Collegian Venues - your weekend starts here
  Collegian Chronicles



Get a deal with Daily Collegian Coupon Corner
  The Digital Collegian - Published independently by students at Penn State
Arts
[ Friday, Jan. 20, 1995 ]

Old-fashioned film succeeds with out standard cussing or violence

Collegian Arts Writer

Gillian Armstrong's Little Women is exactly like the novel: long, sad and predictable. In a time when movies such as Street Fighter and Drop Zone are the norm, Armstrong should be praised for having the guts to direct a movie without the expected violence and obscenities.

The film concerns the lives of the March sisters and their adored mother, Marmee. Even though they live in a time that is long gone -- the late 19th century -- the problems they face (i.e. poverty, illness, sexism) can happen anywhere and anytime, allowing the viewer to identify with the characters.

Their dilemmas are often trivial but realistic. Rather than dealing with spies or mad bombers, this story deals with everyday things such as school, work and love.

The film probably would not have worked if the cast had been different. Kirsten Dunst, who recently appeared in Interview with the Vampire, is perfect as the coquettish young Amy. Anyone with a younger sister will recognize Amy. She is the typical tag-along -- the little sister who tries to be grown. The older Amy, played by Samantha Mathis, is not as amusing as the one Dunst plays.

Winona Ryder, who has the uncanny ability to make god-awful movies acceptable (Bram Stoker's Dracula and Reality Bites), plays the part of Jo, the tomboy. Although Jo is supposed to be boyish and strong, Ryder plays up the confusion and femininity in Jo and succeeds in bringing the character and the movie to life.

For instance, when Jo cuts her hair to make money for the family she tries to act like she is proud of the sacrifice, but she ends up crying the whole night. The character of Jo is used to show that a woman can be independent and strong without being lonely and loveless. This idea is one of many feminist views in the film.

The part of Marmee seems to exist for no other purpose than to inform the viewers of women's rights or lack thereof. Susan Sarandon is known for playing parts that address feminist ideas, such as her part in Thelma and Louise, and this movie is no exception. Sarandon manages to keep the character from being preachy, and Marmee is more a concerned and protective mother than a raging feminist.

The men in the movie play second fiddle to the women, not allowing for the well-rounded characterizations the women were able to attain. Christian Bale plays the part of Teddy, who is in love with the March family, and spends the whole movie trying to marry into the family through whichever sister who will allow it. Eric Stoltz plays John Brooke, Meg's husband, with sincerity.

The movie succeeds in recreating the novel, as well as the era in which it was written, but it does have its flaws. Predictability is a major problem with the film, but this may be a result of the novel's popularity, which has made the plot widely known. Although it was predictable it was a refreshing change to watch a movie that does not feature explosions or expletives.



Send an Opinion Letter to the Editor about this article.


   





TOP  HOME
Blogs  About  Contact Us  Back Issues  Advertising 

Copyright © 2008 Collegian Inc.
Requested: Sunday, July 20, 2008  4:37:52 AM  -4
Created: Wednesday, May 07, 2008  6:14:40 PM  -4