Lessons in Chemistry

By Joanna Langfield

A likeable enough adaptation, but throughout, I couldn’t help but wonder how the novel’s legions of fans would take to it. Because there has been a major change to this none-too-subtle story of womanhood in the 1950’s, maybe because the filmmakers thought there weren’t “Lessons” enough in the much beloved book?

Caveat here. I am one of the few who didn’t melt when I read what I found to be a heavy handed, by the numbers novel. Undoubtedly, it is great to have those lessons out there, that not so long ago, women weren’t generally allowed by society some of the freedoms we have today. And there is an argument to be made, asking if we have, indeed, come a long way, baby. But I am doing a lot of the lifting here. The book, itself, falls comfortably in the wide berth of all those “beautiful, brave young women who conquer the odds”. It has served as comfort food for many. But its reliance on ladling out bold faced “Lessons” made me happy to skip more than a few pages.

Although the main character is the plucky Elizabeth, the beautiful, brilliant chemist looked at suspiciously by most men and women, for that matter, my favorite was Harriet, the bustling neighbor who pushes her way into Elizabeth’s pretty solitary life. I dreamed she would have been played by Thelma Ritter, had the movie been made back then. So they changed Harriet. I won’t spoil how, but suffice it to say, we’re getting a whole big wallop more of those “Lessons”. They’re good lessons, to be sure. But they all could have used a lighter, more evocative touch.

Anyway. Brie Larson is well cast as the impressive and sturdy Elizabeth. Lewis Pullman and Aja Naomi King provide nice support. And I suppose if cuddling up on the couch to this miniseries offers a sweet respite from the rest of the world, that’s more than a good thing. I just wish the “Lessons” taught here didn’t include that, in order to learn things, we have to be hit over the head with them.