OK, Girls, Here Is "Little Women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

                                Let's start with Beth.  She is the most problematic character in the story, and the most difficult one to play.  Most Beths I have seen take the easy way out--we know from the start she is the one who dies--and anyone who does not, does not know this story, and should read the Louisa May Alcott classic, which is one of the seminal works in American literature--so all most do is sit around, mope, looking sad and tired, until it is time for them to drop.  But Eliza Scanlen, fresh from her triumph as psycho killer Amma Crellin in 2018's "Sharp Objects," brings to Beth a spine, a sharpness she has never shown, in addition to her everlasting kindness and love of music.  And her suffering is as depicted as realistically as in any version I have seen.  When Beth goes, in this version,   it is truly heartbreaking, and it is the scene pictured above, that stays in my memory, as it is the most heartbreaking one in the entire film.

                                 Besides Scanlen, thanks should be given to adaptor/director Greta Gerwig, and cinematographer Yorick Le Saux.  Much of the success of this film comes from how the actors are staged, the scenes are lit, and because of Le Saux's brilliant composition, "Little Women" succeeds where it may not have, because of this, and the risk Gerwig takes.

                                  That risk is telling the story in a non-linear way.  Now, Aaron Sorkin did the same thing with "To Kill A Mockingbird," on Broadway, but  this approach works better with "Little Women," which turns out, at the end, to come full circle, causing Saoirse Ronan's excellent portrayal of Jo March, to evolve into Louisa May Alcott.  Clever, Greta, clever.  Though the opening of the film can be confusing to those who know the story, and even those who do not, by the end, an understanding is reached.  It takes time to be sucked into this "Little Women," but within several minutes, the warmth of the story and the brilliance of the actors reeled me in.  Though, perhaps still recovering from the heartbreak of Beth's passing, I was confused, following, to see a scene of Meg's wedding, which, obviously takes place before Beth's passing, because there she is in the midst of everything, energetic, and dancing her heart out.  Literally.

                                      Now, Meg.  Emma Watson blends in wonderfully, but is not the stunning beauty Meg ought to be.  The ball sequence, and some of the camera shots on stairs, makes it clear Gerwig has seen "Gone With The Wind," as these look like shots taken from that film.  For my money, Trini Alvarado in the 1994 version, was the best Meg, and if Watson is not up to Alvarado she does not, at least, destroy the ensemble blending of the piece.

                                         Saoirse Ronan, whom I did not realize was so tall, is an impassioned Jo March, and nails all the character's eccentricities by not overplaying them.  I was worried Laura Dern might come off too contemporary as Marmee (I cannot believe she is old enough to play it!) but she gives a beautifully understated portrayal, and, like Scanlen , underplays the character so that she does not come off as sickeningly sweet and cheerful.  Her speeches on human wisdom are  all the more thoughtful, and intended for all of us to ponder.

                                             There is not a bad actor in the bunch.  I did not recognize Chris Cooper, an unexpected choice for Laurie's grandfather, but he makes his screen time count.  As does Timothee Chalamet, as Laurie, who, frankly, is called upon to do nothing but look pretty.  He seems to be the silly little simp that Amy is when first encountered, but, especially after the ice accident, and Florence Pugh's transition to lady hood, Amy becomes an unexpected tower of strength in the March family story, and a real surprise,  Miss Pugh does not disappoint with her performance, which is the most evolving of the girls, and her mature scenes with Laurie show a woman who knows herself.  And when she throws herself into Jo's arms, following Beth's death,  saying "I miss her too, Jo.  She was the best of all of us," she echoes my sentiments, and that of the audience.  And tears flowed.

Now, Meryl Streep, as Aunt March. Perfection.  What else can be said?  It is MERYL, after all, Everyone adeptly holds their scenes with her, but whose eye is the audience on?  I cannot believe the Divine MERYL is old enough to play this character.  If, God forbid, another adaptation of "Great Expectations" is brought to the screen, I am sure MERYL will play Miss Havisham.  And she will be the best one since Martita Hunt, in the David Lean, 1947 film.

Perfection also lies in Jayne Houdyshell's portrayal of housekeeper, Hannah.

I am sorry to say the only one to disappoint is Louis Garrel, as Friedrich Bhaer.  He is much too young and good looking for the part, and his age, and lack of romantic convention is what drew Jo to him, and is missing here.  A minor quibble, and since Gerwig does such a nigh perfect job, I wonder why she went soft in her casting, here.

But the beauty, vivacity, and radiance, of Eliza Scanlen's Beth is what makes "Little Women" worth going out to see.  What a smart career move, from "Sharp Objects," to this. And she is just as good here.  I cannot wait to see what she does next.

Same with Greta Gerwig.  I was skeptical when I heard she was doing "Little Women," but she has captured the period and the characters superbly, and in an understated way that belies the lavishness of previous versions. Remember, the March family were considered poor, and Gerwig understands that.

This is the most imbued with humanity film I have seen in years.  Go see it, and ponder on your own lives, darlings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And learn how to be good hostesses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!