 In retrospect, it would've made more sense for this to be a challenge between Lady Bird and Booksmart (a Beanie Feldstein double feature, hell yeah!). But I've seen Lady Bird at least 4 times and I HADN'T EVEN SEEN THE NEW LITTLE WOMEN yet, so it had to be this way. That being said, prepare to be shook... Little Women (2019)Directed by: Greta Gerwig Written by: Greta Gerwig Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet IMDB Synopsis: Jo March reflects back and forth on her life, telling the beloved story of the March sisters - four young women, each determined to live life on her own terms. Greta Gerwig..."I've never had a plan. I've always done things from instinct."
Before I can talk about Gerwig's Little Women, it is paramount that I adequately express how critically fundamental this story was to my upbringing: I am the youngest of three daughters. I grew up obsessively watching The Original (I know there are a dozen versions, but this is how I will refer to the 1994 one starring Winona Ryder). Jo March invented the iconic "Tomboy Writer" that I spent the rest of my adolescence trying to emulate, and she was my goddamn hero. I cannot emphasize this enough. To be honest, I really put off watching this one because 1) I really like Gerwig, and 2) The Original holds such a dear and significant place in my heart that I was extremely reticent to believe any reiteration could possibly hold so much as a candle to it. Please observe Exhibit A: Is that Baby Sarah playing Jo March in the high school play??? OH YOU KNOW IT IS.
So prepare the tar and feather, folks, because I'm sorry to say I was right. Gerwig's might've been better than my sophomore debut, but it did not succeed my expectations. NOW LET ME EXPLAIN: This was ALWAYS going to be a battle of Gerwig vs. The Original. So let's break it down as such. What Worked For Me:1) Emma Watson as Meg: I'll tell you what, I had to look up who even played Original Meg (it's Trini Alverado?) because except for the iconic hair-curl incident (SO glad they kept that) I don't remember her at all. Watson was, as always, fresh and bold and interesting. She was more than just the example of domesticity, she was a woman who consciously chose "love in a cottage," as Aunt March puts it, instead of the simpler (and safer) choice of marrying for money (and what a great foil this is for the other sisters). I love that Gerwig chose to show us how this was not always easy for Meg - she still struggles with wanting more - but that those struggles come with a desire that is more pure and more complicated than just immature vanity. And despite how hard it is at times, she is still ultimately glad with her choice. I was actually reminded of Julia Stiles in Mona Lisa Smile, when Julia Roberts confronts her that being barefoot and pregnant isn't the "feminist" choice: "Isn't that kind of the point of feminism, though? That the woman gets to choose what she wants? Because this is what I want."
2) Beth! God bless Baby Claire Danes, but Gerwig did succeed in actually giving Beth a personality (albeit a exhaustively precious one. Why is she playing with dolls when she's like 16??). She was more than a cardboard cutout, even if it was only in her significance to other characters. Hardly a Bechdel success, but then again I've never been the biggest Claire Danes fan (I know, I know, we can tar and feather me for that later. Sorry, but chin wobbling is not an emotion!) And after watching Eliza Scanlen in the Sharp Objects adaptation, I am excited to see where this little firey one goes.
3) Amy, Amy, Amy. This one is kind of a tie, because NO ONE can compete with Baby Kirsten Dunst setting fire to Jo's book. And I'm sorry, but WHERE was the clothespin on the nose, Greta?? Where was it??
That being said... I simply cannot get enough of Florence Pugh. I could watch her lick envelopes and be on the edge of my seat. She is unique and fascinating and I am obsessed with her round face and husky voice and regal composure and captivating, never-ending inner monologue. I actually didn't mind that Gerwig chose to make them all teenagers much closer in age in the "past" scenes - it certainly made the Amy/Laurie romance later on significantly less awkward, abrupt, and off-putting than the '94 version - but I wish Pugh (who was 23 during filming) had played her like more of a 15 year old instead of a 12 year old. For that reason, Baby Amy award goes to Kirsten, but Pugh blows Dunst out of the goddamn water with her take on Adult Amy. I enjoyed how Gerwig played Amy and Jo off each other - both constantly thinking the other has it better - and their competition was perfectly layered with the genuine affection and jealousy that real sisters share. And my god, Pugh earned that Oscar nom with every syllable of that two-sentence speech on marriage and economics. 4) Now a name that might not be as familiar to you but definitely should be... Jacqueline Durran. She was the Oscar-winning Costume Designer, and you might recognize her other work from such films as Atonement, Pride & Prejudice (2005), Anna Karenina, & Beauty and the Beast (to be clear, I don't think being nominated for or winning an Oscar is the end-all be-all pinnacle of success... but it's hardly the worst indication of exceptional talent either). Period costumes can be tough. They are little works of art, and it takes a delicate nuance to make them feel realistic and lived-in; beautiful, but not distracting. These costumes were orchestrated to look like real outfits, and Durran succeeded in making the actors actually look comfortable in them. They didn't sit on their bodies like high-end couture or ill-fitting community theatre hoop skirts; they looked natural AND beautiful, which is one of MY FAVORITE COMBINATION OF THINGS. (Also of note: the delicate and fresh score by Alexandre Desplat).
5) Finally, the aesthetics in general were gorgeous. From the costumes to the music to the cinematography (Yorick Le Saux), this film was undeniably beautiful. Along that note, the way in which Gerwig and Le Saux worked together to capture the sheer frenzy that exists in a house full of girls was so spot on. The constant chatter, the whirl of clothes and costumes, the bickering, the wrestling, the giggling, the warmth; it was familiar and beautiful and straight up Gilmorian in the best way possible.
|
 |  |
2) Again, I know this shouldn't be a direct compare/contrast with the 1994 "Original," but Timothee Chalamet was NOT the obvious choice as Laurie for me. To be sure, there are parts of Laurie's character that Chalamet totally nailed: he has the wherewithal to be a selfish, lazy, ridiculous fop. But that's not ALL Laurie is! He's also kind and lonely and bored and restless and aggressive and spunky. He should be able to keep up with Jo. Some might argue that Chalamet did all those things (this one really just comes down to personal taste) but I feel like all he did was amplify Laurie's worst qualities and highlight none of his redeeming ones. His essence is all wrong. He's too delicate. For god's sake, the kid doesn't look old enough to babysit. He's 12 years old and weighs about 7 pounds and 8 ounces. He is a baby. Laurie is supposed to be a man. A hotheaded man-child, sure, but not a delicate porcelain man-baby.
You know would've made a great Laurie? Either Josh Hutcherson or Tom Holland would've made a lot more sense to me. I would also accept Justin Chatwin or Nicholas Hoult. Like, someone pretty, but not prettier than Ronan. And he has to look old enough to drive a car, for Christ's sake.
 |  |
3) Let's get one thing straight: I adore Saoirse Ronan. I do. And on the surface, this casting made perfect sense. Of course Gerwig would cast her, of course she would play Jo. I'm still trying to pinpoint exactly what my grievances are. It's not that she wasn't good - she's always "good" - but there was something about her interpretation that just never quite settled into place for me. Even without the comparison to Winona.
Again, I am super disappointed that I feel this way. I was so excited to see Gerwig nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay after her Directing snub (as I am always glad to see women nominated in fields I aspire to), but after having watched it... I'm sorry to say that I get it. I think this excerpt from a really great article on the movie nails part of it:
"Gerwig is one of the most original actors of her time; now she’s directing movies that evoke her own experience, but she doesn’t have actors similar to herself to portray characters who are like herself. Ronan displays, in both movies, conspicuous skill and admirable precision—but not the spontaneity, the creative imagination, the impulsivity that Gerwig herself displays onscreen. Ronan becomes a vessel for characters endowed with Gerwig’s creative fire, but not for the fire itself. (It’s unclear whether this is due to the nature of her own art or to its interface with Gerwig’s direction.) As a result, Ronan is not a powerful presence as Jo March: the character, famous for her anger, for her “temper,” comes off as unduly moderate, both inwardly and outwardly—not in conflict with herself, not repressing that rage, but merely claiming one that’s hardly in danger of bursting forth."
- The Compromises of Greta Gerwig's "Little Women" by Richard Brody, The NY Times
I am so anxious to vocalize my feelings about this because I know that at least amongst my peers, I am in a minority. After a lot of reflection and analysis, I have a two-part theory about why Ronan and the movie as a whole just didn't vibe for me.
First... How many really true distinctions can you name between Ronan's Jo March and Lady Bird? I seriously wracked my mind and all I could come up with was that Lady Bird was a little sassier and a lot hornier. But besides those two qualities (and their outfits) THEY WERE PRETTY SIMILAR CHARACTERS. And that's a bummer. Ronan can do that better that, so I have to chalk this up to a directorial blunder.
First... How many really true distinctions can you name between Ronan's Jo March and Lady Bird? I seriously wracked my mind and all I could come up with was that Lady Bird was a little sassier and a lot hornier. But besides those two qualities (and their outfits) THEY WERE PRETTY SIMILAR CHARACTERS. And that's a bummer. Ronan can do that better that, so I have to chalk this up to a directorial blunder.
 |  |
And Two... The most general grievance I take with this version comes down to the script. I watched it with my partner who has never seen any iteration of the story, and they were SO CONFUSED. I had to keep pausing to explain the jumping back and forth, and to be honest it even tripped me up once or twice. This is Little Women not Lost, people. She chopped up the script until it was barely legible, and unless you were REALLY familiar with the story (or just incredibly talented at observing changing hairstyles) it was confusing to follow. There was nothing in the splicing of the timelines that seemed to actually serve the story, except that it set it apart from any other version of the movie. That's not a good enough reason to do it. Even that one great shot with Marmee at the table juxtaposing when Beth was sick the first time and when Beth was sick the last time (you know the one), I couldn't help feeling that that moment would've been significantly more powerful if it had been spread out.
There was something more subtle, more brash about Ronan's Jo that I didn't hate... what sticks in my mind the strongest is a moment with Marmee when she confesses that even though she doesn't want to marry and she wants to be a self-sufficient, self-made, independent woman, she is so, so lonely. I get that. I really fucking get that. That moment is exactly why the character of Jo March is so close and personal to me. It really sucks feeling exhausted by your own passions because there is no one there to support you in them. I loved her frizzy hair and her tired eyes and the way she moves her hands and her nose gets ugly and red - I love it so much that it makes me angry, because that means Ronan is capable of that and has just been sitting on that the whole time. Where was that when Amy burned her book? Where was that when she turned Laurie down? I wanted more of Lonely Jo, more of Vulnerable Jo. There is a natural reservation to Ronan that I think Gerwig imagines she can circumvent by the sheer existence of Ronan's piercing blue eyes. But just like Claire Danes' wobbly chin, it registers onscreen as a simmer - I want the fucking fire, and I know it's in there. (So, in all fairness to that NY Times quote, I actually speculate that maybe it's not Ronan who isn't living up to Gerwig, maybe it's Gerwig holding back Ronan.)
Ultimately, I really think Gerwig just wanted to make a mini-series about Louisa May Alcott, and I so wish she had! There was NO REASON for this to be 2+ hours long (and this isn't an attention span thing, because my favorite films of 2019 were Parasite and Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and those both clock in over the 2 hour mark). Gerwig's vision did not seem to fit into the feature format, and I wish she hadn't tried to squeeze it all in. I felt like I was looking at a beautiful scrapbook but the all the pages were out of order. Like the pieces were all there, but they just didn't quite fit right. There is plenty of interest and prestige in mini-series now, so surely that could've been done.
And did we really need it to be just another new version of an old classic? I would've LOVED to see a Ronan-starring drama about Louisa May Alcott's real life, interspersed and parodied against the fictionalized version of Little Women (also how Atonement-y would that have been?!). And I know this would've worked, because in the last 20 minutes or so they seem to kind of try and do that? There's that whole bit with the publisher kind of winking at the camera (fantastic little cameo by Tracy Letts) and saying that "her character" should chase after The Boy and we could call it "Under the Umbrella" and Ronan is like "But that didn't happen." Was she actually being Jo March in that moment? Or was she being Louisa May Alcott?? Unclear.
Regardless, this should've been a mini-series about LMA's life and you CAN'T CHANGE MY MIND. Also in my version she's gay. Okay, bye!
 | "I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul put by some freak of nature into a woman's body... Because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.” |
4) OH MY GOD WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT I LITERALLY FORGOT MY #1 SINGLE BIGGEST MOST UNFORGIVABLE ISSUE WITH THIS MOVIE HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
I LITERALLY SPAT OUT MY WINE, STOOD UP, AND SCREAMED:
"BETTER CALL SAUL, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!??!?!"
I'm sorry, but the second he came on the screen I gave up on this whole movie. There was absolutely ZERO reason for Bob Odenkirk to be in this movie. He is balls deep in Better Call Saul right now and that is the ONLY thing audiences are going to think of him as right now. Why on EARTH would you pick him?!?!?!? Surely there was A SINGLE LIVING MIDDLE AGED MAN in Hollywood willing to sport some sideburns for TWO AND A HALF SCENES????? He's literally barely even in it, WHY would you cast such an INSTANTLY recognizable face, and one who's automatic association is to "SLEAZY LAWYER"?!?!??!? GERWIG????? WHO CANCELLED ON YOU AT THE LAST MINUTE???? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING????? I will never forgive her for this.
Booksmart (2019)
Directed by: Olivia Wilde
Written by: Emily Halpern, Sarah Haskins, Susanna Fogel & Katie Silberman
Starring: Kaitlyn Dever & Beanie Feldstein
IMDB Synopsis: On the eve of their high school graduation, two academic superstars and best friends realize they should have worked less and played more. Determined not to fall short of their peers, the girls try to cram four years of fun into one night.
Written by: Emily Halpern, Sarah Haskins, Susanna Fogel & Katie Silberman
Starring: Kaitlyn Dever & Beanie Feldstein
IMDB Synopsis: On the eve of their high school graduation, two academic superstars and best friends realize they should have worked less and played more. Determined not to fall short of their peers, the girls try to cram four years of fun into one night.
Olivia Wilde...
"It's really hard to get stories made that are about women. Not just women being obsessed with men, or supporting men. And it's really hard to get men to be a part of films that are about women in a leading role. I'm really interested in how we can adjust that."
 |  |
I actually watched Booksmart for the first time not that long ago, and I remember thinking it was funny, fresh, but ultimately a little clunky and clumsy - a perfectly adequate accomplishment for a first time director, but I couldn't imagine garnering anything new in the re-watch. Boy was I wrong! It's actually somehow even BETTER the second time around. I know I just wrote an entire novel about Little Women so I'll try to keep this one brief...
FOR STARTERS: The minor characters in this were so fucking hilarious and original and absurd and endearing. It's a challenge to write about high school in a way that's relevant to people of all ages without being derivative (and there are so many high school movies to copy from), but between the writers' meticulous balance of caustic and tender, and Wilde's truly incredible instincts, these people were believable and lovable and familiar and NEW all at the same time.
 Victoria Ruesga as the cool, sexually ambiguous heartthrob: "I don't even know if she likes girls." "Cmon, she wore a polo shirt to prom."  Mason Gooding as the hot jock Veep, who somehow manages to be a fuckboi AND respectful (and a Harry Potter fan?!)  BILLIE GODDAMN LOURD, daughter of Carrie Fisher, giving us ICONIC, effortlessly weird, and ingenious comedic timing as the stupid-rich druggie |  Skyler Gisondo as the preciously desperate white gangsta who's secret dream is to design celebrity airplanes and then use the money to fund new musicals?! Lol! "Enough with the revivals already, I just think audiences deserve something new, you know?"  Jason Sudeikis as the hilariously no-fucks-given Principal / Lyft Driver  Jessica Williams as the sexy and hip Miss Fine (lol) |  Molly Gordon as "Triple A," the slut going to Yale, known for her "roadside assistance"  Eduardo Franco as the near drop-out stoner who's skipping college to go code for Google. "I mean it's not Apple, but the salary starts at mid-six figures, so I guess that's chill."  Diana Silvers as the hot, mean, & aloof girl with the sexiest fringe coat I have ever seen in my life |
 And of course our HEROINES: Beanie Feldstein as Molly, the Yale-bound 40 yr old in a high school senior's body, dreaming of being the youngest SCJ... |  ...And Kaitlyn Dever as Amy, the awkward, introverted lesbian who's taking a gap year to teach women in Botswana how to make tampons. |
...And a small moment of appreciation for the WRITERS, a team of FOUR INCREDIBLE WOMEN who not only wrote some of the funniest one-liners, but also managed to make these characters sound like real high-schoolers: awkward, nervous, crass, frustrated, and every other emotion that comes to the surface the night before graduation. The way they managed to capture how HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS actually talk to each other reminded me so much of being that age in an authentic and nostalgic and heartwarming way. This wasn't an after school special but it wasn't American Pie, either.
I remember being so disappointed by Bridesmaids because I had such high expectations for it to prove that Women Can Be Funny, but instead it felt like they were trying to hard to prove it they stooped to the boy's level and I was forced to watch 90 minutes of dick and fart jokes. Which there is a time a place for, but surely women can find other ways to be funny - not because they're women, but because there are funnier things to write about.
What I loved the most about the writing in this is how goddamn well-paced it was. To be sure, some of the jokes didn't quite land, but overall the plot was excellent: they set up all these quirky, bizarre characters early on, and then like a well-timed road trip movie they knock down each domino one by one. People show up at a time and place that makes sense and in a way that still managed to occasionally surprise me.
There were SO MANY GOOD MOMENTS in this movie, and they all deserve a moment of recognition. I will do my best to be brief and just give a Top 10 highlights reel:
1) The way these girls aggressively verbally assault each other with compliments and impromptu dance parties:
2) The outrageous last-day-of-school party in the hallway, and the way Wilde used it in the credits:
3) BILLIE LOURD in EVERY ridiculous moment she shows up:
4) The lighting in the Principal's Lyft and their post-pizza-hold-up (really all of the lighting was just excellent):
5) The INSANELY over-the-top DANCE SEQUENCE through that deliciously technicolor 1970's dreamscape house (and that fucking HOUSE OMG!!):
6) That heartbreaking, slow-motion, underwater ballet that made you go Romeo + Juliet who? And set to the gorgeous backdrop of "Slip Away" by Perfume Genius... It was perfection. (As was the entire soundtrack, as a matter of fact, and if you give a shit about iconic movie soundtracks the way I do, check this one out IMMEDIATELY.)
7) The INCREDIBLE tripping-balls scene?!?!? Oh my god?!?!?! Olivia Wilde!!!!! Who even gave you permission???? To make this scene so fucking bizarre and funny and WORK!?!??!?!? SO GOOD!!!!
8) The way Molly & Amy's fight went into MOS (no sound). I fucking loved that choice. Because that's the thing about fights with your best friend in high school: the words don't really matter.
9) The excellently absurd graduation scene:
10) The final line. I don't know why I loved that so much... probably because it captured the whole essence of the film: dramatic and emotional, interrupted by the hilarious and ridiculous. It was so genuine and surprising and remains one of my favorite subtler endings of a film in this genre.
11) OMG I'M SORRY THIS IS A BONUS ONE BUT the Panda-packing moment with Lisa Kudrow and Will Forte (genius cameos btw) where you can LITERALLY ALMOST SEE BEANIE FELDSTEIN BREAK CHARACTER is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
And the winner is...
This was NOT an easy choice to make. But when it comes to making difficult decisions like this on razor sharp margins, I refer to Our Patron Saint of Film Criticism, Roger Ebert:
"The star ratings are relative, not absolute. If a director is clearly trying to make a particular kind of movie, and his [OR HER!] audiences are looking for a particular kind of movie, part of my job is judging how close he came to achieving his purpose."
This may come as a shock to some, but Juno is probably in my Top 10 (on the more sentimental side, but still). I watched it in theaters (with my mom! Instead of going to prom! I was SO COOL!) and it blew my mind. I'd never seen a movie adequately capture a girl like me: smart but not a total loser, sexually curious but terrified of the human body; I was a tomboy who wanted to be taken seriously, who has historically just had one close friend at a time (if I even had that). I had a very weird and traumatic high school experience (I mean, who didn't) so there will always be something about this genre that I can't help but be drawn to... watching movies like Booksmart make me feel like I get to relive some of those years with a happier ending. I only bring up Juno because to me, that is the end-all-be-all of Excellent Movies In That Genre. Was Booksmart as good as Juno? No, probably not. It was a different animal (the R rating changes so much), but it was successful at what it set out to do.
And that's what this is gonna come down to: Olivia Wilde set out to make a clever, fresh, funny story about a super intense nerd and her awkward queer friend (don't know who I identified with more). Greta Gerwig said she set out to reinvent a classic with a feminist twist, but I think what she really wanted to make was a mini-series about Louisa May Alcott.
IN A SHOCKING TURN OF EVENTS... I cannot be deterred from my belief that only one of these directors successfully accomplished what they set out to do. Gerwig, if you can ever forgive me, please let me know when you make that mini-series because I will be the first in line to see it.
I too am shooketh.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.
Archives
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
Author
Sarah Ruth(less) Joanou is a Chicago based writer, artist, production designer, actor, & cat mom.
