Little Women (1994)

When: 1994, Bale's 11th film

Age: 20

Genre/Director: Chick flick (to the nth degree); Gillian Armstrong, director; Louisa May Alcott, writer; Robin Swicord, screenwriter

Mike says while watching Little Women, I went through all the required steps for watching a chick flick: I laughed, I cried, and I hugged my pillow.  The problem is, I don't think I did any of them in the right order, and all of it was pain and suffering inspired.

The thing that surprised me about the film is how relentlessly happy and cheerful it is.  Sure, the girls fight; sure there's sickness and death and boy troubles, but it all ends in hugs and tears and laughter and sickly sweet cheerfulness that made me reflect (several times) on how awful a human being I was compared to these four wonderful ladies and women in general. Which I believe was the secret agenda behind this film the whole time!

Sure, women have to endure childbirth, but we men have to endure two things far more terrifying: pregnant women and CHICK FLICKS.

After writing the above, I was suddenly terrified I had crossed the line into rudeness, which prompted me to read it to my wife to check its appropriateness. As she just grinned, rolled her eyes, and went back to eating her cereal, I'm going to assume it's fine.  But women of the world, if you're insulted, I am sorry.  But . . . come on.  The movie didn't even have one fist fight!  And after having two kids, I feel qualified saying pregnant women are scary (admittedly, I didn't read THIS sentence to my wife).

Anyway, right, the movie.  It's definitely beautifully shot, and while I've never read the book, the movie is made with such care that it's obvious the filmmakers cared about the story. The cast is actually fairly impressive, and I'm somewhat surprised that only a couple serious British actors (including Bale) were in the film (though, it is an classic American novel, so really, top American actresses should be a no brainer).

The trouble with having no classically trained British actors, is that modern Americans can't really pull off  the classiness of the novel's era . . . it could be my own bias, but the acting was a consistent distraction for me.  Often it felt more like children playing "make believe" than professionals setting a dramatic scene.

Admittedly, this sounds overly harsh, and honestly, it might be.  As the film trucks solidly along, it does become more tolerable, and many of the actors seem to grow into their roles, especially Bale.  But none of the actors ever truly disappear into their roles for me.

The story, well,  it does its job as well as any such film can.  For a movie that could have easily  carried the subtitle of "GO Women, RA RA RA!" the film definitely uses a sledge hammer to drive the point home but surprisingly never resorts to the jack-hammer.  The film definitely flirts with the line between female equality and female superiority, but it never fully crosses it. The movie was made BY and FOR women, but it seems it was acknowledged that a few husbands might be conned into seeing the thing.

Bale does well.  His casting is again a kind of "well, DUH" choice, as he was very popular with the target audience (i.e., teenage girls), an established dramatic actor, and well, British.  It's funny how much weight that can really carry for an actor.  The only real difference here is how mellow the role of Laurie is for Bale.  He seems relaxed and enjoying himself, and for someone we've discovered is a VERY physical actor, the role isn't very demanding.

In the end, I am glad I saw it.  It's a story I've never really understood, and it clarifies a lot of my sister's odd behavior from when we were teens.

But that still doesn't mean I'm not THRILLED to have an action flick on the slate next week.


Kate says I confess I've seen my share of Steel Magnolia type flicks (though not Beaches). This is one!

It does stand out from other chick flicks, however, in the loving sincerity of its adaptation. Steel Magnolias, which is quite a good film, is designed to MAKE YOU LAUGH, then CRY, then LAUGH, then HUG.

Little Women is far gentler in its goals. Even Beth's death scene (and yes, that is spoiler, but really, everyone should know about Beth's death by now, even if it's just from watching Friends: "Joey, do you want to put the book in the freezer?") The director and screenplay writer are obvious fans of the book, something I appreciate in movies even when I'm not a huge fan of the book itself.

The movie's only major flaw is the lack of continuity between the amazing Kirsten Dunst as Amy and her grown-up counterpart; Samantha Mathis is a decent actress, but Kirsten Dunst really sells Amy as a fully complex little ball of fire. The tone of the two actresses is different enough to give the film an uneven feel. Mathis's Amy seems a watered down version of the original. (I've always been a fan of Dunst whose charisma is not entirely reliant on her looks; like Julie Andrews, she glows.)

The director avoids the break in continuity with Laurie by having Christian Bale be both 17 and 20-something. Although TV "teens" are far less weedy-looking than real teens, Bale has a youthful enough face to let us pretend he is 16/17 without guffawing. (I can't say the same for Tom Welling; every time I would watch Smallville, I'd think, "Give me a break. No one notices that this 24 year old is running around a high school!? I know he's Superman, but surely, someone from the school board would have kicked him out by now.")

Other than being a character who grows up in two hours, Bale doesn't do much else but show up and act well.

Because, let's fact it: the movie isn't about the guys (geez, what's the father even in the movie for?). Gabriel Bryne is slightly less incidental than Bale but not by much. The movie isn't really even about sisters--although they do have the perfect mother! It is about girlfriends: four girls of different personality types growing up together. Stick them in Florida in the 1980s--they're the Golden Girls!

This is mostly the movie, not the book. The screenwriter intelligently focused the movie on Jo's development from youth to adulthood. Although Jo is a major player in the book (and many people's favorite character), the other characters are somewhat more fleshed out in the book. But, again, I can't fault the screenwriter for her decisions. Reducing a large classic to an endurable (Mike can debate that last word if he wishes) 2 hours is fairly impressive. The 1994 movie is also far less saccharine than its black and white counterpart (believe it or not!), bringing it closer in line with the book. Alcott had a strong core of realism (though, like Jo, she wrote thrillers, which are actually quite fun to read).

I can't say I took away anything about Bale from this movie (while I wouldn't say he is "phoning in" his performance, I do agree with Mike that he just seems to be enjoying himself--this isn't really a "I'm going to stretch my abilities" kind of role for him). Mostly, I took away the difference--just in tone--between an adaptation that values the original work and one that doesn't. Give me book-lovers any day over directors and writers who just purchase the title!