Most importantly, however, just like its original predecessor, the movie raises important questions on the role of women at the workplace, in family, and in art. The release instantly, and not surprisingly, pressed a pause button off the ongoing debate on the importance of female empowerment in cinematography, the significance of building up strong female leads - both on and off the screen. “Little Women” has not one, not two, but four equally interesting and complex female characters, all worth your attention. Throughout the 135 minutes of emotional ups and downs, however, I could not get one itching question of my mind: how relevant are the ideals that all four characters convey to a modern viewer, still? The original book was, after all, published in 1868, which means we have had more than enough time —one and a half-century to be precise — to create a more inclusive society for all women, across all sectors. The question now is, were we successful? If “Little Women” was set in 2019, would Amy still think that she needs a wealthy husband to become the greatest artist of all time, or would she simply pursue her aspirations solo by traveling around Europe? Would Jo’s unquenchable stubbornness and independence be still perceived as essential for a woman to make it in the “men’s world”, or would it simply just make her hard to work with?
Unfortunately, despite the progress we’ve made, there is still room for improvement. Although we’re seeing more and more traditionally ‘male’ positions across many sectors be filled by strong and ambitious women, it still usually requires more than twice the effort, while also meaning they have to battle the same societal expectations Jo March fought so hard against. This distinction between the “career woman” and the “wife” can most clearly be seen through Meg and Jo, and the striking difference between what the two of them see, as “pursuing their dreams”. In one of the key dialogues in the movie, Meg tries to explain to Jo that her dreams can be different, and wanting to have a family, be a supportive wife, or raise kids are all equally valid ambitions. This dialogue reminded me of another film in the same genre: Mona Lisa’s Smile. Revolving around similar ideas of women having the right to become whoever they want to be, I think it omitted one important point: that women can be, and often are - both. It was 1868 when Little Women was written, and at that time of extreme inequality and lack of choices for women, Louisa, realised that women needed to either stifle their ambition and give in for the role of a wife or end up alone, like she did herself. At the end of the book, we see Jo abandon her writing after marriage. And despite Louisa admitting in her interviews that she only did that because the publishers required for the female lead to end up married, such ending, as well as Jo’s lifestyle, does leave the 2020 viewers and readers with a peculiar after-taste. The idea of marriage being a zero-sum game for those who want a career is something that we need to talk about. After all, it’s 2020 now, and maybe it’s time to change the rules of the game.
