#OscarsNotSoDiverse: Part Two: Greta Gerwig, Little Women and the Problem with the Nomination System

Academy Award Nominated Little Women is a winner in my book.

Welcome back to part two of this two-part series, in which I write about Little Women, Greta Gerwig and Lulu Wang, and the problem with the nomination system. Today, I will go into depth about the story of Little Women, and why this newest adaptation appeals to me. Consider this is the spoiler alert for every single version of Little Women, including the original novels. The overall story remains the same, only how the directors tell it changes.

I love the June Allyson version of Little Women that also starred Margaret O’Brien, Elizabeth Taylor and Peter Lawford.

Today is Oscar day, and this snub is not discussing the entire movie’s dismissal by the Academy, but rather that the director was shut out. Why talk about Little Women? One could say that there have been too many versions of this story told. I would disagree. I think that every generation has a version that comes out that changes something to reflect the time in which it was made. I think of myself when I first read it, crying on my backyard swing set at the age of seven, completely crushed about Beth, sad for Jo and just wanting to help everyone be happy and healthy. It was my first real grown up book, and I had begun to read at an early age, but no one fully believed I had read the book. My interpretation of it has changed over the years and it remains one of my absolute favorite books and one of my favorite movies. It is only fitting that my experience in this movie was sitting next to a lovely older woman sharing tissues and crying over this movie.

I am going to outline the basics of the story for you, but most people are familiar with the story in some form. The story, originally two novels by Louisa May Alcott that were later combined and published as the novel we know, tells the story of Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy March. They are sisters who live in New England during the Civil War. They are trying to carve out a path for themselves while navigating life for women in the 1860’s. It based loosely on Alcott’s life in Massachusetts. (After you are done catching up on the latest Ladies podcast, you should give the History Chicks episode on her a listen. It is long, but very good.) The March Sisters are forced to cope with the fact that their father is fighting in the Civil War by keeping the house orderly, going to school, and working to support their family. They meet a mysterious new neighbor, Theodore “Laurie” Lawrence, who befriends the sisters but falls for Jo. The book discusses the everyday life of the sisters. Jo wants to be a writer and is a tomboy set in her ways. Meg wants to fall in love and get married. Beth is a kind-hearted and timid soul who loves playing the piano. When she falls ill with scarlet fever, she never fully recovers. Amy wants to be an artist and wants to be popular and rich, but I will talk more about this storyline later. When Laurie asks Jo to marry him, she tells him no, which he doesn’t want to accept, and she also tells him that she cannot love him that way. To help ease Laurie’s heartache and to distance herself, Jo moves to New York to be a governess at a boarding house where she meets Professor Bhaer. Professor Bhaer is a tutor who has philosophy discussions with Jo, and they spend a great deal of time experiencing New York together. They become friends. After he critiques her writing harshly, Jo becomes angry and refuses to speak with him. Before they can talk it out, Jo discovers Beth’s condition is worse, and she leaves New York to return to her family. She does so in time to be there for Beth in her last days. After Beth’s passing, Jo helps the family grieve and takes care of her parents; however, she is struggling to take care of herself. To help Jo grieve, she writes the story of the March sisters and sends it for editing. Laurie and Amy fall in love and are married while in Europe, and everyone is celebrating their marriage when Professor Bhaer shows up unannounced to tell Jo he likes her book and her. They are later married and go on to open a school using the house that Jo’s aunt, Aunt March, leaves her in her will.

But that was not the original story that Alcott wanted to tell. She did not wish to have Jo to get married. Her reasoning for this was because she was never married and didn’t believe that it was necessary for a happy life. But the publisher refused to publish it unless Jo was married because they didn’t believe a story like that would sell and would be boycotted for having such a scandalous opinion in it. Because she needed the money to help her struggling family, she agreed to rework the ending. They fought her on royalties, told her that they were taking a big gamble with this book and that she shouldn’t expect the same payment as her male counterparts. The only reason why they were interested in the book was that their daughters had read it and enjoyed it. They also tried to own it outright. I mention this because, in the many (and I mean many) adaptations of this classic, no one ever had the thought to include the original equality struggle that the author was dealing with during that time. I didn’t know about this fact until I heard it on that History Chicks episode. I also mention this, because Greta Gerwig worked this into her movie in the best way. She is utilizing Jo in the same way that Alcott did, as a character based on Alcott and the stories loosely based on her life. The 2019 movie opens with her in negotiations to publish one of her stories in the newspaper. She is negotiating for “a friend” because she is afraid that she won’t get published otherwise.

Saoirse Ronan as Jo is a delight to watch. She portrays Jo as a tomboy who speaks her mind and is not afraid to shy away from the life that she feels that she needs to live. She wants to be her true self once she can find it. I also think Gerwig’s choice to allude to Jo’s sexual orientation. I am glad she approached, because by my seventh reading of it when I was 14, I questioned if Jo didn’t want to be married because she didn’t love men. (It is also the reason why I love the graphic novel, “Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy” by Rey Terciero. Its modern-day take of this classic novel has Jo admitting her sexual preference at the Thanksgiving table and having her sisters be supportive of it, coming together to march with her at the end. It also tackles Aunt March coming to terms with her preference.) Gerwig’s version begins in the middle point of the novel, while Jo is in New York and the movie is told in a series of flashbacks. It also makes the story more about Jo, which I think is the wise thing to do because it gives us someone to see the world through their eyes. The book and the past adaptations start off centering on all the sisters and then narrowing to Jo about halfway through. The story moves forward, but things Jo sees trigger memories and cause flashbacks to when the sisters were younger and living under one roof. It is not only taking the movie in a new direction but is so fresh a retelling; I may like it more than my favorite movie adaptation. (Which, for the record, is the June Alison version with Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and Margaret O’Brien as Beth.)

Amy tells Laurie the honest truth about why she has to marry someone with money.

There are many things included in this movie for the better. Amy, in this version, played by Florence Pugh, tells Laurie that the reason she wants to marry rich is that she wants to have money. Since any of the money she earns immediately becomes her husband’s money, she has decided to marry rich so that she doesn’t have to work hard for the money that wouldn’t technically be hers in the first place. (I have seen several discussions on the internet about how this version of Little Women is too preachy and is awful using this one scene as an example. There has been discussion as well about how this scene was unnecessary because this is not a problem anymore. When I see this it just makes me laugh, I do so enjoy the tears and frustrations of the patriarchy.) By way of contrast, Meg, played by Emma Watson, marries John Brook, a tutor, and they don’t have much money but live comfortably and relatively happy. She loves her husband but envies the belongings of her friends, so she buys expensive fabric to have a dress made. Meg whines and tells him that she wishes she could have a beautiful new dress, and they argue. She later understands that, on top of her husband feeling guilty that he can not give her what she wants, her expense would deny him a winter coat. She eventually sells the fabric. Amy also calls out Laurie when he shows up drunk and on the arms of multiple women to a party she was throwing. Jo is pressured into going after Professor Bhaer, who showed up to the door unannounced and is leaving for a teaching job in California. However, Jo is not overly into the idea but is pressured to anyway. Gerwig is vague about whether or not they get married and leans towards the idea that they did not get married. This may leave the original ending, the one Alcott wanted to get published in the first place, in place. When Jo is negotiating with the publisher over her novel, she makes the actual arguments Alcott made in her negotiations for Little Women. (Gender pay inequality is still a thing everyone.)

The words are a writing choice, and that was also Gerwig, who is nominated for adapted screenplay. However, the direction for this specific tone and style choice for this movie was up to the direction team, which was lead by Gretta Gerwig.

I believe the direction of this version of Little Women changed the tone and expectation of an already established story should have put Gerwig on the nomination list for sure. There were a lot of people, myself included, who wondered who the other nominees would be. So to not have her on the list, I knew I needed to do some research as to how the nominations work. So why wasn’t she nominated?

Gerwig and Wang…. Two fierce and wonderful filmmakers who deserve all the recognition.

Here is where I am going to fault the nomination process, which, in this case, is done by the director’s branch of the Academy. While there are a few women in their ranks, this can be seen as a “Good Old Boys” club. This club is why, even if the movie is not the greatest, you constantly see the same names up for certain awards. I make this statement not to say that the nominees aren’t deserving, but rather, that there was someone more deserving that was overlooked. This fact could explain why Martin Scorsese was nominated for a movie he directed that takes tropes and actors from his other movies and mashes them into one movie. Hot take: I didn’t like The Irishman. I don’t think he should have been nominated. The only non-white old man nominee for this category is Bong Jun Ho, for Parasite, which I hear is incredible and well deserved. But there are no women on this list and, to many people, myself included, this is a problem. When Lulu Wang and Gretta Gerwig put out two amazing movies that the Academy usually falls over themselves to award, and the international agencies take notice, but the U.S. based Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not, is the system fixable?

The answer to this question is complicated. Adding more diverse people to the Academy is a good start, but it is not enough to make an impact, and that is what is causing the Oscars to have these multiple #Oscarssowhite and #Oscarssomale moments. At some point, the Academy will finally wake up and realize that they are going to need to fix or completely rework the process so that it is done fairly and that it is done in a way that everyone has a fair chance. I must admit, I still sit and watch the Oscars from the Red Carpet to the Best Picture awards. This year I have seen numerous movies nominated in some way, shape, or form, but I am noticing that I start watching the awards later and later. Last year I only tuned in for a part of the Red Carpet and not the whole thing. I am feeling like they are losing their last shred of legitimacy with me, and I am not sure how I feel about it. I also have a bunch of movies and nominees that I am rooting for, but I am missing some very glaring omissions. (I also want to throw in that I thought Purl by Pixar should have been part of the conversation for Best Animated Short.)

Little Women is still in theaters, and I recommend it. The Farewell can be streamed right now, and I recommend that too. I also recommend Klaus (Netflix), Kitbull (Disney +), and Hair Love (Youtube). I haven’t seen Harriet yet, but I really want to. Shout out your favorite movies and creators for the world to see. Let them be seen. Let them be heard. Let them show you that the world is never just in white, but it is a kaleidoscope of creativity. Show them the complexity and layers of life. Enjoy movies that are supposed to make you feel good. Enjoy movies that make you feel or understand things. But above all, just enjoy movies. I’ll see you at the theater.