'Little Women' and '1917' give us the good movie blueprint for 2020
No Content for Old Men
with Matt Craig
In this week's newsletter: A dual review of Little Women and 1917, plus a half-hearted nod toward Netflix's The Two Popes. Then a bunch of awesome streaming suggestions for your weekend, including one YouTube short that's required viewing. Lastly in this week's "Trailer Watch," an unnecessary sequel to one of my favorite movies of 2018.
Word Count: 1226 words
Approximate Reading Time: 6 minutes
Little Women + 1917
Hiding inside the IP Trojan horse
At first glance, there's not much that Little Women and 1917 have in common. One is a comedy of manners featuring four sisters pushing against the social boundaries of Civil War-era America. The other is a war epic about British soldiers going on a perilous journey through World War I-era France. It's like apples and hand grenades.
Still, these two are really good movies doing good business, with Little Women raking in $84 million already and 1917 set for wide release this weekend after the bounce of two Golden Globe wins and an eye-catching $2.5 million on just 11 screens. That makes them a pair of unicorns at the early 2020 box office, running against the tired echo of a ninth Star Wars, a third Jumanji and a second Frozen.
Admittedly, the novel Little Women was released in 1868 and has seen at least seven on-screen adaptations. It's not exactly an original story. After the wholly earnest 1994 adaptation starring the likes of Winona Ryder, Christian Bale and Susan Sarandon, I think most assumed all the creative juices had been squeezed from Louisa May Alcott's source text.
But Greta Gerwig's new take on the material is artistically inspired (which sets it apart from the franchise installments mentioned earlier). She injected fresh life and energy to the story, making strategic changes to the age-old plot and outfitting it with modern sensibilities. It's sharp and incisive in the way we've come to expect from Gerwig, as in the case where she added a brand new monologue exposing marriage as an "economic proposition."
Sidenote: I would go so far as to say younger audiences will have an easier time following the simultaneous dialogue and inter-cut timelines Gerwig employs, given years of exposure to digital multitasking and the chronology hop scotch of Christopher Nolan and Damon Lindelof. I was surprised to leave the movie and learn that some viewers had trouble discerning which of the two time periods they were in at any given moment (pro tip: the earlier timeline is red-tinted and the later timeline is blue-tinted).
Gerwig's generational writing talent has already made her the foremost chronicler of modern femininity (or at least white femininity). It's easy to draw a straight line to Little Women from her other works: Frances Ha and Mistress America (co-written with boyfriend Noah Baumbach), and her directorial debut Lady Bird.
It's easy to lament Gerwig "selling out" by taking on established Intellectual Property (IP). In a sense, that's true. But the sad reality is that there are limits to the human experience auteurism. Gerwig could choose to follow Baumbach's career path, reeling off a dozen highly respected but rarely seen arthouse films, but if she wants a $40 million budget and distribution from a major studio like Sony, she knew she needed to find another way.
Enter the novel, which has been read (or at least the Sparknotes have been read) by thousands of middle and high school students across the world. Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth March (I'm a little impressed I was able to rattle that off from memory) may be like a second family for some, but at the very least for most others, their brand recognition is extremely high.
Gerwig used the resources to create a story that's entirely her own, on a scale that otherwise wouldn't be possible. She uses this story set 150 years in the past to further the same surprisingly prescient themes, which in a more perfect world one could imagine seeing in a Lady Bird-esque young adult drama.
In our current movie climate, where IP is currency, Trojan-horsing a story about young women today into an iconic property from the past lowers risk for the studio because of an assumption of quality, or at least importance. As a result a studio like Sony was willing to prop up a bigger budget, which allows for this incredible cast: Saoirse Ronan (25 years old with three Oscar nominations already), Timothée Chalamet (24 years old with an Oscar nom), rising megastar Florence Pugh, and Emma Watson (already an international star from Harry Potter). Perhaps you've heard of Meryl Streep, or Laura Dern, or Tracy Letts, or Chris Cooper?
The recognizable title and awesome cast served to event-ize the movie, which attracted people to the theater. The result is both a critical and commercial hit. It's a complete success story (unfortunately the studios often make the mistake of then making a economically motivated sequel...ehem Joker 2?...hoping to capitalize on but ultimately ruining this success).
It's basically the same strategy used by 1917. Without the benefit of a recognizable book, director Sam Mendes built his movie around a stunt. What if an entire two-hour movie could be stitched together so it appears to be one long, continuous shot? (Never mind that Birdman did it five years ago.) The camera follows a single soldier across three days, delivering a message to the front lines and witnessing the horrors of war along the way.
It's a breathtaking experience that never lets you relax. All credit goes to Roger Deakins, the greatest cinematographer of all time, for turning a gimmick into a cinematic achievement. Unfortunately the one-take nature leaves little room for character development or layered storytelling, and the movie relies on the understood Importance of War to keep the stakes sufficiently elevated. (In many ways, this behind-the-scenes featurette about how they pulled it off is just as interesting as the movie itself.)
The result is so gorgeous and immersive it must be experienced in theaters, despite a relatively unknown cast. Essentially the filmmaking itself has been turned into its own kind of IP.
Take a step back and admire these movies for attracting people to the actual movie theater, away from the comfort and familiarity of Netflix/HBO/Amazon/Hulu/Apple etc., considering how each film has such low stakes. Little Women's chief concern is whether Jo will marry, who Amy marries, why Meg marries, and how that affects their relatively insignificant lives. Even 1917, a war movie, is about delivering a piece of mail that could save all of 1600 men. It does not end the war or have any real impact on its outcome. One guy does his job well. The end.
Again I'll say though, both movies are good! You should go to an actual movie theater and see them! My screening of Little Women was over 90 percent female, and my screening of 1917 was over 90 percent male. There's no reason why either should have to be niche programming. It bears mentioning here that it's not much of a surprise the mostly male awards voting bodies have snubbed Little Women and recognized 1917. The best joke I've heard in the last few weeks is that awards voters love 1917 because they are so old and so white that World War I was experienced all in one take for them too; they lived it!
The lesson heading into 2020 is that in order to be a successful movie for adults, outside of the superheroes and the mass entertainment for kids, a project must be good and. Meaning good and based on a legendary novel, or good and employing a revolutionary filmmaking technique.
Do what you've got to do to get those butts in the seats, and then show them what you've really got!
Streaming Suggestions!
Something New
The Two Popes (Netflix): Expect Johnathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins to hang around the outer circles of the Oscars race, thanks to what basically amounts to two hours of conversations between them about conservative versus progressive ideals in modern Catholicism. It's interesting but not exactly action packed, even during the forced flashbacks attempting to canonize Pryce's Jorge Bergoglio (who would later become Pope Francis). There are better Oscar contenders on Netflix to watch.
Something Old
Little Women (1994): This one is on my streaming list for this week, so that I can fully appreciate what Gerwig did with the material before I revisit the 2019 version for a second time. I will say, the cast list has aged like fine wine over these last 25 years: Winona Ryder as Jo, Christian Bale as Laurie, Susan Sarandon as Mrs. March, Claire Danes as Beth, Kirsten Dunst as a young Amy and from the Coen Brothers orbit it's Gabriel Byrne as Friedrich Bhaer. I think it's fair to say the mid-90s was not exactly the most self-aware time period for movies, and this one appears to be straight forward and sincere.
Atonement (2007): Little Women star Saoirse Ronan earned her first Oscar nomination at the tender age of 13, playing a pivotal role in this romantic period piece starring Kiera Knightley and James McAvoy. The movie garnered seven nominations, but only ended up winning for Best Score. Still, there is plenty of crossover appeal between those who liked Little Women and would enjoy this, and what do ya know, it's also set during World War I!
Something to Stream
In the Time It Takes to Get There (YouTube): If you've caught the period piece bug, or the affection for Florence Pugh (like me), perhaps you've gone down the rabbit hole of IMDB and found this 12-minute short she starred in this year. And what a find it is! Adobe put out a contest for college students to design a movie poster, and the winner would get that poster made into a short. The result is a hilarious spoof directed by Zach Braff in which Pugh plays a social media influencer...in the 18th century. It's a hilarious and surprisingly poignant commentary on the social media complex, with cameos from Stanley from The Office and THAT GUY from the Fyre Festival documentary (yes...the water guy). So worth the 12 minutes to watch! Check it out here.
Lady Bird (Amazon Prime): How many times do I have to tell you people! Greta Gerwig's first movie was an under appreciated masterpiece, and you need to see it. I don't want to spoil too much about it, but it's about mothers and daughters, growing up, and the very particular culture of Sacramento in the mid-2000s. It's funny and emotional and resonant, a movie we will be talking about for many years to come. So don't miss out!
Trailer Watch: A Quiet Place II
Hey...remember what I said about making a great original movie that does great business and then making a cheap sequel to cash in? Hard to believe this is anything other than another example, even if John Krasinski is back as writer/director. The beauty of the first movie was being thrust into this crazy world and having to learn the rules on the fly. How many disaster movie origin movies have we seen? I'll admit that continuous take in the car looks great, but I can't imagine the movie will be better than something like David Fincher's World War Z in any meaningful way.
I had some people ask if I would make a list of my 2019 movies with lengths to their full-length reviews. While I was putting together the list, I realized there were almost a dozen movies that I somehow forgot to include in that year-end round up. This list includes The Farewell, Dolemite is My Name, Lucy in the Sky, El Camino and a bunch of others. Here's all 61. Thanks for reading all year!
2019
Booksmart
Little Women
Us
Wild Rose
John Wick 3
1917
The Two Popes
Avengers: Engame
Triple Frontier
The Beach Bum
Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker