Outside the Hemisphere of 'Little Women’s' Jo March

Beth, Meg, Amy and Jo March. Louisa May Alcott’s quartet of sisters has graced bookshelves in thousands of homes since Little Women’s publication in 1868. But how do the depths of their characters leave contrasting impacts among a variety of readers, adolescent and adult readers alike?

Watching Greta Gerwig’s 2019 film adaptation of Little Women as a freshman with one semester of college under my belt was eye-opening. It was different than when I watched the 1994 and 1949 film adaptations on VHS at age three, or when I first read the book at seventeen during a slow workday at a gift shop. The aspect of Greta Gerwig’s film that stood out to me was the lack of spotlight on Jo. Every other adaptation, even the source material itself, favored the headstrong writer many a young girl looked up to. I myself was one of them; I could identify with Jo’s longing to be a memorable writer and feeling out of place. With time, however, I began to question why Jo was in the driver’s seat and her sisters in the rearview mirror. Beth, Amy and Meg are often forgotten when they possess as many lessons and as many enlightening traits as Jo.

It was refreshing to see Greta Gerwig bring some of my favorite attributes of the other sisters to life. Beth felt more fleshed-out, Amy had reasons behind her seemingly vain actions, and Meg’s internal struggle between high-society conformity and living a simple life was more apparent. The intricate yet defined attributes of Little Women’s sisters allow the viewer to expand upon their meanings through their own eyes. These interpretations are liable to shift with the maturation of not only the characters, but also the indulgent moviegoers.

Though the outward appearance of Eliza Scanlon’s Beth was far from the birdlike young woman I’d always envisioned, I found that Beth was no longer in the background. Beth’s attention to detail of her invalid dolls or her household chores that I treasured in the novel was brought to life on screen. Her relationship with Mr. Laurence was developed steadily, and I shed a tear when the gentleman couldn’t enter Orchard House knowing Beth’s spirit was all that lingered. Her scenes with Jo by the seashore were beautiful, for the anguish in both their eyes brought Beth’s inevitable fate into the clear light of day. Jo was inspired to go without sleep for days in order to bring Beth’s final wishes to life— that’s how much of an impact Beth left. The parallel between Jo running downstairs, once to find Beth alive and another to find her Marmee alone, was tear-jerking. Yet, I can’t help but favor the depiction of Beth’s death by Claire Danes in 1994, as Jo closed the window and the turbulent wind seemed to vacuum Beth’s spirit out of her body. Beth is the central heart of Little Women. I’m proud that Greta Gerwig’s film did not forget that.

Florence Pugh’s Amy surprised me. She brought all of Amy’s potential to the surface, reminding the viewer that she was always attempting to improve herself only to find her worth made second to Jo. In not only her artistic craft but additionally in her relationship with Laurie. In the novel and the 1994 film, I never believed Laurie loved Amy; Florence Pugh and Timothee Chalamet made me believe it. From Amy bleeding outside Laurie’s window to her speech about marriage as an economic proposition, I felt I saw the whole picture. She spoke freely and worked for what she wanted in love and life. The sly appearance of Aunt March’s turquoise ring from the novel reminded me of what gave her the initiative to strive before she found it on her own. Her transformation from a naughty adolescent to a refined artist on a European venture was plausible. Only the novel itself brought such vivacity to her character until Greta Gerwig’s adaptation came along.

Emma Watson’s Meg March disappointed me. I felt her performance flattened Meg rather than lift her up, yet her actions represented what the book seemed to resonate about her. The $50 she spent on the fabric of the dress, her desire to be ‘Daisy’ for a night, the birth of her children serving as an erasure of her bold intentions, all of it culminated in her eventually succumbing to conformity. I always expected more from Meg and was disappointed that I never found it, in both the film adaptations and the source material. I’d always wondered what would have happened if she had rejected the fantasies aligned with John Brook and lived her life on the stage. Yet I knew as the eldest sister out to set an example, she would never give in to her wildest dreams. But I wanted her to soar above the family unit. It was the moment when she stood up to Aunt March’s threat of taking away her inheritance after she chose John Brook that revealed her true character. I wish I had seen more of that. Neither Emma Watson nor Trini Alvarado delivered.

Which instances for the other sisters and Jo defined your perceptions of the characters? Was it Amy’s burning of Jo’s novel? Jo’s confrontation with Mr. Dashwood? Meg’s decision to abandon her Transcendentalist principles and let the girls dress her up? Beth going to thank Mr. Laurence for the piano?

I know why I believe in the Little Women. Why do you?

Sofia Quinn ‘23

SLC PhoenixMarch 10, 2020