Another day, another group snubbing Greta Gerwig’s “Little Women.” The Screen Actors Guild ignored Gerwig’s drama, the umpteenth adaptation of Louise May Alcott’s beloved novel. This has puzzled many of the film’s most ardent supporters, and there are many, especially in film criticism circles. I am, sadly, not part of that fan club.
Gerwig’s admirable, but wholly uninvolving, film currently has an astounding 91 Metascore and 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, but watching the film, even after giving it a second shot last week, its earnestness still rings false. “Little Women” has a myriad of feminist ideals, something which wasn’t necessarily added on by Gerwig as much as it has always played a large role in Alcott’s classic of American literature. And yet, critics are acting as if this adaptation is the holy grail, as if Gerwig somehow unearthed newfound thematic resonance that wasn’t there in every other adaptation of Little Women (my personal favorite being Gilligan Armstrong’s 1994 version). Armstrong’s adaptation had a clear focus on Jo, rather than try to juggle the stories of all four women in a messy fashion as Gerwig does.
Gerwig must have known this and it must have surely played a role in her risky decision to tell her story in a non-linear fashion — she must have surely realized that this 12th cinematic adaptation, yes 12th, of Alcott’s novel had to be something different, but rather than feeling fresh in its narrative chutzpah, the non-linear gimmick rings false and, to be frank, unnecessary.
Of course, the push for gender parity in the industry is well-known by now. Hell, the fact that “Little Women” did not get nominated at the Golden Globes on Monday put forth a backlash that was started by “Honey Boy” director Alma Har’el, which ended up creating a domino effect, resulting in many snubbed filmmakers (Ava DuVernay, Lulu Wang) actually coming out and complaining about the lack of parity. Sore losers? Maybe or maybe not, but what I got from the whole debacle was how ingrained to social media movies have become and, sadly, film criticism has become. Of all filmmakers to complain about the lack of female nominees, it had to be the director of fucking “Honey Boy.”
These days, it’s very hard to know whether a well-reviewed film is genuinely as good as it is made out to be, or if critics are simply trying to cure the problem of gender disparity. This leads me to the problem of “virtue signaling”. Film criticism today has become hive-mindedly artificial. Our field has been hijacked. Critics want to pity vote in women, fine, but they shouldn't expect the Globes to as well. This may very well force “Little Women” into an Oscar nom, which it doesn't deserve, but critics will celebrate it nonetheless.
In essence, everybody wants in on the “woke” sweepstakes, even journalists. It’s a currency, and critics on social media want to “outwoke” each other. These same people thought they killed “Joker” dead, but are mad that they didn’t. Now they look like fools, hopping onto the next agenda-driven drivel they concoct in their hive-minded world. These man-children are cringingly and painstakingly trying to tow the woke line every day on twitter, but they strain in doing so and it shows. They probably were not part of the cool kids in high school — hey, neither was I — and see the woke movement as a way to try and “fit in” with the internet ladies in 2019. It’s the high school experience they never had but always dreamed of.
This is the literal meaning of virtue signaling — it makes them feel and look virtuous. It’s all primate tribal stuff, but the fact of the matter is this: If people genuinely want it to be an equal playing field, they should give women the respect of honesty. I have long championed female-directed movies, even before it was cool. Back in 2014, I wrote about the ten best female-directed films of all-time for Awards Daily, and the usual suspects made it, female-directed films that earned their way into the cinematic time-capsule, Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker,” Sofia Coppola’s “Lost in Translation,” Jane Campion’s “The Piano,” Lina Wertemuell’s “Seven Beauties,” and, of course, Agnès Varda “Cleo 5 a 7.” In fact, Cannes head Theirry Fremaux even admitted that in her precious final days on this earth, with feminist movements upping the pressures for Cannes to be more inclusive in its competition selections, Varda told him, “I’m not a female director. I am a woman, and I’m a director.” Fremaux added, “she said to me, “please, never pick up a film because it’s directed by a woman. Pick up a film because it’s a good film.”
And so, after being disappointed by my initial viewing of “Little Women,” I decided to give it another shot by bringing my wife to watch it with me, a feisty feminist who’s been fighting the fight since the day I met her. And yet, even she did not like “Little Women,” calling it “plodding.”
“Little Women” feels like a strange animal in 2019. A fractured and disjointed effort that never manages to capture the emotional heft of Alcott’s words. It feels so harsh to speak ill of something that is so well-intentioned and which will no doubt bring joy to some people, but I found the whole thing to be mediocre.
I’ll admit it, I would have loved to have seen Lulu Wang get some recognition for her immaculately touching “The Farewell,” and how about one of the most underrated movies of the year, Annabelle Attanasio’s SXSW-winner, “Mickey and the Bear.” Not to mention foreign triumphs such as Celine Sciamma’s “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” and Mati Diop’s “Atlantics.”
The fact of the matter is that there seem to be people out there who truly believe in quotas when it comes to gender equality in the arts. As I wrote earlier in the week, “there are many out there who want not just film awards, but film criticism, in general, to be swept up by “identity politics.” If that ever happens then the ethical nature of the field will be done for. The notion of judging a film as to whether it is good or bad would vaporize away.
To too many film critics, it’s more about who made the movie, who stars in it, and its message, rather than if is it a good or bad film. Of course, it is important to progress and have inclusion at the movies, but it should never be done in a forced-upon way. Progression happens in baby steps, not by painstakingly being shoved into the equation. There is a lack of patience from these wily critics and social media hooligans, they want the change to happen NOW, but in art, it can never be achieved in the flick of a switch. 80% of filmmakers in this industry are still male and that means there stands a good chance that the best films and directors every year will be directed by old, white dudes. I know, it’s a terrible thing, but that’s where we are at right now and, despite incredible changes having been made this last decade in terms of gender and racial inclusivity, we cannot ignore the fact that a majority of the best films released the past few years were directed by men.