Why 2018’s Little Women Movie Is The Weakest Adaptation

Little Women‘s 2018 adaptation doesn’t measure up to Louisa May Alcott’s literary classic. The semi-autobiographical novel featuring the wonderfully characterized March sisters is loved the world over and has captured the hearts and imaginations of generations. Each young woman is relatable and has an inspiring journey of growth as well as self-realization throughout the story. It’s not surprising that filmmakers are drawn toward this touching tale of family bonds that survive the bleakest of tragedies and celebrate the human spirit. The novel has all the necessary components to make a great film with themes of love, loss, and realized dreams.

For decades, Hollywood has revisited this classic and brought many adaptations to the silver screen. Acting legends such as Katharine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor have put their mark on iconic characters like Jo and Amy March. And arguably the best movie adaptation thus far, featuring Winona Ryder as Jo March and Christian Bale as Laurie, captured all the charm and character complexities of the book. But among the numerous adaptations have been reimagined versions, such as Clare Niederpruem’s 2018 modern retelling. Unfortunately, looking back at all the Little Women movies, Niederpreum’s film is the weakest one.

In theory, updating a classic story isn’t a bad idea and is a common trend carried out in many Hollywood films. However, the tricky part is retaining the story’s true essence when transferring the plot into a different time period. Amy burning Jo’s hand-written manuscript doesn’t fit in the modern story setting, but Niederpruem forces such scenes into the movie anyway. There are also moments of culture clash, like Laurie escorting the March sisters to social events. The characters may use modern-day conveniences but seem strangely out of place in the progressive world they live in.

The change in period isn’t the only problem this movie has; the movie also failed to provide a refreshing contemporary update. The characters barely resemble their novel counterparts, resulting in a charmless, poorly developed rehash of a great classic. At age 33, former High School Musical star Lucas Grabeel was a poor choice for a teenage Laurie. Also, Sarah Davenport’s portrayal of Jo March strips away any likability the character may have had.

The 2018 adaptation pales in comparison to Little Women‘s previous cinematic predecessors, such as Gillian Armstrong’s successful 1994 movie, which was nominated for three Oscars. Armstrong skillfully captures the characters’ nuances and beautifully crafts a compelling adaptation that respectfully pays homage to Louisa May Alcott’s timeless masterpiece. As a director, she not only made the creative choice to remain true to the original story’s historical period but also didn’t rely on iconic moments to carry the movie’s weight, which was Niederuem’s mistake. Like Armstrong, Mervyn LeRoy’s 1949 adaptation was successful because he did his absolute best to honor this literary achievement.