I recently finished reading the beloved novel Little Women by Louisa May Alcott for the first time and I had a lot of feelings about how it ended. I amm not going to dive too much into it without giving away spoilers, but I was just disappointed in the way Jo March’s character arc ended. Of course, time is a major factor in my perception of the book. While I understand that Alcott had to end it in the way she did due to the societal standards of her time, it just did not sit right with me as a modern woman.
After finishing the book, of course I had to watch the most recent adaptation of it as it had been receiving ravishing reviews and was nominated for multiple Oscars this past awards season. Let me just tell you, Greta Gerwig’s adaptation was absolutely amazing. She was able to give Louisa May Alcott the ending that her novel deserved and as a result—I hate to say it—but I liked the movie a lot better than the book.
I feel like it is always been taboo to say that you liked the movie better than the book. Personally, I always thought of it as a form of disrespect to the author in saying that you liked the movie version of their book better, but I have since realized that movies are an entity of their own. Movies do not always have to be word for word what the book is, and I think that is my biggest problem when critiquing movies based off of books. It really is not fair to compare the two due to the different advantages that each have in telling their story.
With books, for example, you can get in-depth thoughts that you cannot fully get through watching a movie. You get to read about characters’ inner thoughts and feelings while in films you have to watch for the actors’ facial expressions to see how they’re feeling. This could be advantageous for movies though as they are straightforward and show you what you need to know. All you have to do is sit back and watch.
Further on this note, with film you are able to fully visualize what you’re supposed to be seeing. This is of course up to the interpretation of the film’s director and set designer, but it is much easier to immerse yourself into the story this way. While in books what you visualize in your head is fully up to how you interpret what the author is writing when describing what is happening. I think a prime example of this, at least for me personally, is the description of Hogwarts in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. While reading the books it was really hard for me to picture the school, but seeing it come to life in the movies made things so much easier and now that image is the only way in which I can picture Hogwarts.
Films also have an advantage at playing with time to tell the story, which is exactly what Gerwig does in her Little Women. She flips between two different times in the March family’s lives; however, the arrangement of scenes in which she does this tells a unique telling of Alcott’s original words.
Now do not get me wrong there are still plenty of books better than the movies (The Hunger Games for example—don’t even get me started on what they did to Mockingjay), but I think we need to move past the idea that books are always better than the films that are based off of them. The film versions should be looked at as something separate from the book and rather a source of inspiration than a replication. It is really amazing to see how creative directors and screenwriters can be with literary works in bringing their interpretation of the story to life.