Beloved Classic
Louisa May Alcott's famous novel is not only a beloved American classic but is also well-known in Britain, so I need not repeat the plot here. Suffice it to say that it concerns the adventures of four sisters growing up in a small New England town during the Civil War, in which their father is fighting. It has been filmed several times; the first two versions, both dating from the silent era, are now lost, and I have never seen the 1933 version with Katharine Hepburn. I am, however, familiar with the other three- this one, the 1949 version with June Allyson and Elizabeth Taylor and Greta Gerwig's recent take on the story.
Those other two films have their virtues, but in each case they those virtues are outweighed, or nearly so, by equally prominent defects. Mervyn LeRoy's film from 1949 suffers from some eccentric casting, particularly that of the 32-year-old Allyson as Jo, a girl of around half that age. (The teenage Taylor is also unconvincing as Amy, a child in the early part of the novel). As for Gerwig's version, there is some decent acting, but the film is spoilt by an extreme form of non-linear narrative which makes it difficult to follow. It must be the only version of "Little Women" where Beth appears to come back from the dead, at least once and possibly twice.
Armstrong, by contrast, is content to tell her tale simply, and she obtains some very good acting performances from her stars. There is not enough space here to single them all out, but the best in my view came from the lovely Winona Ryder as Jo, perhaps rather more fragile than the character is normally played, but nevertheless still passionate and determined. Mention should also go to Susan Sarandon as the girls' mother Marmee, Christian Bale as Jo's suitor Laurie, Trini Alvarado (an actress I have not heard much of since) as Meg and Gabriel Byrne as Friedrich Bhaer, the German professor with whom Jo falls in love. In the original novel Friedrich is considerably older than Jo, but in Gerwig's film he became a young man of around the same age, more undergrad than professor. There was, apparently, talk of doing something similar here, with Hugh Grant as a possible candidate, but the producers decided to stick with the book, and I think that decision paid off.
The visual look of the film is essentially that of the "heritage cinema" movement, albeit more muted and restrained than many films in that style, possibly to emphasise that the March family are not particularly wealthy. As with the 1949 film the predominant colours are dark greens and reds, possibly because these colours were felt to be particularly appropriate to Christmas, the season during which much of the action in the first half takes place. Here in Britain the film is, in fact, often shown on television during the Christmas season; it seems to be on the way to becoming a beloved classic in its own right. Gillian Armstrong's film is by a considerable margin in my view the best of the three versions I know, the one which best conveys the emotional power of Alcott's storytelling. 8/10.
Those other two films have their virtues, but in each case they those virtues are outweighed, or nearly so, by equally prominent defects. Mervyn LeRoy's film from 1949 suffers from some eccentric casting, particularly that of the 32-year-old Allyson as Jo, a girl of around half that age. (The teenage Taylor is also unconvincing as Amy, a child in the early part of the novel). As for Gerwig's version, there is some decent acting, but the film is spoilt by an extreme form of non-linear narrative which makes it difficult to follow. It must be the only version of "Little Women" where Beth appears to come back from the dead, at least once and possibly twice.
Armstrong, by contrast, is content to tell her tale simply, and she obtains some very good acting performances from her stars. There is not enough space here to single them all out, but the best in my view came from the lovely Winona Ryder as Jo, perhaps rather more fragile than the character is normally played, but nevertheless still passionate and determined. Mention should also go to Susan Sarandon as the girls' mother Marmee, Christian Bale as Jo's suitor Laurie, Trini Alvarado (an actress I have not heard much of since) as Meg and Gabriel Byrne as Friedrich Bhaer, the German professor with whom Jo falls in love. In the original novel Friedrich is considerably older than Jo, but in Gerwig's film he became a young man of around the same age, more undergrad than professor. There was, apparently, talk of doing something similar here, with Hugh Grant as a possible candidate, but the producers decided to stick with the book, and I think that decision paid off.
The visual look of the film is essentially that of the "heritage cinema" movement, albeit more muted and restrained than many films in that style, possibly to emphasise that the March family are not particularly wealthy. As with the 1949 film the predominant colours are dark greens and reds, possibly because these colours were felt to be particularly appropriate to Christmas, the season during which much of the action in the first half takes place. Here in Britain the film is, in fact, often shown on television during the Christmas season; it seems to be on the way to becoming a beloved classic in its own right. Gillian Armstrong's film is by a considerable margin in my view the best of the three versions I know, the one which best conveys the emotional power of Alcott's storytelling. 8/10.
- JamesHitchcock
- 28 दिस॰ 2021