Introduction
Greta Gerwig’s 2019 adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s *Little Women* arrives at a pivotal moment in contemporary discussions on women’s rights, reimagining a classic 19th-century narrative for a modern audience. Far from being a mere period drama, the film serves as a profound exploration of women’s agency within restrictive societal frameworks. By focusing on the March sisters’ individual struggles and aspirations, Gerwig presents a nuanced portrayal of female empowerment, challenging traditional norms around gender, economics, and authorship. This essay aims to analyse how Gerwig employs narrative structure, economic realities, and meta-commentary on storytelling to highlight women’s fight for autonomy. Drawing on feminist theories and contemporary perspectives, the analysis will also address the film’s limitations, particularly its lack of intersectional depth. Through this examination, this paper argues that *Little Women* (2019) reframes feminism as a multifaceted struggle for choice in a world not designed to accommodate women’s diverse needs.
Narrative Structure and the Struggle for Dreams
One of Gerwig’s most innovative choices in *Little Women* is her non-linear storytelling, which alternates between the March sisters’ idyllic childhood and their challenging adulthoods. This technique does more than create aesthetic appeal; it viscerally illustrates the disparity between youthful ambitions and the harsh realities of womanhood in the 1860s. For instance, scenes of Jo scribbling stories in the family attic are juxtaposed with her later struggles in New York, where she sells uninspired work to survive. This temporal shift underscores the barriers—social, economic, and personal—that obstruct women’s paths to fulfilment. As Rowbotham (2015) notes, feminist theory often centres on the systemic obstacles that hinder women’s access to the same opportunities as men, a concept vividly captured in Gerwig’s fragmented timeline (Rowbotham, 2015). By disrupting chronological order, the film mirrors the messiness of pursuing dreams in a gendered society, making the audience feel the persistent tension between aspiration and constraint. Therefore, this approach is not merely stylistic but a critical tool for highlighting the ongoing fight for equality.
Economic Constraints and the Marriage Dilemma
Central to the film’s feminist commentary is the theme of economic dependency, which shapes the sisters’ life choices. Amy’s candid remark to Laurie—“I’m just a woman. And as a woman, I can’t make money… So don’t tell me marriage isn’t about money, because it is” (Gerwig, 2019, 01:12:15)—encapsulates the stark reality of women’s limited options. Historically, marriage often served as a financial strategy rather than a romantic ideal, a point reinforced by feminist economic critiques (Folbre, 1994). Each sister navigates this dilemma differently: Meg chooses love over wealth and endures poverty, Amy seeks security through a strategic marriage, while Jo resists matrimony altogether, facing financial precarity as a result. This dynamic reflects broader feminist arguments about the inseparability of women’s personal and professional spheres, as articulated by scholars like Oakley (1974), who highlight how economic structures disproportionately burden women (Oakley, 1974). Indeed, Gerwig’s focus on money reveals that ‘choice’ for women is often an illusion when systemic inequities dictate the terms. The film thus suggests that true liberation requires dismantling these economic barriers, rather than merely navigating them.
Intersectional Gaps and Limitations
While *Little Women* excels in depicting gendered economic struggles, it notably lacks engagement with race and class diversity, focusing exclusively on white, middle-class experiences. This omission aligns with critiques of mainstream feminism, which often prioritise gender at the expense of other intersecting oppressions. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality is particularly relevant here, as it urges consideration of how race, class, and gender compound discrimination (Crenshaw, 1989). By ignoring these dimensions, the film inadvertently universalises a specific feminist experience, sidelining the realities of non-white or working-class women. As hooks (2000) argues, feminist narratives that exclude race risk reinforcing exclusionary frameworks, a limitation evident in Gerwig’s adaptation (hooks, 2000). Rather than condemning the film for this gap, however, it can be seen as a starting point for broader discussions on intersectionality. It prompts viewers to apply a critical lens, questioning whose stories remain untold and how overlapping identities shape women’s challenges июри: ‘only one that really matters is that it is a big and serious act of volition’ (Gerwig, 2019, 01:45:20). By acknowledging its narrow focus, *Little Women* encourages a more comprehensive approach to feminist analysis, urging consideration of race and other factors in tandem with gender.
Authorial Control and the Power of Endings
Perhaps the film’s most striking feminist statement emerges in its dual endings, which juxtapose a conventional romantic resolution—Jo marrying Professor Bhaer—with a meta-narrative where Jo negotiates with her publisher over her manuscript’s conclusion. This bold choice reflects the historical pressures on women writers, including Alcott herself, to conform to audience expectations, while also asserting Jo’s agency in retaining her copyright and securing royalties. This moment of negotiation symbolises a broader fight for control, mirroring contemporary struggles for women’s autonomy in creative and political spheres. As Beauvoir (1949) famously argued, women’s liberation hinges on economic and intellectual independence, a principle Jo embodies through her battle for ownership of her work (Beauvoir, 1949). Furthermore, this ending resonates with current debates on self-determination, akin to legislative efforts like voting rights reforms, highlighting the universal need to shape one’s narrative—whether in literature or civic life. Gerwig thus positions women’s authorship as an act of resistance, underscoring the power of controlling one’s story.
Diverse Feminisms and Sisterhood
Finally, *Little Women* portrays feminism as pluralistic, rejecting a monolithic vision of womanhood. Each sister pursues distinct goals—Jo’s career ambitions, Amy’s quest for stability, Meg’s domestic aspirations, and Beth’s altruism—yet they ultimately support each other despite differences. Their occasional conflicts, such as Jo and Amy’s rivalry, reveal the complexity of relationships, but their mutual respect illustrates a grounded sisterhood. This aligns with modern feminist thought, which advocates for solidarity across divergent paths, recognising that empowerment lies in validating varied choices (Wolf, 1993). By depicting these multifaceted dynamics, the film offers a realistic model of feminism—one rooted in empathy rather than uniformity, and reflective of the diverse ways women navigate systemic constraints.
Conclusion
Greta Gerwig’s 2019 adaptation of *Little Women* transforms a historical narrative into a resonant commentary on women’s agency, blending nostalgia with sharp feminist critique. Through non-linear storytelling, it exposes the friction between dreams and reality; through economic themes, it reveals the material constraints on choice; and through its innovative endings, it champions women’s authorship as empowerment. While its focus on white, middle-class experiences limits its scope, this blind spot serves as a prompt to engage with intersectional perspectives, broadening the feminist discourse. Ultimately, the March sisters’ journeys—imperfect yet authentic—mirror the ongoing challenges women face in 2024, suggesting that while progress has been made, fundamental inequities persist. *Little Women* thus stands as both a celebration of resilience and a call to question who holds the power to define choice, value labour, and shape narratives. Its relevance lies in this duality, urging continued reflection on how far we’ve come and how much remains to be done.
References
- Beauvoir, S. de (1949) *The Second Sex*. Translated by H. M. Parshley. Knopf.
- Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. *University of Chicago Legal Forum*, 1989(1), pp. 139-167.
- Folbre, N. (1994) *Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of Constraint*. Routledge.
- Gerwig, G. (2019) *Little Women*. [Film]. Sony Pictures.
- hooks, b. (2000) *Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics*. South End Press.
- Oakley, A. (1974) *The Sociology of Housework*. Martin Robertson.
- Rowbotham, S. (2015) *Woman’s Consciousness, Man’s World*. Verso.
- Wolf, N. (1993) *Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How It Will Change the 21st Century*. Random House.
