable as it is.
Now, for the problem: it is a film about women. This was Greta Gerwig's fatal mistake. She jeopardized her own prospects of doing well at the major awards. She surely denied herself any possibility of winning the Academy Award for Best Director; even the chances of getting nominated were slim.
Of course, the previous paragraph is a bit hyperbolic; however, it does contain a hint of veracity. Here is what an anonymous Oscar voter said in an interview with The Daily Beast:
"I’ve been avoiding watching "Little Women" because I don’t like that story. I saw a clip and it was exactly what I thought that film was gonna be — syrupy — but apparently it’s not that bad."
Of course, the previous paragraph is a bit hyperbolic; however, it does contain a hint of veracity. Here is what an anonymous Oscar voter said in an interview with The Daily Beast:
"I’ve been avoiding watching "Little Women" because I don’t like that story. I saw a clip and it was exactly what I thought that film was gonna be — syrupy — but apparently it’s not that bad."
Syrupy? It’s possible to gauge that the entire film is syrupy from one clip? As an Oscar voter, they can avoid watching a nominee just because they do not "like that story"? On what basis did they decide that?
While these are all relevant questions, the most fateful one, in my opinion, is: how many other Oscar voters had preconceived notions, akin to this, about Little Women?
The issue is not just that the predominantly middle-aged white male demographic of the Academy might not end up watching films like Little Women, it is that they are not expected to, a perception propagated implicitly, and mostly inadvertently, by the media as well. In an article by IndieWire, a discussion of Gerwig's unlikeliness to get a Best Director nomination is immediately followed by the statement: "Only 32 percent of Academy voters, however, are women." Why should it be assumed that only women will vote for Gerwig? If a contender is deserving, it really should not matter.
An article by Vanity Fair notes that attendance for the first screening of Little Women in October, and others that Sony Pictures had hosted in the weeks following it around Los Angeles, had a women to men ratio of about two to one. Producer Amy Pascal is right on the money when she says, "It's a completely unconscious bias. I don't think it's anything like a malicious rejection," as mentioned in the same article. The Academy should not need a higher percentage of women for it to be able to laud films such as Little Women, its members should simply have the openness to watch them and hold them in the same regard as any other (male-centric) film.
As Jo thoughtfully asks in the film, "Well, who will be interested in a story of domestic struggles and joys?" Unfortunately, mostly women. Though, in my opinion, men should, I definitely think that a lot of them would not be interested in watching Little Women; but when you are an Academy voter comparing other films alongside it, the situation is different.
Nevertheless, I hope that the main takeaway from my superlative-infused review is that Little Women is worth the watch, regardless of whether you are a guy or girl, because, while it may be a story about many things, most of all, it is a story about humanity.
P.S. This article was written by a male who is of the viewpoint that Little Women should be a front-runner for the Academy Award for Best Picture and that Greta Gerwig deserved a Best Director nomination.
 |
| Courtesy of Sony Pictures |
I am not saying that if Little Women does not win the Academy Award for Best Picture, the entire system is prejudiced. All I am saying is that it deserves an equal opportunity. Good cinema should be rewarded for being good, irrespective of the gender of the lead. But the problem is a lot deeper, almost intrinsic to Hollywood.
The issue is not just that the predominantly middle-aged white male demographic of the Academy might not end up watching films like Little Women, it is that they are not expected to, a perception propagated implicitly, and mostly inadvertently, by the media as well. In an article by IndieWire, a discussion of Gerwig's unlikeliness to get a Best Director nomination is immediately followed by the statement: "Only 32 percent of Academy voters, however, are women." Why should it be assumed that only women will vote for Gerwig? If a contender is deserving, it really should not matter.
An article by Vanity Fair notes that attendance for the first screening of Little Women in October, and others that Sony Pictures had hosted in the weeks following it around Los Angeles, had a women to men ratio of about two to one. Producer Amy Pascal is right on the money when she says, "It's a completely unconscious bias. I don't think it's anything like a malicious rejection," as mentioned in the same article. The Academy should not need a higher percentage of women for it to be able to laud films such as Little Women, its members should simply have the openness to watch them and hold them in the same regard as any other (male-centric) film.
As Jo thoughtfully asks in the film, "Well, who will be interested in a story of domestic struggles and joys?" Unfortunately, mostly women. Though, in my opinion, men should, I definitely think that a lot of them would not be interested in watching Little Women; but when you are an Academy voter comparing other films alongside it, the situation is different.
Nevertheless, I hope that the main takeaway from my superlative-infused review is that Little Women is worth the watch, regardless of whether you are a guy or girl, because, while it may be a story about many things, most of all, it is a story about humanity.
P.S. This article was written by a male who is of the viewpoint that Little Women should be a front-runner for the Academy Award for Best Picture and that Greta Gerwig deserved a Best Director nomination.
 |
| Courtesy of Sony Pictures |
Comments
Post a Comment