Directing: A-
Acting: A-
Writing: A-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+

It’s too soon to tell for sure, but it’s easy to imagine that, eventually, the 2019 adaptation of Little Women will be regarded as Greta Gerwig’s defining work. Just as classic literature—such as, of course, Louisa May Alcott’s original Little Women—is studied in the context of their time, and what coded messages might have been inserted into the text by the author, the same might very well be done to this film in coming years and decades. Because, unlike the many, many adaptations that have come before it, Gerwig studied the life and time of the book’s author, and found subtle ways in which to integrate such details into the story, in some cases even using lines from Alcott’s personal letters for dialogue. Given that Little Women was largely autobiographical, this approach is a natural fit, and this film is all the better for it, a worthy take for the 21st century.

You’d think that after six previous film adaptations (four of those after the silent era; one of them a misguided re-telling with the setting switched to current day, so “only” three particularly worthy of consideration), there would be no new way of looking at it. You would be wrong, especially given that it’s been 25 years since the last proper adaptation was made into film. (This doesn’t even include the many television and stage adaptations.)

I must confess, I have never read the novel. Perhaps I should. The story endures more than 150 years after first publication, and the book, never having been out of print, has sold nearly 2 million copies in that time. I have a vague sense of once, long ago, trying to watch the 1994 version starring Winona Ryder and Christian Bale, long considered the definitive modern adaptation, and finding it difficult to understand the point of the story. Maybe I was just too young. This time, due likely to both being older and being in tune to Greta Gerwig’s sensibilities, I am charmed and delighted by it.

Even though this is technically a period piece, in Gerwig’s hands, it doesn’t feel like one. It exists in a very casual, lived-in universe where people use period-specific diction but also act like regular humans of any time. In several scenes, the four March sisters are talking over each other, making for a vaguely Altman-esque effect.

The performances are fantastic. Saoirse Ronan, reportedly having stated plainly to Gerwig that she would be playing the part of Jo because it was just meant to be, appears to have been correct. Emma Watson is both understated and nuanced as Meg, the eldest sister. Florence Pugh (Lady Macbeth, MidSommar) continues her stunning streak of roles cementing her as one of the most dynamic actors of her generation, here imbuing a heretofore unseen humanity to Amy, who is usually a character offered for viewers to hate. Relative newcomer Eliza Scanlen (seen last year as Amma in HBO’s Sharp Objects) rounds out the four sisters, having possible the least meaty material but still giving the girl who gets sick a certain dignity.

All that said, I suppose there’s a certain irony to all four of the actors playing the March sisters in this very American story being Irish, British, or Australian. Every one of them is affecting an American accent. They all do it very convincingly. At least we get a scene stealing Meryl Steep as Aunt March; Bob Odenkirk in a limited presence as Mr. March, who most of the time is off serving in the Civil War; Chris Cooper as the neighbor Mr. Laurence; Tracy Letts as publisher Mr. Dashwood; and Laura Dern as Marmee March, although Dern mostly filling out backgrounds is a slight disappointment.

We do get native New Yorker Timothée Chalamet in the key role of Laurie, and he is a scrumptious treat. Just as he had in Gerwig’s previous movie, the fantastic Lady Bird, he has onscreen chemistry with Saoirse Ronan both unique and irresistible.

By all accounts, Gerwig manages to pack in more from the book than previous film adaptations, which is a bit of a double edged sword. This Little Women is well edited, all things considered—particularly considering the new approach of telling the story in flashbacks rather than the traditionally linear presentation—and yet, even at 134 minutes, it can feel a little rushed. Some have complained about the flahback structure, saying the use of all the same women to portray characters seven years apart, between their teens and their twenties, makes it at times difficult to follow. I went in knowing this might be an issue, and so I paid close attention—and then had no problem whatsoever. I guess that’s the trick, then: just pay attention!

Little Women is indeed the simple story of four young women finding their place in the world, and Greta adds a lot of speudo-meta, modern flourishes, lots of commentary on how important money was to a woman’s livelihood, and how not so very long ago the only way for them to get wealth was to marry into it. These elements are integrated into the narrative with finesse, at least most of the time; in a couple of instances, it comes through in an almost distractingly expository fashion.

Maybe one day one of the aforementioned students studying this film will single out a monologue about the importance of marrying into money and say, “That’s a little obvious.” But that’s not the point. The point is, how easy it is to imagine this film being given not just critical or commercial, but academic consideration. Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is a rich text unto itself, a delightful time capsule of 2019 and how we regard ourselves in the context of looking back at 1869. It has layers that are all its own, ripe for discovery.

*Just look at that, it’ll take a century and a half to get us half as far as we want to go!*

Overall: A-