Little Women is an upcoming American theatrical film from 2018, directed by Clare Niederpruem, from a screenplay by Niederpruem and Kristi Shimekm, based on the 1868 novel of the same name by Louisa May Alcott. It stars Sarah Davenport, Allie Jennings, Lucas Grabeel, Ian Bohen and Lea Thompson.
It is scheduled to be released on September 28, 2018.
Celebrate the 150th anniversary of the beloved classic. New generation, same sisters.
Initial release: September 28, 2018 (USA)
Director: Clare Niederpruem
Music composed by: Robert Allen Elliott
Story by: Louisa May Alcott
Screenplay: Clare Niederpruem, Kristi Shimek
Little Women online news
Review: The small women of PBS are completely modern
It is difficult to conceptualize how challenging the adaptation of the Little Women novel of 1868 is until you are looking at the three hours of the last attempt, arriving at PBS on May 13. At first glance, history seems to be a fairly obvious choice: it is a full story of four American sisters who reached the age of majority in the early 1860s, during a difficult year for their family and the entire country. “Christmas will not be Christmas without gifts,” the narrative begins, while tomboy Jo March (Maya Hawke) lies on the floor and screams about his family’s financial problems. Today’s children still worry about Christmas gifts; At least at the beginning, Little Women feels approachable.
But quickly – much faster than the happily written prose of Louisa May Alcott – the story of these four “poor” girls, mostly educated at home with unconventional ideas about God, family and purpose, becomes in an especially strange hybrid of Victorian style. family dynamics moralizing and passive-aggressive.
This is an indirect way of saying that although the PBS attempt is not good, it is condemned precisely because it is a faithful adaptation. Small women forced credibility as a poignant tale even in the famous 1994 film version; in 2018, the story reads as an unadulterated tragedy.
Each energetic daughter is not only obliged to take into account the outlaw role of women in the world; they are also encouraged with all their hearts to embrace their confinement, through homeschooling based on their parents’ faith. Jo is a literary hero for all ages, and one that the gay community usually claims, but spends most of the story suffering, almost in its entirety because it is not very bright. Meanwhile, she is pretty, blonde, straight Amy (Kathryn Newton) who catches the piece and her assistant fortune.
In The Guardian, Samantha Ellis notes that the main characters only become “little women” after “being domesticated and subdued and abandon their dreams,” or perish, like poor Beth (Annes Elwy). Amy is the only character that accepts that she must conform to advance in life; and so, appropriately, she does it. This production is an energetic, pretty effort that particularly stands out to bring to life the rural, crumbling charm of Concord, Massachusetts, but its sensitivity is so poorly applied that Amy cheeky, sly and petulant matriarch Aunt March (Angela Lansbury) are the most human characters on your list.
In the novel, they bite and sometimes they are unpleasant; on the screen, they manage to cross the acrid joy of the story. In fact, the most triumphant moments of these Little Women are the isolated cases in which Lansbury – a gift in any cast – interacts not with March’s girls or their ignorant parents, but with a scarlet macaw and a wandering hen. (The macaw, lovingly nibbling at Amy’s hair tie during a memorable scene, is the second best comedian in the cast.)
The realities of Little Women’s subtext do not prevent the PBS production from endeavoring to sell the viewer the nostalgia of soft focus of a period piece. An emo-folky score fills every corner and aural crack, effectively representing the story without a moment’s respite. First we meet the girls getting dressed, tying petticoats and corsets with an intimate affection that is practically romantic; when Jo takes a pair of scissors and approaches Amy’s hair with a mocking threat, the tone is less brotherly than sexual. And while the March girls, led by the older Meg (Willa Fitzgerald), are played by enthusiastic performers, they often seem disconnected from each other, as if each were abandoned in their own conception of the Little Women.
At first, this goes a little charming; at the third hour, when a sister is flirting with another sister’s boyfriend, the emotional lines are particularly disorienting.
The saga takes the viewer through the end of the Civil War and a flurry of romances, as each girl finds her way through her adolescence. Fans of the book will recognize almost all their favorite scenes, with some ellipses of simplification (sorry, extended metaphors of Pilgrim’s Progress); A surprising but useful deviation from the book adds more mouth-to-mouth kisses than Alcott would have approved. And some components of the miniseries work quite well.
Each daughter has a recognizable individual relationship with Marmee, who in Emily Watson’s trustworthy hands appears as a character who struggles with charges rather than an encryption of tranquility.
The devotees of the Little Women could argue that Heidi Thomas, who wrote the adaptation, is just being faithful to the book, in which, as you will remember, Marmee gives her daughters pastel copies of The Pilgrim’s Progress and Meg makes her own jam. Part of what has made the novel an enduring classic for 150 years is how it connotes a different era, replete with hand-curled corkscrew, embroidered slippers and pink and white ice cream. But there is something deliberate about the design elements of the series, and there is also a reason why artificial flower shops and coffee shops crowd the doors of their doorsteps with the right sage tone. When it distracts you how beautiful something looks, you do not care so much about its foundations.
Benedict Cumberbatch as Patrick Melrose Patrick Melrose is a lacerating Force Tour SOPHIE GILBERT Louis C.K. Louis C.K. and the Lost Redemption Point HANNAH GIORGIS Ethan Hawke gesticulating Ethan Hawke recognizes the poptimismo in Hollywood DAVID SIMS
What is at stake is high for any new Little Woman. The last time the beloved novel about a family of four sisters on the cusp of femininity was adapted for the screen was the 1994 Oscar-nominated film, starring Winona Ryder as Jo and Susan Sarandon as Marmee.
Australian director Gillian Armstrong gave that film a decidedly feminist bent, even though she shied away from the word “f” in promotional interviews. Thomas, who created the BBC / PBS series Call the Midwife – an unlikely cult hit of a show about nurses in London in 1950 – seems to have been forced by the desire to make the book more accessible to the modern public. Hence the indie folk and crowns of dried fruit, and the amplified sense of Marche’s economic anxiety. But the result is a kind of uneven and out-of-series production in which the sisters, for example, laugh happily on their way to relieve the Hummel family of their ruinous and sordid poverty.
If there’s anything to appreciate about this Little Women, it’s the casting. Maya Thurman-Hawke plays Jo, and her ethereal slightly alien beauty and direct manners (both evoke her Hollywood lineage) combine well with the most famous tomboy in literature.
The English actress Emily Watson plays Marmee, the bold and unbreakable matriarch of the family. Dylan Baker is Mr. March, a pastor who lost family fortune years ago and is now ministering to Union soldiers in the Civil War. Angela Lansbury, 92, plays Aunt March, a war ax of a woman whose close relationship with the family seems to be due to her disdain for her nephew’s impassability. And Michael Gambon, Dumbledore himself, plays Mr. Laurence (the neighbor of the Marches), deviating and entering by an American accent that seems to be annoying.
Thomas retains many of the classic scenes in the book, including Amy’s pickled lime debacle (Kathryn Newton), Meg’s burned curls (Willa Fitzgerald) and Beth’s piano recitals (Annes Elwy) for Mr. Laurence. But she rewrites almost everything in her own words, which sometimes works and sometimes feels strangely anachronistic. In one scene, Jo complains that most people “soften up at Christmas,” but not Aunt March. In another, he tells Laurie that he has to “pretend I’m having fun.” Again, it seems an attempt to modernize a classic for the contemporary public, but it does not work.
Thomas adds a series of scenes that show a deep connection not only with Little Women, but with the life of Louisa May Alcott. Alcott idealized and sanitized his own family to create Marches, and Thomas connects with the real story of Alcott when he suggests that Beth’s shyness is really a deep anxiety, and that Mr. March is a dreamer whose suicidal approach to winning life has cost the expensive family. “I’ve been working on my book for 20 years, and yes, it’s starting to pay off,” he says. “It’s a wonderful achievement, father,” answers Jo. “And a luxury that I’m not convinced to have.”
However, the contrast between these more daring moments of realism and the 19th century Coachella costume party that hangs over the series is uncomfortable. With a more appropriate score for the time, the visual elements might seem less sad (after all, the madness of the eighteenth century for everything picturesque is much older than the age of the influencers). As things stand, the overall effect is undeniably beautiful but somewhat disconcerting, a bit like Instagram Avolato. She is a well-intentioned and up-to-date woman, but she is not a classic.
“Little woman”? It’s been done before, right? And pretty good, what could another version offer?
Swicord listened to those questions in 1994 while promoting the latest film adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel about smart, strong and independent March sisters. And she is hearing echoes of those same complaints, formulated as questions nowadays as producer of the new version of Greta Gerwig from “Little Women”.
And, yes, she finds the logic behind the interrogation quite … interesting.
“I remember that right after our ‘Little Women’ came out, there was another movie about King Arthur [1995 ‘First Knight’], and I still do not remember hearing anyone wondering why we needed another movie about the Knights of the Round Table. “Swicord says. “It seemed a little funny to me that it was only the ‘Little Women’ who answered those kinds of questions.”
A quarter of a century will have passed between “Little Women” of 1994, a commercial and critical success beautifully brought to life by the Australian director Gillian Armstrong, and the version that Gerwig will start shooting in Boston with Saoirse Ronan, Meryl Streep, Emma Stone and Timothée. Chalamet this October.
During the intervening years, there were three restarts of the “Spider Man” franchise, a dozen Madea movies, 13 “X-Men” entries and a constant cultural shake of Batmen and Supermen and 007s.
But the first film version of “Little Women” in a generation? That’s where some people, judging by the comments on the websites that reported the news of Gerwig’s adaptation, do you want to draw the line
To these objectors, it is worth noting that the themes and characters of “Little Women” are so strong and timeless that not even the wild stabbing of William Shatner with a German accent for “Hogan’s Heroes” – interpreted Professor Bhaer, the love interest of Jo and a problematic figure among many devotees of the “little women”, in an adaptation of the 1978 miniseries, can derail its impact.