Little Women (1949)

Comparisons

The most interesting thing about the three film versions of "Little Women" is comparing them to each other or comparing each of them to Alcott's book.

What makes them so difficult to choose between is that the casting of the four title characters is the critical element, and each film featured at least one actress whose performance was clearly superior to her character's portrayal in the other two films.

This all star cast would include Jean Parker (Beth) in the 1933 version, Janet Leigh (Meg) in the 1949 version, and Winona Ryder (Jo) in the 1994 version. The 1994 version also had the best Amy, if only because they wisely split the role into a younger Amy (Kirsten Dunst) and an older Amy (Samantha Mathis).

Since Jo is pretty clearly the most important of the four sisters (to the story), the 1994 version gets my nod as the best of the three films. The 1933 version pulls in as a close second as Joan Bennett and Katherine Hepburn are the second best Amy and Jo; and Francis Dee's Meg is as good as Trini Alvarado's. Neither Margaret O'Brien nor Claire Danes come even close to Parker's portrayal of Beth.

The biggest casting problem all the productions had was in the age of the actresses. With the exception of Beth, all three characters must span a five year period. The casting process typically addressed this by selecting older actresses and getting them to play (with varying degrees of success) much (June Allyson was 32 years old) younger versions of themselves during the first half of the film.

At least the 1994 versions managed to get the birth order right. The 1933 version had some problems in this area, as Hepburn was two years older than Dee and Bennett five years older than Parker. While this still causes many Alcott fans to cringe, it is nothing compared to the 1949 version where Allyson was ten years older than Leigh and Elizabeth Taylor was five years older than O'Brien.

Taylor should have played Jo, which would have saved viewers from Allyson's embarrassing portrayal and from Taylor's attempt to pass as a blonde. Few actresses (even in black and white) were less suited to a light hair color. While Taylor's portrayal of Amy is painful, she would have been well suited to the Jo role.

Critics frequently point out that both Hepburn and Allyson were much like Jo in real life, so there is a certain irony that Ryder's portrayal of the character (one so dissimilar to herself) was far superior. But Ryder and Jo have a similar level of intensity so maybe it was not as much a stretch as it seems.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. August 17, 2008

Little Women

My mother made comments that she had seen this movie when she was in high school and would like to have it. I did a search on your sight and found it. Thank you.

Sincerly,
Peggy Parker May 5, 2008

"Some girls have everything, while other, prettier, girls have nothing at all!"

This version has to be one of the best - at least tied with the 1933 Katharine Hepburn version. I believe everyone did their part well. Margaret O'Brien is certainly better as Beth than Tootie in "Meet Me In St. Louis," June Allyson (though not as good as Katharine Hepburn) did a great job as Jo, and Elizabeth Taylor (I know alot of people said she didn't fit the part) was perfect as Amy (well, except for the part calls for blonde hair. Elizabeth Taylor could definitely NOT be a blonde). Surprisingly, there is actually even a little bit of comedy (especially what Amy says). And the more I see it the better it gets. You always pick up something else that you didn't the last time you saw it. So I HIGHLY recommend it for the entire family! March 22, 2008

Great Service

Received DVD in a timely manner. Great condition. Would purchase from this buyer again. January 18, 2008

Brings the novel to vivid, contemporary life

The mini-series LITTLE WOMEN starring Meredith Baxter-Birney, Susan Dey and William Shatner brings the novel to vivid, contemporary life with the DVD release of a production which originally aired as a two-part NBC min-series in 1978. The TV production earned numerous awards, making this DVD version an essential for any collection strong in DVD classics.
January 6, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...