Yet, in this "woke" era that we live in, I couldn't help but think of how one could interpret this movie. One way to view this film is from the lens of the post/current #metoo movement. Another view that I thought about was the idea of white privilege.
(Note: the following is based on what I saw in the film and doesn't include source material that might provide additional context on the life of the March family.)
The film is set largely among the wealthy. Yes, the March family throughout much of the film is not wealthy, but I would argue the family does come from wealth. Aunt March mentions this to Jo early in the movie. She mentions that she is wealthy and that Jo's father and mother lost their money. (I forget the exact wording used.) This surely implies that Jo's grandparents had been well off and set both Aunt March and Father March off well in life. Now it isn't because Jo's parents lost their money due to gambling, alcohol, and bad investments. It can be argued that the family lost their money doing charity work during the Civil War.
Even though the March family has lost their wealth, they still interact with the wealthy. Meg attends a debutante ball. The family grows close to the wealthy Mr. Laurence and Laurie. Amy spends an extended time in Europe with Aunt March. One would wonder why a family that has lost so much money was able to keep their ties with those who are much wealthier. Would a non-white family that has fallen down the wealth ladder be able to keep those same ties? Maybe the March family was able to keep their ties as it was well known that they gave their wealth away to support the war effort. The sisters are also educated in the arts: acting, music, painting and writing. I suspect a poorer family during the Civil War era would need their daughters to take a practical approach to life.
And even though the family has dropped down the wealth ladder, they still aren't extremely poor. Being extremely poor would go to the family that the March family helped. You never see the March family having to sell off their valuables. You see that they eat well. Yes, when Jo moves to New York she does save money to help out her family, but is she helping out with the basics of life or attempting to provide Beth with the best possible medical care (such as taking her to the beach when she gets very ill)? Jo's book editor surely thinks that Jo's family is poor, but I can't help but believe that Jo is using this as a way to negotiate better terms.
And then, as the film heads to its conclusion, the family returns to wealth. (Could a non-white family do the same so easily?) Aunt March dies and leaves her wealth to Jo (or at least the house). Amy marries Laurie. Meg, does marry poor, but is no doubt provided wealth as a derivative. Aunt March does tell Amy that she will likely need to care for her siblings. It is also seen in the movie that Meg works at Jo's school.
I did love the movie, but is this a movie that liberals should love?
No comments:
Post a Comment