Little Women Retrospective: The Conclusions

LITTLE WOMEN RETROSPECTIVE: 

THE CONCLUSIONS

I have never read Little Women, partially because it is still primarily marketed as the female equivalent of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and/or Huckleberry Finn, something "for girls" in the same way Tom & Huck are "for boys". In a world where men and women appear to be now at constant loggerheads, Little Women, in particular the 2019 adaptation, finds itself in the midst of yet another culture war when to my knowledge the 1933, 1949, even the 1994 versions were not. Men are berated for not rushing to see the film and/or for not nominating it for major awards, yet simultaneously berated for seeing the film and not loving it as the second coming.

This war, with social justice warriors taking arms against those who have little to no interest in the various adventures of the March sisters, really to my mind is a disservice to the exceptional series of films and television adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's novel.

It all seems so strange to me, this constant battle of the sexes. In a time where the role of women in front and behind the camera has taken on new urgency Little Women 2019 has become a focal point of this war, as if the (male) viewer must prefer it over say a more male-centric film like Ford v Ferrari to justify his very existence. Women are free to like or even love Ford v Ferrari and men are free to like or even love Little Women, but I do not believe not liking or loving either reflects misandry or misogyny on a viewer's part. It simply means, to me, that men and women are different, enjoy different things and have different tastes. Not better, but different.

Most, but not all, women enjoy shopping. Most, but not all, men do not. Most, but not all, women could spend hours browsing through items without buying anything. Most, but not all, men would go to a store, pick out what they need, and then get out. Men and women are equal, but we are not the same. To say otherwise seems to me absurd. This applies to Little Women.

I have yet to see a bad adaptation of Alcott's novel. However, to say that I enjoyed Ford v Ferrari more than Little Women does not make me a male chauvinist pig.

It distresses me that this newest fight in gender has clouded both Little Women 2019 and Little Women in general. As I wrap up my Little Women Retrospective, I find that this story of the bonds of sisters through the triumphs and tragedies of life still holds up, still says something about the importance of family and being true to yourself. Jo March is a heroine for the ages, and there is a reason why filmmakers keep revisiting this story.

It is because it still holds up. Little Women, at least based on the adaptations, is a deceptively simple story about the lives of women with few if any men. I have liked each of the five adaptations I have seen: the 1933 George Cukor film, the 1949 Mervyn LeRoy remake, the 1978 miniseries, the 1994 Gillian Anderson version and the 2019 Greta Gerwig version. Not liking any or all does not make one a sexist, but refusing to watch any or all because it is about women in Civil War-era costumes does make me wonder why one would object. This person would really lose out on some wonderful films.

And now, it is time for comparisons and conclusions.

BEST PROFESSOR BHAER

Paul Lukas (1933)
Gabriel Byrnes (1994)
Rossano Brazzi (1949)
Louis Garrel (2019)
William Shatner (1978)

I understand many people have a dislike for Professor Bhaer. Alcott had to create him in Part II of Little Women because so many readers wanted Jo to marry, preferably Laurie, but Alcott wanted Jo to remain unmarried as she herself had. Giving in to pressure, she created this older German intellectual to placate her "backward" readers.

As a side note, it's curious that in every version I have seen, Bhaer is played by non-Americans: Hungarian (Lukas), Italian (Brazzi), Canadian (Shatner), Irish (Byrne) and French (Garrel). It seems proper to cast a non-American for the most non-American character in this all-American story.

As disliked as Bhaer may have been, even by Alcott herself, Lukas' version is probably the best because it is the most believable. Lukas makes Bhaer a perfect mix of shy, almost bumbling but strong intellectual. While Alcott and some Little Women fans may have a dislike for Bhaer, I think perhaps subconsciously realized that if Jo was to marry, she would marry someone who stimulated her mind more than her body. Lukas' Bhaer was that: an intellectual equal whom she could share great thoughts and ideas with. Lukas has a sweet manner to his Bhaer but also has the intellectual prowess to keep Jo's attention. Their 13-year-age difference does not make their romance that implausible.

Byrne comes closest to Lukas in being Jo's equal, able to discuss transcendentalism and suffrage on equal terms. One could see Byrnes' Bhaer being that intellectual whom Jo can not only match wits with but probably best. Their twenty-one-year age gap, however, does look more curious to say the least; then there's the Dracula-by-way-of-Ireland accent Bhaer adopts. He sounds funny, especially compared to Lukas' natural accent. Byrnes' first language is English, Lukas' wasn't. Therefore, Lukas sounds more natural as a foreigner than Byrnes does.

Brazzi and Garrel are hampered by a variety of factors. Both are frankly too pretty to be believed as somewhat serious, almost dour intellectuals. Moreover, the age and language factors also downgrade them. Brazzi is far too young to be thought of as "the older man": in fact, he was actually a year younger than June Allyson (1949's Jo). He's also quite Italian, so seeing him as this German is bizarre.

While Garrel is eleven years older than Saoirse Ronan (2019's Jo), they don't look as if they are that separate. Garrel is also quite gorgeous, so seeing him as the somber intellectual forever hunched over a tome seems a stretch too. Garrel is lower than Brazzi though in that he plays virtually no part in Gerwig's adaptation. He's almost an afterthought, and taken as something of a joke. That might be how Alcott and Gerwig see him, but it does the adaptation no favors.

Shatner was the worst because his "German" accent was just terrible. He seemed less absent-minded and more incoherent. It was probably the worst performance in the entire Retrospective, and certainly in the 1978 miniseries.

BEST LAURIE

Peter Lawford (1949)
Christian Bale (1994)
Richard Gilliland (1978)
Timothee Chalamet (2019)
Douglas Montgomery (1933)

It surprises me to find Peter Lawford as the best anything given that I find him to be a weak actor, more famous for being connected to the Kennedys and the Rat Pack than for any great cinematic performance. That being said, he barely edges out Christian Bale because his Laurie seemed to be genuinely in love with Jo and moreover made his romance with Amy plausible.

Perhaps Alcott does make Laurie a wastrel when he re-encounters Amy in Europe, boozing and broading his way across the Continent to forget Jo. That is how Bale and Chalamet play him, but I prefer Laurie to be a generally sweet boy. Here is where Lawford excels, as someone who is genuine pals with Jo, not hostile to her aspirations but still not part of them.

The "I'm the sad drunk" bit pushes Bale down slightly, but his Laurie was actually quite endearing, showing a kinder, gentler side to our sometimes intense actor. It's a shame Richard Gilliland did not become a major star, for his Laurie was quite nice and well-acted. He had the benefit of beautiful, intense blue eyes, but I found his performance quite charming.

Chalamet has a few strikes against him. One: he's still quite pretty, almost too pretty to think of himself as this somewhat lonely young man. Two: his version is too contemporary, as if he is playing a 2019 person versus an 1860 person. By that I mean his Laurie does not strike me as a man of his time but of our time, and thus I could not really accept him as a Civil War-era young man. His and Jo's "dance" in particular strikes me as something today's youth would do, not the youth of the story's time period. Of course, the young are always young no matter when they live in history, but still something about Chalamet's performance still makes me think he did not become Laurie but an impostor. Three: his was a weak performance overall. I never believed he was in love with Jo and to be frank, he seemed more in love with Amy from the get-go than anything else. His ability to float freely from one March sister to another was downright creepy: at one point he seemed to flirt with Meg!

Douglas was such a wet blanket I just pretty much forgot about him.

BEST AUNT MARCH

Greer Garson (1978)
Edna May Oliver (1933)
Meryl Streep (2019)
Lucille Watson (1949)
Mary Wickes (1994)

In a surprise upset the best imperious Aunt March goes to the 1978 television miniseries in Greer Garson's penultimate appearance. I put her as the best because while Aunt March can be difficult, cantankerous and most definitely unpleasant, Garson also gave her both a touch of class and even grace.

She could be rude and difficult, but she also showed a genuine heart and logic in her manner. In the miniseries, Meg's wedding takes place on the same day the family learns the Civil War is over. Here, this grande dame of the March family makes a toast not just to the happy couple but to the peace that will finally come to the weary nation. It's a beautiful moment and a fine piece of acting.

Oliver and Streep are really interchangeable, but I put Oliver slightly ahead because she seems more frightening and less actory than Streep, who dives into her imperious Aunt March with gusto. It's almost as if Oliver was Aunt March and Streep was acting as Aunt March, a major difference.

Watson and Wickes struck me as more comical than cantankerous in their Aunt March. Wickes however had the negative of being almost too nice in her interpretation. She never struck me as being the at times horrid figure Aunt March should have been. I think Wickes was a fine actress and she wasn't bad in Little Women. She was just too pleasant to be thought of as Jo's minor antagonist.

BEST MARMEE

Susan Sarandon (1994)
Mary Astor (1949)
Laura Dern (2019)
Dorothy Maguire (1978)
Spring Byington (1933)

Out of all the embodiments of Mrs. March, loving and wise matriarch of the March family, I do not think we will ever have a better or more definitive interpretation than that of Susan Sarandon as the beloved Marmee. What makes Sarandon's version so brilliant is that she perfectly balanced the loving aspect of Marmee with what can be called the woke mind of Marmee. Sarandon's Marmee was tender, caring, and yes, motherly: protective of her daughters and family, dispensing wisdom and love.

However, unlike previous Marmees and 2019's more openly feminist version, Sarandon's Marmee was also very progressive and quite forward thinking. She expressed the-then shocking view that women and men were equal in all things, something that none of the other versions ever did. However, there was never a sense of scolding, lecturing or moral superiority in her thinking. Sarandon's Marmee just believed it because it was true, not passing judgment on anyone but knowing that her daughters were just as worthy of pursuing their own ideas as the boys they encountered.

In short, Susan Sarandon's Marmee balanced femininity with feminism, simultaneously strong and non-threatening. I think it a beautiful balance and a pitch-perfect performance.

Astor has the benefit of having a long career playing "the perfect mother" (salacious sex scandal notwithstanding). She has that traditional portrayal of Marmee as loving and protective, so she gets a slight edge over Dern. Dern's version has that loving and protective element while also being more progressive that Sarandon has, but sometimes I could not shake the idea that this Marmee was angrier, more hostile towards the world. Perhaps that is how the book is, but by now I think we've grown so accustomed to Marmee as a warm, loving figure that seeing her rage against the United States seems almost un-American.

Maguire has the disadvantage of being little remembered, though from what I do remember it was not a bad take on it. Byington sadly seemed to be lost in the shuffle and to my seemed to have little to do with Little Women.

BEST BETH MARCH

Margaret O'Brien (1949)
Clare Danes (1994)
Eve Plumb (1978)
Jean Parker (1933)
Eliza Scanlen (2019)

I confess to sometimes not remembering the birth order of the March sisters, so forgive me if I have this wrong, but I think it's from youngest to oldest Beth, Meg, Amy and Jo. Beth, the youngest, is the one doomed to die. Out of all the versions, no one will ever top dear little Margaret O'Brien.

O'Brien is perhaps the best child actress to ever cry on film. She made weeping so believable and heartbreaking. Her last scene with June Allyson as Beth comforts Jo rather than vice versa is not just a beautiful piece of acting but just so heartbreaking and moving. You'd have to be inhuman not to be moved by O'Brien's performance.

I doubt anyone could come close to Margaret O'Brien in terms of acting, especially given that she is the youngest actor in the entire Little Women repertoire. However, I'm going to give the slight edge to Danes in that she is better-remembered than the others save O'Brien. Moreover, Danes' performance is also quite moving and she has the "plus" of being the first to die on-screen. Plumb, for all the mockery her "Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!" has endured, showed that she had genuine acting abilities as Beth. It's just a shame her Brady Bunch work overtook her skills.

I found Parker quite gentle and moving, though sadly overshadowed by both other Beths and her other costars. I really do not remember Scanlen in Little Women, and the non-linear take did not help make that connection.

BEST MEG MARCH

Janet Leigh (1949)
Emma Watson (2019)
Trini Alvarado (1994)
Meredith Baxter-Birney (1978)
Frances Dee (1933)

Another surprise. I don't think most people remember Janet Leigh was in Little Women, but out of all the Meg Marches, I think she is the one that won me over the most. Her romance with Laurie's tutor Mr. Brook seemed to me the most realistic and well-acted, and she played the most sensible March sister quite well.

Watson and Alvarado were neck and neck, but I'm giving edge to Watson due to a variety of factors. First, she had to adopt an American accent versus the American Alvarado. Two, Watson to my mind had more to do in Little Women than Alvarado. It's almost as if the non-linear structure helped her performance. Alvarado gave a fine performance and should be complimented, but Watson won me over.

Baxter-Birney did quite well too, but she didn't do as well as Watson or Alvarado. As for Dee, while I think she did well she pales compared to the others.

BEST AMY MARCH

Elizabeth Taylor (1949)
Florence Pugh (2019)
Joan Bennett (1933)
Kirsten Dunst & Samantha Mathis (1994)
Ann Dusenberry (1978)

Amy March, our spoiled yet endearing March sister, has had a good number of good actresses play her. Out of all of them though, I found one that simply towered over the others.

Little Women proved plainly and clearly that Elizabeth Taylor could play comedy and play it quite well. In her performance, she was charming and sweet, endearing especially when attempting to play a sophisticated lady. In her sweet selfishness, in her malapropisms and manner, Taylor made Amy a comical yet also fiercely loving and protective sister. While mostly played for laughs, Taylor could also move you.

Pugh has a more central role in her version of Little Women to where it's almost Amy's story versus Jo's. She really does an exceptional job as this woman who sees her limitations due to both her talent (or lack thereof) and her gender. She does what few versions have been able to do: make the Amy/Laurie romance real.

Bennett has the benefit of out-acting Dunst and Mathis, who had to essentially tag-team their adaption. The 1994 version is the only version to have two actresses play one character in different ages, and I can't shake the idea that this was a mistake. It's not that Dunst and/or Mathis gave bad performances: they didn't. It's just that they essentially split the baby and thus makes it hard to judge against the others.

Dusenberry is completely forgettable. I can't even remember what she looks like.

BEST JO MARCH

Katharine Hepburn (1933)
Wynona Ryder (1994)
Saoirse Ronan (2019)
June Allyson (1949)
Susan Dey (1978)

This really is an embarrassment of riches, as some really fine actresses have played one of the greatest female characters in literature. How to choose among the wide variety of Jo Marches? It really is a tough decision, at least for the top three contenders, each of which alone is really a remarkable, rich performance worthy of praise and respect.

After some thought, my mind goes to Katharine Hepburn as the definitive Jo. Hepburn seems tailor-made for this tomboy, feisty, independent woman with literary aspirations. Hepburn comes alive as Jo: her ambitions, her love for her sisters, her desires to be free and live her life. I think Katharine Hepburn's performance in Little Women is one of the finest of her career.

Ryder comes so achingly close to Hepburn, no easy feat. She makes Jo a true heroine for all seasons, bringing that intellectual pursuit and thirst more to the forefront than all the others save probably Hepburn. She is a true creative force and really one of my favorite Ryder performances.

Ronan is in the middle only due to what I consider the superiority of both Hepburn and Ryder in the role. Also, they have the benefit of time where both of them have been seen as the definitive Jo March. Perhaps in the course of time Ronan too will be held as a definitive Jo March, but right now it is too soon.

Allyson is to my mind the worst Jo March in a film adaptation. She does not have the spark of that tomboy or that intellectual. Moreover, her foghorn voice and the fact that she was 33 trying to pass herself off as maybe 16 push her down. Even so, Allyson is better than Dey, who is the worst Jo March ever. Dey's Jo is so blank in the role. Also, she struck me as miscast, almost too beautiful to be this rambunctious tomboy and writer. A writer can be beautiful, but Dey seemed so removed from the role.

BEST VERSION

1933
1994
1949
2019
1978

As I look at the wide variety of Little Women adaptations, I see that there really isn't a bad adaptation. However, to my mind, one really dominates all the others.

The 1933 adaptation is lifted immensely by two factors: Katharine Hepburn and director George Cukor. As I look at my Retrospective, I find that the 1949 version is probably the best acted save for the roles of Jo, Marmee and Aunt March. However, because Hepburn's version is so strong compared to the others and because Cukor's direction is so strong, it gets my vote for the Best Little Women adaptation.

Coming right on its heels is the 1994 Gillian Anderson version, the first directed, written and produced by women. The 1994 version is so well-crafted, simultaneously updating the story to reflect the feminist overtones in the story while still having the more traditional, dare I say wholesome aspects that generations of readers and viewers have grown accustomed to. With the to my mind definitive Marmee and the closest rival to Hepburn in terms of Jo in Winona Ryder's performance, the 1994 Little Women is both conservative and progressive.

The 1949 version overtakes the 2019 version for two reasons. One: it has better performances in what I think are the best Amy, Meg, Beth and Laurie of all the versions. Two, it is older and thus has the benefit of time. It is still too early to declare the 2019 Little Women the best version, let alone the definitive one.

I also was highly troubled by the non-linear structure of the 2019 version. Perhaps those who have never seen any of the versions would not find it a bridge too far, though given the cultural hold the 1994 version has it boggles the mind that those who went to see the 2019 adaptation knew nothing of the story, let alone the 1994 version that stayed within the structure of its predecessors. 

1978, while having good elements and the best Aunt March in Greer Garson, is probably the "worst" due to having the weakest Jo March and Professor Bhaer. The former at times looks catatonic and the latter mostly overacts to embarrassing levels.

I think the chances of getting another adaptation of Little Women within my lifetime are high. I wish whoever makes it success, but he or she should know they have a lot of competition and history to go up against.

Little Women (2019): A Review (Review #1333)

LITTLE WOMEN (2019)

This latest version of Little Women has some new elements within it that distinguish it from almost all others. First, it is the second adaptation to have a female director though the first to have that director also be the screenwriter (Greta Gerwig). Second, it is performed by actresses who would have more likely grown up with that female-directed version as 'their' version rather than the previous ones. Third, it is the first Little Women to have all of the all-American March sisters be played by non-Americans*. Fourth, this adaptation comes at a time when the role of women on and off the screen has come to the forefront. How can a text well over a hundred years old still work today?

Using a nonlinear structure that takes us from "present day" to seven years earlier and shifting hither and yon between, we see Jo March (Saoirse Ronan) already in New York as a struggling authoress. She does have some interaction with Professor Friedrich Bhaer (Louis Garrel), but not much to speak of.

We float between the other sisters and their lives present and past. There's Amy (Florence Pugh), in Europe studying to be a painter under the watchful eye of the haughty Aunt March (Meryl Streep). While there, she entertains the wealthy Fred Vaughn (Dash Barber) but cannot shake the March family friend Theodore Laurence, generally known as Laurie (Timothee Chalamet). There is also Meg (Emma Watson), struggling to keep house and home when once she aspired to marry well only to marry for love. Finally, there's the memory of Beth (Eliza Scanlen), the shy March sister who eventually dies.

As we go from the past to the present to the future past, our four "little women" under the watchful eye of their beloved mother known as Marmee (Laura Dern), love and fight both among each other and with those around them as they strive to be themselves.

I think the most controversial element for this adaptation is Gerwig's decision to make it nonlinear, going from present to past and shifting back and forth. Perhaps someone who has never seen any version of Little Women will not find it as troubling or unnecessarily convoluted as I did, but for myself, there is more than just the loss of a straightforward narrative that left me cold.

By shifting our story back and forth, I think we lose what could be a stronger connection to the March sisters. It almost seemed as if Gerwig opted to film Part 2 of Little Women first, then move on to Part 1. It's hard for me to judge how successful the time shifts are given that I already knew the story, but by going back and forth we lost something. The sisters seem if not strangers at least not as close as perhaps they should be.

Take Beth for example. The sisters all rally to her side when she first gets scarlet fever, making her death all the more tragic for them all. Here, we shift from when she is dying to when she became sick. Gerwig made the deliberate choice of echoing scenes from both moments in the film, but in doing so she made the tragedy less impactful. Not that it wasn't impactful, but it was just less impactful.

One thing that did surprise me was in how Gerwig opted to make Little Women more about Amy than about Jo, almost to where we could have dropped our boisterous tomboy/aspiring writer altogether. Laurie may say he was in love with Jo, but as played by Chalamet he seemed pretty happy to jump from one March sister to another. While he spent more time with Amy in Europe than with Jo in America, he seemed oddly flirtatious with Meg at her debutante ball. When he drunkenly crashes a party, Amy reprimands him while mentioning he still has Jo's ring. Curiously, we see her give Laurie this 'talisman of love' later, and almost as an afterthought, with little to suggest he held this token dear to his heart.

Whether Gerwig wanted to focus more on Amy and Laurie to counterbalance the criticism of how their romance seems absurd in the book or not I cannot verify. What I can say is that for all the protests of love Laurie may make, he seemed oddly detached from Jo. When near the end of the film he proposes marriage, he doesn't seem all that enthusiastic about it. In fact, he seems almost bored with the idea, and he didn't look that much in love with Jo if at all.

Gerwig also appears to be aiming to make The Louisa May Alcott Story versus an adaptation of her most celebrated novel. At the end of the film, as Jo haggles with her editor on her book, "Little Women", she essentially says if she is going to marry off her main character against her wishes, she might as well make money off of it. At which point, she agrees to change the ending to have Jo run to catch Bhaer and kiss under the umbrella.

Was Gerwig attempting to be meta with Little Women? Was she shifting from the text itself to essentially winking at the audience and suggest the whole thing was just silly? It might explain why Bhaer is superfluous to this adaptation, perhaps more so than in the book. However, was he there because audiences expected him to be?

It's not a slam on Garrel, who while pretty is not as pretty as Chalamet and is more French than German. However, perhaps it would have been better to just go for it and change to text altogether to give Little Women the ending Alcott wanted: a single Jo. Chamalet was as mentioned extremely pretty but I didn't see Laurie as a wounded romantic or particularly close to the Marches. He was just there.

I would say that Pugh gave a fine performance as Amy, the one who knows she has to marry rich since as a woman she has no rights and little to no prospects for her own income. Her Amy could be nasty and arrogant but also touching and kind. I would also say that she is not a supporting role...she is a leading role. Pugh's story to my mind takes more precedence over Jo's, which to me is a radical departure.

Ronan's Jo is equally good: strong, perhaps a bit arrogant in being unable to take the slightest criticism, but equal to any man. Watson, to her credit, has improved her American accent though her scenes of romance with John Brook (James Norton) felt a bit overacted to me. Streep was pretty good as Aunt March, not as tyrannical as in the past but not as sensible as she thought she was. I don't have many memories of Scanlen, and despite what I have heard I was not won over by Dern's Marmee.

One scene did strike me as odd. She's handing out blankets to soldiers and their fathers when she observes, somewhat angrily, "I've spent my whole life ashamed of my country", to which an African-American woman also helping distribute blankets replies, "No offense, but I think you still should be". Given that her husband (Bob Odenkirk) is at the front lines of the Civil War, fighting to end slavery, it seems a very odd and random observation.

If one thing truly elevates Little Women, it is the production itself. Alexandre Desplat's score is pure perfection as are the costumes and sets.

Little Women works well enough, but my issue is in how Gerwig opted to structure her version to where I wondered whether she was telling Jo March's story or Louisa May Alcott's story. It certainly has fine performances and a beautiful score, and perhaps because unlike many viewers I have seen three versions that predate 1994's I see things others may not; on the whole though this for me is the weakest version. Note I did not say the worst or a terrible version, just not the one I would want for my daughters...and sons.

DECISION: B-

*While Saoirse Ronan was born in New York City and is American by birth, she is Irish by nationality. Watson and Pugh are British and Scanlen is Australian.

Little Women Retrospective: An Introduction
Little Women: 1933
Little Women: 1949
Little Women: 1978
Little Women: 1994
Little Women Retrospective: The Conclusions

Little Women (1994): A Review

LITTLE WOMEN (1994)

The 1994 remake of Little Women has a few unique features: it is the first film adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's celebrated novel to be produced, written and directed by a woman. It is also the first time where two actresses have played one of the March sisters. This version, made twenty fives after the last cinematic take on Alcott's novel, is probably the best known to the general public as it is the most recent. Little Women has a greater focus on the status of women in this time period, but it still keeps to the warmth and love this story is long associated with.

As the Civil War rages on, Concord is still quite quiet. The four March sisters do pray their father does return safe, but for now the formerly wealthy family soldiers on. Meg (Trini Alvarado), the oldest, looks aghast sometimes at her more boisterous and outspoken sister Jo (Winona Ryder). Jo is a fierce intellect with dreams of being a writer. Their younger sister Beth (Claire Danes) is a soft, quiet figure, while the youngest Amy (Kirsten Dunst as a child, Samantha Mathis as an adult) would like the finer things in life.

Watched over by their strong and loving mother, lovingly called Marmee (Susan Sarandon), they keep watch over each other and those nearby. Among those nearby is Theodore Laurence, nicknamed both "Timmy" and "Laurie" (Christian Bale), their wealthy neighbor essentially exiled within the Laurence home. Laurie and Jo become friends, and soon Meg catches the eye of Laurie's tutor John Brooke (Eric Stoltz). There are fires and fights, love and loss within the March home as they navigate through life.

With Meg and John now married and Beth weak from her bout with scarlet fever, Jo feels adrift, especially after turning down Laurie's marriage proposal. Encouraged by Marmee, she goes to New York City to pursue both employment and her literary career. Her disappointment in not going to Europe with their Great-Aunt March (Mary Wickes) is mitigated by Professor Bhaer (Gabriel Byrne), a German intellectual and they fall in love. Jo, however, still turns out potboilers for cash despite "Friedrich" advising she can do better.

More loss and joy come to the Marches, until with now Laurie and Amy married, Meg with children and Beth having died, Jo channels her grief into her new work, "Little Women", and finds true love at last.

It is unfair to compare previous versions of Little Women while evaluating another version, but I could not help notice how different this version was to the two previous film adaptations in many ways: structure, characters, scenes. Those actual comparisons are for another time, but I do find it a bit hard not to have them populate the back of my mind.

Little Women does a fine job in portraying the differences between the March sisters. It gives a great emphasis on Jo as an intellectual versus just being a tomboy. Ryder, aided by director Gillian Anderson, puts a sharp focus on Jo's intelligence and artistic life. She is not so much rough-and-tumble as she is bright, articulate and starved for advancement on her own terms. Ryder gives an excellent and beautiful performance as Jo, one who is dearly attached to her sisters and has such a strong sense of equality she does not understand why her siblings would be horrified at having the male Laurie join in their theatricals. She is bright and witty, gentle and intelligent, a woman for all seasons.

This Jo is seen and heard in voiceover (curiously, another first in the adaptations) openly discussing her frustration at not being able to go to college because of her sex. She partakes in salons where she puts her own views on suffrage for the men to consider: women should get the vote not because they are 'more moral' than men but because they are citizens. Jo talks on transcendentalism with Bhaer, a mutual interest to them.

In short, this Jo is not so much flouting the conventions of society but pushing for equality in it. She is helped by Marmee, who herself mentions that she believes females should have as much physical exertion as men. Sarandon balances being strong and gentle as "Abigail" (Marmee's actual name, which to my mind is the first time I've heard it used in any adaptation). She is loving and warm, moving when she must see Beth at death's door, and graceful and elegant when comforting her 'little women'. I think it one of Sarandon's best performances.

Claire Danes and Trini Alvarado as the gentle Beth and more sophisticated but aware Meg also did fine work, balancing the humor with the heartache. Danes in particular had a quiet vulnerability as our doomed character. It's hard to get a hold on Amy as two actresses played the role, but it's a credit to all involved: Dunst, Mathis, Anderson and screenwriter Robin Swicord that it never felt like a complete jolt. It does look a bit peculiar that Laurie does not seem to age much while Amy shifts from tween to full woman, making his pledge to 'kiss her before she dies' almost predatory.

Bale's Laurie was quite gentle at the beginning, more wastrel later on. I could not shake the idea that this seemed a bit too much to believe Jo's rejection would so devastate Laurie he'd turn into a near-drunk playboy, but on the whole he did well in the role. Less so was Byrne, whose German accent sounded like an Irishman trying out his Bela Lugosi impression. About twenty years older than Ryder, Byrne seemed too soft-spoken as Bhaer, with none of the fire within to spark her intellectual or physical fire.

One aspect I don't think worked was with Aunt March. Mary Wickes in a very small role was delightful, but therein lies the trouble. She seemed too gentle and soft to play the Aunt March as I understood her to be: a bit gruff and tyrannical but not without some heart. Despite Jo's protests the Aunt March as played by Wickes doesn't seem the type to turn down an offer to help Marmee get to Washington. I also found that some of the elements did not fully work for me, such as whatever connection Beth and Mr. Laurence (John Neville) had with the piano.

Little Women also benefits from Thomas Newman's beautiful score, which earned the film one of its three Academy Award nominations, along with Colleen Atwood's costume designs.

Little Women is a sharp, beautiful and elegant film. It's curious that a lot of Little Women differs from my memories of past Little Women, but change is inevitable. With wonderful performances from the cast, in particular Ryder and Sarandon, this Little Women will charm, delight and inspire generations of little women to pursue their dreams while not forgetting that the familial bonds are where we should draw our strength.
   
DECISION: B+

Little Women Retrospective: An Introduction
Little Women: 1933
Little Women: 1949
Little Women: 1978
Little Women: 2019
Little Women Retrospective: The Conclusions

Little Women (1949): A Review

 LITTLE WOMEN (1949)

It's a curious thing that the 1949 remake of Little Women is scarcely remembered, especially compared to the 1933 original or the 1994 adaptation. Sandwiched between those two more popular versions, the 1949 Little Women suffers from a lack of notoriety. That's a shame because while this Little Women is not without some flaws, it is an equally charming film.

While their father fights in the Civil War, the four March sisters live life as well as they can. There's Meg (Janet Leigh), the oldest, more mature and ladylike. There's boisterous tomboy Jo (June Allyson), the snobbish Amy (Elizabeth Taylor) and gentle Beth (Margaret O'Brien), the youngest. Watched over by their mother, lovingly called Marmee (Mary Astor), the March sisters do their best under financially strained circumstances.

They're well-off enough to live next door to the wealthy Laurence family, and Jo catches the eye of young Laurie (Peter Lawford), the lonely grandson of the gruff but lovable Mr. Laurence (Sir C. Aubrey Smith). Jo yearns to be a writer, Amy wishes for a return to wealth and prestige, Meg to perhaps marry (and more perhaps marry well) while shy Beth loves playing the piano. There's joy and heartache, love and loss in the March home.

Finally, after Meg's marriage to Laurie's tutor Mr. Brooke (Richard Stapley) over the objections of the fierce and wealthy Aunt March (Lucille Watson) and Beth's bout with scarlet fever, Jo feels a bit adrift. Having turned down Laurie's marriage proposal, she opts to be a governess in New York City. There, Jo finds herself working alongside Professor Bhaer (Rossano Brazzi), who loves the arts and culture as she does.

More joys and sorrows await the March sisters, until with one gone and two married, Jo finds that perhaps she too will find love and contentment among an intellectual equal.

It's a curious thing that Little Women has excellent performances from everyone save the central character. This is not to say that June Allyson gave a bad performance, though to be fair I have never been an Allyson fan apart from her Depend Undergarment ads. My view is that Allyson was trying too hard to be a spitfire but was a bit forced in her manner. It's as if she was told by director Mervin LeRoy to be a bit restrained while being feisty. She gave it a good go but Allyson never struck me as a tough but loving Jo.

It might be that she was 33 when attempting to play this teenage fireball, and in some scenes she ended up looking even older. When she returns from having cut her hair to earn extra money, I gasped and thought Allyson looked 300! She was twenty years older than O'Brien, fifteen years older than Taylor and ten years older than Leigh, who supposedly is her older sister. Again, Allyson gave it a good try but she was far too old for the part. The only March relations she was younger than was Astor as her mother, and that was only by eleven years!

Again, Allyson was either too forced or restrained as Jo, but to her credit she did have some wonderful moments such as when she and Laurie end any possibility of romance.

Another odd choice was in Brazzi making his American debut. Whatever possessed MGM to try and pass off this rather handsome Italian complete with Italian accent as a middle-aged, somewhat serious German? He did his best also, even if he was more Mediterranean charming than Teutonic austerity. 

Much better were the other March sisters. Taylor easily disproved that she could not play any kind of comedy with her Amy, rattling off malapropisms and be simultaneously sweet and snobbish. Whether it's in her offering the Hummel babies pieces of popovers via a "one piece for you, one piece for me" method or being wildly over-the-top in Jo's play, Taylor is enchanting. She could also be touching, such as whenever she protects Beth from the mean-spirited things people say about the Marches.

O'Brien simply out-acts everyone else as this delightful, adorable, cute and ultimately doomed Beth. No one could cry on camera like Margaret O'Brien, and her final scene with Allyson where she openly accepts her impending death just about breaks your heart.

Janet Leigh too does well as Meg, longing for respectability and conflicted about her feelings for Mr. Brooke. Mary Astor, while having a smaller role, was gentleness and warmth itself as the wise and understanding Marmee. You wish all mothers were like that.

Lawford at first struck me as too big physically for Laurie, as if he'd have a hard time thinking he was unappealing to women. However, as Little Women went on he won me over, not completely but enough. Watson struck me as slightly more comical than I imagine Aunt March to be, but again not a bad performance.

Little Women is on the whole lovely, nostalgic and sweet. June Allyson may not make the best Jo March, but almost the rest of the cast elevates this tale of sibling love that should prove quite enchanting.

DECISION: B+

Little Women Retrospective: An Introduction
Little Women: 1933
Little Women: 1978
Little Women: 1994
Little Women: 2019
Little Women Retrospective: The Conclusions

Little Women (1933): A Review (Review #1320)

LITTLE WOMEN (1933)

The first sound version of Louis May Alcott's seminal work is a charming, sweet and beautiful portrait of a family that loves each other through the peaks and valleys of life. With exceptional performances all-around, Little Women delights and enchants the viewer.

As the Civil War continues, the March family carries on while their patriarch is fighting for the Union. The four March daughters dearly miss their beloved Papa, but also continue living out a life of joy and sibling rivalry. There's the gentle Beth (Jean Parker), the youngest whose great love is playing the family's rickety old piano. There's Amy (Frances Dee), pretty but given to airs of grandness. The more sensible Meg (Joan Bennett) works as a governess, while spirited tomboy Josephine or Jo (Katharine Hepburn) serves as companion to their haughty Aunt March (Edna May Oliver) while working to become a famous and successful authoress.

The March girls do love each other, especially given the example of their mother, lovingly called Marmee (Spring Byington). They slowly know their much wealthier neighbors, Mr. Laurence (Henry Stephenson) and his grandson Theodore, nicknamed Laurie (Douglass Montgomery). Over time there are plays to perform, music and dancing to make, and romance.

There is also the specter of death from both the war and scarlet fever. Jo declines Laurie's marriage proposal while Meg accepts that of his tutor, Mr. Brooke (John Davis Lodge). Jo opts to do some good both financially and artistically by going to New York to be a governess herself. There, she meets Professor Bhaer (Paul Lukas), an impoverished German teacher to the children in her care. More losses and gains for the March family until the surviving 'little women' each finds love and contentment.

Little Women is a very jolly, charming film, but one with a gentle and loving heart. Director George Cukor was adept at drawing great performances from his cast, particularly women, and Little Women shows him at his most gentle and heartfelt. There is not one bad performance or one wasted moment.

At the heart of Little Women is our Jo: independent, strong-willed, somewhat bossy but also loving. It seems all but tailor-made for Katharine Hepburn, and Little Women is one of her great early film roles. Hepburn is an ideal, if perhaps slightly old Jo, a rambunctious figure cocksure of her abilities but also fiercely loyal to her siblings. Whether it's in directing her own play, which ends humorously in disaster, being displeased at others attempting to woo her sisters, or mourning, she does not hit a false note.

Little Women's other women also bring an excellent mix of performances. Jean Parker's Beth was gentle and sweet without being sickening or schmaltzy. Frances Dee was equal to the task of making Meg haughty but also humorous in her malapropisms and airs of grandness. Joan Bennett played both intelligence and romance with equal ease. Byington's Marmee got a bit lost in the shuffle, but in her scenes she expressed gentleness and warmth, the qualities of an excellent mother.

The men too were strong. Of particular note is Lukas as the slightly befuddled but pleasant Professor Bhaer. It does at first appear odd that Jo would end up falling in love with someone who looks considerably older, but Lukas plays up how he is Jo's intellectual equal, admiring and encouraging her literary gifts. Montgomery's Laurie was a little on the dull side, but it was pleasant enough.

There is an unabashed nostalgia running through Little Women, an unapologetic one too. Little Women is a very moving film that touches your heart with its mix of warmth and sincerity.

Little Women Retrospective: An Introduction
Little Women: 1949
Little Women: 1978
Little Women: 1994
Little Women: 2019
Little Women Retrospective: The Conclusions

DECISION: A+

Little Women Retrospective: An Introduction

Louisa May Alcott:
1832-1888

LITTLE WOMEN RETROSPECTIVE: 

AN INTRODUCTION

"And then they realized they were no longer little girls. They were Little Women".

So Springfield barkeep Moe Szyslak so movingly and tearfully read to a group of homeless men from Louisa May Alcott's beloved classic. Never mind that as far as I know these lines are not actually in Little Women itself, Szyslak's reading is so touching you accept it as true.

With that, I begin what I had planned for some time but which the latest film version of Alcott's most celebrated work now brings forward: a Little Women Retrospective.

It's a bit sad that when people talk about 'the old version' of Little Women, they are referring to the 1994 version starring Wynona Ryder and Susan Sarandon as Jo and Marmee March respectively. A few people will mention the 1933 version starring Katharine Hepburn and Spring Byington. Hardly anyone remembers the 1949 version starring June Allyson and Mary Astor, let alone the 1978 television miniseries with Susan Dey and Dorothy McGuire.

Is this fair to have those two adaptations unrecognized? Which version really stands tall and which version should best be forgotten? How do each of them fare against the latest adaptation? How will the 2019 version stack up against its predecessors?

Now, with the Saoirse Ronan and Laura Dern version coming, it is time to look back on the three previous film versions (the television adaptation already having been reviewed for the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon celebration of Greer Garson). Every Tuesday for the next three weeks I will look at a past Little Women adaptation culminating with the 2019 version.

I hope this brief retrospective will be entertaining and enlightening. We begin next week with the first sound version released in 1933, with a concluding essay after reviewing the 2019 adaptation.

1933
1949
1978
1994
2019
Little Women: The Conclusions

Little Women (1978): The Television Miniseries Review

LITTLE WOMEN (1978)

Many thanks to Kristen Lopez at Journeys in Classic Film for including me in the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon.  Today's star is Greer Garson.

The television adaptation of Little Women marked the farewell performance of Greer Garson, one of MGM's grande dames known for her sophisticated, and oh-so-proper British elegant manner.  Apart from a guest spot on The Love Boat, this would mark the final time Garson performed.  As a minor character from the Louisa May Alcott novel, her role wasn't large, but it fit well into the miniseries.  I've no way of knowing if this version of the classic novel sticks close to the original.  I will say that the performances are hit and miss, but it has other positives that elevate it.

The March sisters are living life the best they can as their father serves as a Union chaplain during the Civil War.  Chronicling life is Jo (Susan Dey), who dreams of being a writer.  There is her older sister Meg (Meredith Baxter Birney), who yearns to be a grand dame and is considered the family beauty but whose poverty is a hindrance to her aspirations.  Amy March (Ann Dusenberry) is a bit of a flirt but highly immature and petty.  The youngest, Beth (Eve Plumb) plays the piano and is the most sensitive of them all.  Under the loving and watchful eye of Marmee (Dorothy McGuire), the March girls eke out a living the best they can while they keep going.

Across the street is Theodore Lawrence, better known as Laurie (Richard Gilliland), who lives with his very wealthy Grandfather James (Robert Young).  Grandfather loves Laurie but is also worried that he will become a wastrel, having already endured the loss of his daughter to an Italian named Senna (as this is Laurie's real surname though not used as Grandfather's insistence). 

Jo, the most independent, bristles at having to keep Aunt March (Garson) company, especially since Aunt March pays so little and is consistently haughty, giving her disapproving advise at every turn.  Jo also almost loses Amy after she rejects her working with Jo on a book: Amy painting, Jo writing.  In revenge, Amy burns Jo's book, an act that shocks everyone and enrages Jo.  In a desperate effort to make amends, Amy seeks out Jo and Laurie, who have gone ice skating.  Amy falls through the ice and nearly drowns, and a repentant Jo realizes that her war had gone too far.

Life continues, though with great struggles.  Laurie and Grandfather's relationship is strained, and Beth gets the scarlet fever and nearly dies.  This on top of their father becoming ill and Marmee having to rush off to Washington for him.  Aunt March helps financially, but Jo's anger at Aunt March's comments nearly cost them the cash.  Jo makes her own sacrifice, cutting her hair to raise more money.

While Meg falls in love with the dashing Union officer John Brooke (Cliff Potts), Jo still cannot think of herself as marriage material.  In fact, she turns down Laurie's proposal, insisting he can find better (though in today's terms, we'd say he was put in the 'friend zone').  Angry, he takes up his grandfather's offer to go to Europe.  Jo's anger issues cost her a trip to Europe too, when she tells Aunt March off, the latter decides to get Amy to be a travelling companion for her friend rather than Jo, whom she had originally chosen.  With Elizabeth still weak from her scarlet fever and Meg married (on the day of Lee's surrender no less, turning it into a great celebration), Jo decides to go to New York and be a governess.

There, she meets Professor Friedrich Bhaer (William Shatner), whom she is fond of, even if he lets on that he isn't fond of Jo's writing (though he isn't aware that 'J. March' is his next-door neighbor).  Meg gives birth, which calls Jo back to the Concord abode.  Jo and Beth go to the sea, a mutual dream of theirs, but Elizabeth acknowledges what Jo won't: that Elizabeth is dying.  Professor Bhaer doesn't write as much as he used to, and Amy, to her own surprise, not only finds Laurie in Europe, but discovers that he now is in love with her.

When they return to Concord, Jo learns that Amy and Laurie are now themselves married.  Still, any dreams of Jo being a spinster are gone, as Professor Bhaer has arrived for Christmas, the promise and hope of love still there. 

It is interesting to see so many people early or late in their careers.  As noted, this was Garson's final major appearance, and in it she played the haughty Aunt March with a clear, arrogant manner, which I think was the correct way of dealing with this character.  However, to her credit Garson did show that there was a bit of a heart beneath the harsh exterior.  As a member of the family, she attended Margaret's wedding (Aunt March always called the girls by their full name), and when everyone learned that the war was over just before the toasts were announced, Garson gave a short yet lovely and beautiful toast. 

We also saw Robert Young in a bit of a departure from his normal roles as the somewhat gruff Grandfather.  I think this is one of his better performances, as he made Grandfather Lawrence into a believable person: not a tyrant who berated his only heir, but not an overtly avuncular and sweet man.  He could be sweet and sincere, such as when he invites Elizabeth to use his piano anytime, but he could also be stern and serious, so much so that when he hears the piano and thinks its Laurie goofing off, he starts barking out orders to stop, terrifying Elizabeth into running off.  The look of shock and regret at his snapping is clear on his face.

Another star from the Golden Age, Dorothy McGuire, wasn't particularly great as Marmee, but she had her moments of tenderness.  One of her best was when she advised Jo to forgive Amy for burning her book, offering that the loss of a sister is greater than the loss of a book.

In the younger, we can see a surprising albeit small turn from Star Trek: The Next Generation's Q himself.  John De Lancie plays a British courter of Amy, and as you look at him you begin to wonder where you've heard that voice before.  After seeing him in Little Women, it is surprising that Richard Gilliland didn't become a bigger name.  The camera focuses lovingly on his intense blue eyes, and even though he looks a bit old to be a naïve young man (he was 28 at the time), Gilliland did a strong job as the earnest young man who loves Jo (him loving Amy, though, didn't seem believable).

Again, not having read the book, I cannot say whether that stays true to the story, but after spending so much time with Jo, his romance with Amy seems beyond whirlwind.

As for the March sisters, I think Baxter-Birney did the best as the elegant beauty Meg.  She made her aspirations to a better social standing really stand out.  Plumb, now notorious for "Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!" of Brady Bunch fame, was surprisingly gentle as the delicate Beth, with barely a hint of her infamous 'middle child syndrome'. 

Dusenberry was a bit of a nonentity in Little Women to where I barely remember her.  In regards to Dey's Jo, part of me thought she was too beautiful to be considered the plainer, more assertive March sister.  I don't think Dey is a particularly good actress, having a more gentle manner than perhaps Josephine should have.  However, as the miniseries progressed I think she grew on me.

What didn't grow on me was Shatner, adopting the worst Deutsch accent in television history.  It was painfully bad and obvious the only thing German about Shatner was Black Forest Cake.  It just wasn't a bad accent he was carrying.  It was just a bad performance, so much so that one is really left scratching their heads wondering why Jo would turn down Laurie but be enthralled with Bhaer (who didn't even like her stories).

Little Women has beautiful music courtesy of Elmer Bernstein, who can be counted to create the perfect mood whether it calls for action or lightness.  The sets were obviously stage-bound (especially anytime the characters were meant to be in a park or ice skating pond, though there was location shooting), and the sets and costumes were nice (the former winning the miniseries an Emmy).

Little Women is a decent enough adaptation, though whether the fact they have more time than a feature film made it feel longer or richer depends on individual tastes.  On the whole though, with some good performances, I think it will be a good introduction to the classic novel.

7/10

Little Women Retrospective: An Introduction
Little Women: 1933
Little Women: 1949
Little Women: 1994
Little Women: 2019
Little Women Retrospective: The Conclusions