Little Women BBC // Thoughts

Thursday, May 31, 2018

"Little Women" BBC. I've been waiting for this miniseries version with excitement (mainly, I confess, because it's made by BBC, and it's been too long since a period drama I've really wanted to see has come out from them)! My mom happened to see it in stores recently and surprised my sisters and I with it, and as you can imagine, I was eagerly anticipating lots of BBC Masterpiece goodness. Here's what I thought of it.

Pros:

It's BBC. I mean, how can you get any better?

The photography, settings, and costumes were absolutely beautiful (you'll notice how I can't seem to help myself from posting promo images and screenshots). I liked how it showed just regular life in 1800's America, and though the March girls aren't poor, they aren't rich by any means either, and still struggle to make it sometimes. Their costumes, I thought, were appropriate for their class and individual personalities.
The best character out of this series was, in my opinion, Aunt March (an odd choice, I know, but Angela Lansbury did an excellent job at combining rich and cantankerous with lovable, and I enjoyed her quips). Mrs. March also did a fine job at making Marmee have a

personality. Sometimes I can't quite believe it when a version of the character confess to Jo that she struggles with her temper, but Emily Watson made the struggle believable and human. I was unsure when I heard Emily Watson was going to play Mrs. March since all I've seen her in is grouchy, and sometimes even bordering on heartless, roles. But I think Emily Watson is just good at portraying emotion, and she pulled Marmee off pretty well. And I liked how, though there are some major stars in this production, the actresses who play the girls are relatively new faces. There's one sad, emotional scene that all lovers of "Little Women" know about, and I thought this BBC version may have done the best, realistic portrayal yet.
And the settings- they were beautiful. I loved the locations for everything!

Cons:

Truth be told, I was bored. The beloved story didn't capture my attention the way it usually does, and the March sisters failed to capture my heart. There seemed to be a sisterly bond missing. Maybe the reason for both of those complaints is this- it felt rushed. I was surprised, since I figured a 3-episode version such as this should be able to bring things along nicely and get deeper into the heart of the story, but that didn't seem to be the case. We zoomed by things and I wasn't able to get emotionally involved into much.

And, sad as I am to say it, I just wasn't a big fan of the March girls, either. I did like Meg more than some versions I've seen of her, and Beth was okay, but altogether, they weren't my favorites. I was especially sad about Jo- as the main character (and one who's always been so lovably against the grain), I'd expected to like her more, but I found her (as well as her sisters) slightly too giggly and not as lovable as I'd expected. Laurie too- okay, but that's it. And as someone who was supposed to be straying from his good upbringing and disagreeing with his grandfather a lot, he sure seemed to be an okay guy- the only vices of

his to be seen were some alcohol consumption. There is a mention of his other reckless ways, but show, don't tell, right? And I didn't see anything to label him as straying off the path. Once, Marmee mentions his temper, and my thoughts were, "Temper? I thought he seemed to be a pretty low-key guy."

Another complaint- though the scenery was, indeed, beautiful, I recently found out they filmed it all in Ireland. Makes me want to visit there even more, of course, and I guess it was more convenient than actually going to America, but still. A little disappointing.

Also, the camera stayed zoomed in most of the time. Which, I kind of get why they probably did it, but it only served to make me claustrophobic. I don't mind a close-up look some of the time, especially if it's an emotion-filled scene, but not for more than half a show. It's not necessary to do it for scenes such as jelly-making where you get a close-up look at hands and sticky red jelly. A pretty scene of ordinary life, maybe, but still claustrophobic and closed-in to my way of thinking.

And last complaint, I promise! The music. Yes, pretty. But it didn't really seem to go well with the time period (too modern, perhaps?), and it stayed the same. There was a soundtrack to be sure with different sounds, but the music seemed to basically stay the same (slightly sad or low-key music for all sad and low-key scenes, for example) and a lot of times didn't seem to fit with the emotion of the moment. There were a few supposedly tense or sad scenes, but since the music was kind of light, I wasn't very tense or sad at all. Music guides the viewer along as to what to feel and think during a film, and this didn't seem to do that so well.

Conclusion:

For me, the cons outweighed the pros. There were a lot of objections I had against it, but sometimes I just felt like it was "okay". Not great, not a whole, whole lot to majorly complain against (except for the camera zoom and music), but just kind of felt mundane. Okay. Fine. Honestly, I was disappointed with how it all turned out. Now, if you're not like me and haven't been watching versions of "Little Women" since age seven, you may like it fine, may even love it. It is BBC, after all, and you can't say anything about their lovely costumes, camera shots (many looked like clear, pretty photos) and settings (except for the fact that it was shot in Ireland instead of Massachusetts...). The acting was pretty good as well, and you'll notice some pretty big stars in the cast (Michael Gambon, for one. I can't count how many times I've seen him in a BBC film or series). For me, though, I'll probably spend my time with the good old Christian Bale and Eve Plumb versions. Though not perfect, they represent Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" to me.

Photos from Pinterest and Google Images

6 Comments

Korin

6 lovely thoughts

Catherine HawthornMay 31, 2018 at 5:13 PM
I feel very much the same as you about this version. Something huge is missing from this version, and I think that it was cast cohesiveness.

The guy that played Laurie seemed better as more lot of a Gilbert Blythe kind of person, no?

Catherine
ReplyDelete
Replies
Grace MarieMay 31, 2018 at 8:23 PM
I'm torn on whether to watch this or not, either way, the older versions will probably always be my favorites as well.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Chloe the MovieCriticJune 6, 2018 at 2:03 PM
Same! I didn't like it as much as I wanted to, but it was okay. The 1994 will always be my favorite. :)
ReplyDelete
Replies