Showing posts with label Emma Watson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emma Watson. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

Little Women is an exquisite exploration of family, growing up

Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet in Little Women. Image courtesy Columbia Pictures.
Little Women is simply extraordinary. It's riveting and enchanting, sweet and bittersweet, buoyed by an incredible level of brilliance in nearly every facet. The film is far too good to be described as simple comfort film – it's much too intricate for that – yet it is comforting to watch a film as exquisite and charming as this. 


Based on the eponymous novel by Louisa May Alcott, Little Women centers on the March sisters over the course of seven years in the 1860s. Jo (Saoirse Ronan) is an aspiring writer living in a tiny apartment in New York City. Oldest sister Meg (Emma Watson) is a married mother of two with dreams of wealth and comfort. Amy (Florence Pugh) lives with Aunt March (Meryl Streep) in Paris and wants to marry into wealth to support her family. Beth (Eliza Scanlen) is at home in Concord, Massachusetts with matriarch Marmee (Laura Dern), living a quiet life while fighting against an unspecified condition. The March sisters find a friend in their whimsical neighbor Laurie (Timothée Chalamet) and a patron in Laurie's grandfather (Chris Cooper) as they grow up through times hard and good.


Little Women is a fundamentally excellent film; everything in this film works, and it works to a brilliant degree. There are no glaring flaws with the writing, directing, acting, cinematography, editing, or soundtrack. Every emotional beat is struck with the perfect amount of force to wring out the desired effect. Writer/director Greta Gerwig has created a film that is legitimately outstanding, building upon the existing material to create a lovely, relatable story of family and growing up. 
   
The main drama in Little Women is rooted in the difficulties of both, shown through quotidian anecdotes from the March sisters' childhoods. A day at the beach is nearly as memorable as Amy burning Jo's novel or Meg's wedding to the kind John Brooke (James Norton), with each moment adding more layers to the March family dynamic. All of these small moments in the March women's lives build up to a remarkable portrait of sisters navigating into the confusing world of adulthood, reconsidering their youthful ambitions. The March sisters all have dreams of becoming an artist – whether it be a writer, musician, actor, or painter – that either fall apart or come close to doing so. The film isn't about settling for something short of your dreams; rather, the characters look within themselves to find what matters to them and who they want to be. Amy, Jo, and Meg all go through this process of self reflection and come out of it knowing their course as they establish themselves as adults. 


There's nothing overly complex about the film's storytelling, but Gerwig does something quite clever by jumping between the past and the film's present without clear demarcations. Little Women might start a story in Paris and quickly jump back to Concord to link that specific moment with a memory. Aside from linking the past and present directly, this adds a little verisimilitude to the storytelling. Memories can pop out of nowhere with little provocation, so the film doing the same feels true to life and serves as a subtle method of drawing a closer connection with the March sisters. The audience is living life through the eyes of the family, adding to the weight of the hard times and the joy of the good times. If done poorly, this could alienate the audience by confusing them, but Gerwig handles this beautifully. She shows a talent for guiding multiple narratives and has faith in her storytelling to keep the audience invested despite the frequent time skips.


What's most endearing about Little Women is the decency coursing through this film. There is so much kindness and caring shown by the main characters its impossible to avoid investment in the lives of the March family. Every character has a few flaws to keep them human, yet the flaws never overshadow how much everyone cares for one another. Gerwig doesn't force her characters to do the right things at all times, yet they care enough to feel contrition for their actions and use that to grow into more mature, kinder people. Jo and Amy have the most turbulent relationship of the four sisters, but the film ends with them respecting each other for their wisdom and talents, along with forgiveness for transgressions fueled by immaturity. Adulthood can have that affect on families – the squabbles of the past become less and less important as siblings grow up and find perspective – and Little Women shows how captivating growing up can be.



Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars



Click here to see the trailer.



Rating: PG

Run time: 134 minutes

Genre: Drama



tl;dr



What Worked: Writing, Directing, Acting, Storytelling



What Fell Short: A bit of drag in the third act



What To Watch As Well: Atonement, Frances Ha

Friday, March 17, 2017

Beauty and the Beast offers stale retelling of tale as old as time

Beast (Dan Stevens) and Belle (Emma Watson) in Beauty and the Beast. Image courtesy Disney.
There are a number of problems plaguing the live-action version of Beauty and the Beast in theaters today, but the totality of the film’s issues is summarized in one simple statement: This movie never justifies a reason to exist independent of the original. There are a few differences in this one when compared with the 1991 animated classic, some character changes and a fattened up run time to make it appropriate for these sorts of adaptations. None of it, though, offers a significant artistic reason for Disney to reboot Beauty and the Beast. It  banks on nostalgia to ride through some placid waves of mediocrity, trading excellence for subpar exchanges.
The troubles start from the get-go with a retelling of the tale of how a young prince (Dan Stevens) and his loyal staff (consisting of Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Nathan Mack and Stanley Tucci) receive the curse that turns them into the titular Beast and a collection of personified furniture and knickknacks. It's a longer rendition than the animated one, acted out by the characters in a way that does not align with the voiceover narrative going on at the moment. That points to the heart of the problem with 2017's Beauty and the Beast; you the story doesn’t change, it just has more to it at a lesser quality. More is somehow less and yet still the same.
So what do audiences get with the extra 45 minutes of screen time with Beast, Belle (Emma Watson), Garcon (Luke Evans), LeFou (Josh Gad) and the kooky servants of the decrepit castle? They receive more backstory explaining why Beast is as he is (the reason is a dead mother, because Disney can't not have a dead parent). They find out why Belle's father (Kevin Kline) is a single father (the reason is yet another dead mother). They get a few more songs thrown in, none of which hold a candle to the exceptional numbers ported over from the original. They have more time to discover plot holes and think about how weird it is to eat from a spoon that was a person. They generally get useless content that provides no greater understanding of Beauty and the Beast. That is, except, for one change concerning the characterizations of Beast and Garcon. This version widens the personality gap between the two, turning Beast into a curmudgeon instead of a cold-hearted brute and cranking up Garcon's villainy to cartoonish levels. Beast is now a misunderstood loner, while Garcon is the jock who takes the bullying several steps beyond what is reasonable. I can understand the motivation to avoid the moderate similarities of the two characters found in the first Beauty and the Beast that gives some logic to Garcon’s actions, but the way the result pushes it so far to the other end the narrative arcs get bumped away in the process. All of that focus on those two leaves little else for poor Belle to do but sit and watch as the men fight. There are 45 more minutes to work with, and the filmmaker couldn't spare additional time to add depth to Belle’s story.
The most distracting thing about this Beauty and the Beast is the visual divide between Watson's Belle and the CGI rendering of Stevens' Beast. The characters never look quite right standing next to each other, the poor quality of Steven's CGI character clashing greatly against Watson. A few action scenes in particular make Beast look like a meh video game character as he leaps awkwardly from one spire to the next like a drunk King Kong. It kills any sense of verisimilitude between the two characters, putting one in a real world while banishing the other to a computerized realm.
Aside from all that, there are precious few differences between the 1991 Beauty and the Beast and its 2017 followup; it has almost everything the original does, but done slightly to largely worse. This new version isn't capable of standing on its own, nor does it seem to want to be anything beyond a real version of the animated classic. Riding on coattails is an OK strategy for financial success – and it will probably do more than fine at the box office – but a terrible one for earning a cinematic legacy.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG
Run time: 129 minutes
Genre: Fantasy

Ask Away

Target audience: People who have really, really fond memories of the original.

Take the whole family?: A few scenes get a little heavy, but on the whole the material is safe enough for kids.

Theater or Netflix?: Just wait for it to come to you and avoid the price gouging.

What up with LeFou?: There's apparently been a decent amount of hubbub over Josh Gad's LeFou, who is apparently gay per Gad. Despite some shouting from certain countries, the movie minimizes his character’s sexual orientation and makes it largely a non-issue. The only scene that offers a direct indication of LeFou’s sexuality lasts for about five seconds and is nowhere near salacious. There is almost nothing to any of this, because Disney prefers to stay well within the boundaries of social progression.

Watch this instead?: Go dig out the DVD of the original and watch it a few more times.