LITTLE WOMEN
Susan C. Mitchell
: LITTLE WOMEN
: A film review by Mark R. Leeper
: The most enduring so-called "girls' book" ever written is Lousia
: May Alcott's 1868 LITTLE WOMEN, based in large part on her childhood
: experiences growing up in Concord, Massachusetts. The novel has
[snip]
: The Marches are a very tightly-knit family of four sisters and
: their ever-perfect mother. The family lives in 1860's Concord,
: Massachusetts. I have heard about families like this but never
: actually believed they existed. They share everything with each other
They didn't, actually. Alcott's novel was not nearly as autobiographical
as is often believed; her father, most notably, showed a remarkable
predilection in his life to join the "utopian" religious communities that
were popular in the eighteenth century. Perhaps the most memorable of
these was one which required *no* exploitation of animals, and eating
only foods which grew "up" towards heaven. This meant, of course, no
meat, no leather, no *wool*, no draft animals, and no root crops.
Plowing a grain field without draft oxen turned out not to be the
"utopian" experience the Alcotts had been hoping for ...
: develops into the woman her childhood characteristics made her. Jo
: writes melodramatic potboilers and goes to New York (following her
: mothers suggestion, "Embrace your liberty") to make her fortune. And
: she becomes romantically entangled (big surprise!) with a German
: philosopher who shares the boarding house where she is staying. There
It is interesting to note that LMA never intended Jo to marry at all.
The first book ended with Mr. Brooke's proposal to Meg in the chapter
"Aunt March Settles the Question"; Alcott's publishers insisted she write a
sequel, originally entitled "Young Wives," and marry off all of the
sisters except Beth. Alcott, who harbored no illusions about the
unfailing joys of marriage (once, invited to write a magazine column
about marriage, she responded with a set of character-sketches of her
spinster heroines, entitled "Happy Women"), finally agreed, but refused to
write a romantic cliche of the Heroine Swept Off Her Feet and borne off
on the Hero's White Charger to live Happily Ever After; instead, the
twenty-year-old Jo marries a homely-but-intellectual man twice her age,
and goes off with him to start a boys' boarding school.
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
===========================================================================
"We, the people, are not free. Our democracy is but a name. We vote?
What does that mean? We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee."
-- Helen Keller
Mark R. Leeper
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Capsule: Gillian Armstrong's version of the
Alcott novel is an idealized Currier and Ives print
of family life in 1860s Massachusetts. The semi-
autobiographical novel is very beautifully filmed
and at times a real tear-jerker, but is somehow
lacking in any real intellectual content. It is a
big children's book. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4)
The most enduring so-called "girls' book" ever written is Lousia
May Alcott's 1868 LITTLE WOMEN, based in large part on her childhood
experiences growing up in Concord, Massachusetts. The novel has
previously been filmed five times, beginning with a 1918 silent version
and including a British mini-series. It was even turned into a short-
lived television series in 1979. The sixth filming may well rank as
the most beautiful and compelling version, though certainly some will
still prefer George Cukor's classic 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn
as Jo March and Spring Byington as her mother. The newest version is
directed by Australian Gillian Armstrong of MY BRILLIANT CAREER and
MRS. SOFFEL.
The Marches are a very tightly-knit family of four sisters and
their ever-perfect mother. The family lives in 1860's Concord,
Massachusetts. I have heard about families like this but never
actually believed they existed. They share everything with each other
and are bound to each other with a love that transcends even the rare
imperfections. They do things like give up their Christmas morning
dinner, including delicacies like sausage that are almost unavailable
during the Civil War, to feed a hungry immigrant family. The girls
read poetry, put on little plays written by Jo (played by Winona
Ryder), and steal glances out their window at the boy next door, Laurie
(Christian Bale), and his stodgy tutor (Eric Stoltz). The girls roll
bandages and take care of the sick and hungry while waiting anxiously
for letters from their father who is off fighting for the Union cause.
The sisters do have their occasional differences, but they always give
them up with a sigh of relief when something happens to bind them even
closer together. Eventually Laurie becomes like one of the family and
there is no doubt that he will eventually court one of the March girls.
When he goes off to school the film jumps ahead four years and everyone
but young Amy (Kirsten Dunst) looks just the same. Amy (now Samantha
Mathis) looks like she has aged about eight years. Each daughter
develops into the woman her childhood characteristics made her. Jo
writes melodramatic potboilers and goes to New York (following her
mothers suggestion, "Embrace your liberty") to make her fortune. And
she becomes romantically entangled (big surprise!) with a German
philosopher who shares the boarding house where she is staying. There
is sad family tragedy, there is warm family love, and there are
romantic entanglements. Remarkably, Armstrong makes this story of
traditional values (with just a light whisper of feminism) work for a
90s audience, assisted by Geoffrey Simpson's nostalgic camera work.
British Columbia stands in for Concord and makes everything look homey
and beautiful.
The casting of some of the major roles is a bit too Hollywood and
not enough Alcott. Trini Alvarado looks more like a young Andie
MacDowell than like Alcott's plumpish Meg. Alcott had Jo be tall and
awkward, and even the film script calls for her to be plain and to have
her long hair be her one nice feature. Does it sound like I am
describing Winona Ryder? The casting of beauty in roles that call for
plain tends to oversimplify the motivations of the various suitors.
Claire Daines as Beth is the only daughter who approaches being homely-
--in both senses of the word--in this version and the only one for whom
we never see a suitor. Susan Sarandon conveys the warmth and wisdom of
Alcott's overly-idealized mother. She is always there with just the
right insight, with a nursing talent that puts doctors to shame, and
with a noble and charitable thought for others. Kirsten Dunst seems
far too precocious as the child Amy to grow into the placid Samantha
Mathis adult version. Dunst does a good job, but she will be
remembered more for her role as the adult vampire trapped in the body
of a child from INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE.
Among other things, the film chronicles how Jo's childhood writing
develops into what she writes as an adult. Here her imagination is
seen as positive and constructive. But the timing of the release
should invite interesting comparisons to Peter Jackson's HEAVENLY
CREATURES. And LITTLE WOMEN sorely needs something for the viewer to
think about when it is over rather than just being left with a warm
feeling. I give LITTLE WOMEN a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
mark....@att.com
Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper
--
Mark R. Leeper <lee...@mtgzfs3.att.com>, (908) 957-5619 Fax: (908) 957-5627
AT&T Bell Laboratories - MT 3D-441, 200 Laurel Ave, Middletown, NJ 07748
z_ri...@titan.sfasu.edu
It wasn't that I detested it, but I just wasn't at all _moved_ by anything in
it, except for Beth's dying scene. The acting was superb, and the
cinematography some of the very best I've ever seen... but.........
BLo
>Anyone _not_ like this film?
Me and my boyfriend, my two sisters and my brother-in-law.
>It wasn't that I detested it, but I just wasn't at all _moved_ by anything in
>it, except for Beth's dying scene. The acting was superb, and the
>cinematography some of the very best I've ever seen... but.........
I'd agree with everything you state here. It seemed more like a Hallmark TV
movie than a theatrical release. I get more out of an average episode of MSCL
than I got out of this movie.
Ian J. Ball
> z_ri...@titan.sfasu.edu writes:
>
> >It wasn't that I detested it, but I just wasn't at all _moved_ by anything
> >in it, except for Beth's dying scene. The acting was superb, and the
> >cinematography some of the very best I've ever seen... but.........
>
> I'd agree with everything you state here. It seemed more like a Hallmark TV
> movie than a theatrical release. I get more out of an average episode of MSCL
> than I got out of this movie.
Hmmm. My reaction was just the opposite. I wasn't a believer in Claire
Danes until this movie; it really brought her out more than the show. I
really liked _Little Women_, while I find MSCL only passible (and often
annoying).
--
Ian J. Ball
Grad Student, Dept. of Chem, UCLA
IJB...@aol.com
i...@argon.chem.ucla.edu
SINEQUAN0N
very good.
Nancy Brown
SineTAG Solutions
Macintosh Solutions Providers
email: sin...@netcom.com
Zzzzz.....
>not enough Alcott. Trini Alvarado looks more like a young Andie
>MacDowell than like Alcott's plumpish Meg. Alcott had Jo be tall and
>awkward, and even the film script calls for her to be plain and to have
>her long hair be her one nice feature. Does it sound like I am
>describing Winona Ryder? The casting of beauty in roles that call for
>plain tends to oversimplify the motivations of the various suitors.
>Claire Daines as Beth is the only daughter who approaches being homely-
>--in both senses of the word--in this version and the only one for whom
>we never see a suitor.
Thank you. I was just getting tired of reading all those comments about
how Winona Ryder plays a perfect Jo. If her portrayal of "Jo' was
perfect, than I probably haven't read the book enough time to know how
"Jo" is supposed to be like. Winona was Winona in "Little Women". She
didn't look like nor acted like Jo, IMHO. It bothers me to see all those
praises to the cast of this movie when they really aren't what they're
supposed to be. Alcott calls for beauty from the within, and yet we have
a beautiful looking Meg and Jo. *sigh*
And I completely agree that Clair Daines and Susan Saradon were the only
ones suitable for the major roles.
Sleepy
--
"We need very strong ears to hear ourselves judged frankly, and because
there are few who can endure frank criticism without being stung by it,
those who venture to criticize us perform a remarkable act of friendship,
for to undertake to wound or offend a man for his own good is to have a
healthy love for him." -- Michael Montaigne
Todd Burns
>how Winona Ryder plays a perfect Jo. If her portrayal of "Jo' was
>perfect, than I probably haven't read the book enough time to know how
>"Jo" is supposed to be like. Winona was Winona in "Little Women". She
>didn't look like nor acted like Jo,
>
Lets all face it; Winona can not act. I cringed every time she opened
her mouth in Age of Innocence. I wish Hollwood would snap to on this one
so she doesn't ruin any more good film. And take Kenau Reeves also. I
just about died when I heard he was the lead in Johnny Neumonic.
Sorry just venting.
Todd__________________________Cry Havoc..._____________________________
William Albert Davis
Someone commented that they were 34 and didn't care for Winnona. I'm 34
and I think she's great. I enjoyed the movie. It inspired me to pick up
the book, and I only noted a couple of substantial differences:
1. In the book, Jo is supposed to be very much the Tomboy, who doesn't
want to lose her sister to all that marriage nonsense. In the movie, Jo
comes off as "Spirited," and her opposition to her sister's marriage
seemed to stem more from her dislike of the man her sister was interested in.
2. In the book, Beth is extremely shy and inclined to run away from
people. All I recall from the movie is that she was a bit reserved and a
homebody, and later was in poor health.
It was an extraordinarily faithful adaptation by Hollywood Standards. The
girl who played Beth (star of a great tv show, MY SO CALLED LIFE), was my
favorite part of the movie.
--
Bill Davis
******************************************************************************
William A. Davis * wmad...@iglou.com * P.O.Box 337 * Ghent * KY * 41045
******************************************************************************
Charles Herold
-> about how Winona Ryder plays a perfect Jo. If her portrayal of "Jo'
I suffered through two versions of the movie already, so I won't see
this one, but I'm sure Wynona is pathetic compared with Katherine
Hepburn, who provided the only watchable moments in George Cukor's
Little Women. And, while I hardly remember the book that I was read
when I was maybe 10 (I was bored, as were my parents, I don't think we
got to the end), I suspect Kate was much better cast besides.
Charles Herold
-> her mouth in Age of Innocence. I wish Hollwood would snap to on this
A little harsh. Winona was pretty much a nonentity in Age of Innocence,
but that was generally a poorly cast film. She has shown a certain
charm in other films, like Little Mermaids. And compared with actresses
that _really_ cannot act (Nicole Kidman, Theresa Russell) she's quite
good.
Ian J. Ball
Burns) wrote:
> > I was just getting tired of reading all those comments about
> >how Winona Ryder plays a perfect Jo. If her portrayal of "Jo' was
> >perfect, than I probably haven't read the book enough time to know how
> >"Jo" is supposed to be like. Winona was Winona in "Little Women". She
> >didn't look like nor acted like Jo...
> >
> > And I completely agree that Clair Daines and Susan Saradon were the only
> >ones suitable for the major roles.
>
> Lets all face it; Winona can not act. I cringed every time she opened
> her mouth in Age of Innocence.
OK, once again, it falls on me to defend Winona (and the rest of the cast
it seems). I think Winona did a good job in this; not as good as in _Age
of Innocence_, but still good. I frankly can't believe that you didn't
like her in AoI! I though she did her best acting to date in that.
I also don't agree that she is always playing "Winona". From _Lucas_ to
_Beetlejuice_ to _Heathers_ to _Edward Scissorhands_ to _Age of Innocence_
to _Little Women_ (I haven't seen _Dracula_ and doubt I ever will), she
has successfully played different character types. I understand that some
of you don't seem to like her (personally), but I think she deserves more
credit than she's been getting.
As for the original poster, I am surprised that you didn't like Trini
Alvarado *or* Kirsten Dunst. With the exception of Samantha Mathis, and
maybe Eric Stoltz, I though everyone in the movie was perfect.
> I wish Hollwood would snap to on this one
> so she doesn't ruin any more good film.
She hasn't. It's just for you that she is ruining films. I, for one, like
Winona Ryder a lot.
> And take Kenau Reeves also. I
> just about died when I heard he was the lead in Johnny Neumonic.
On this we agree. Reeves should stick strictly to comedy. It's the only
thing he is good at (though he was pretty good in _Dangerous Liasons_).
> Sorry just venting.
I understand, even if I don't agree.
--
Ian J. Ball | "Don't be too proud of this technological
Chem Grad Student, UCLA | terror you've created. The ability
IJB...@aol.com | to destroy a planet is insignificant
i...@argon.chem.ucla.edu | next to the power of the Force." - Vader
Barry Minnis
Same here. I think you'll find the movie appealed more to women. I was
definately a minority in the theatre, along with about 10 other men. I
only saw it because it was filmed right here in good ol' Victoria.
B
Karl....@syntex.com
I like Winona Ryder but the more I see of her, the less I like. And if
anyone believes that she plays a "perfect Jo", has not read the book. The
current film of "Little Women" is devoid of ANY real emotion. I didn't
believe Ryder's performance (or anyones for that matter) for a minute.
It's a great-looking film (especially the fall scenes) and the sets are
wonderful, but it just sits there like a piece of toast and never comes to
life.
And while I'm venting: I'm a little annoyed they completely glossed
over a rather interesting relationship in the book - the one between Beth
and Laurie's grandfather. Good scenes in the book and in previous films.
Here, they just tossed it away. And then that technical misstep when Amy
aged several years!! It just didn't work.
I'll stick to the June Allison and Katherine Hepburn vehicles. Those films
may have been melodramatic, but they're better than the current version.
My opinion, of course. :)
Karl G. Trass
Palo Alto
__________________________________________________________________________
> I was just getting tired of reading all those comments about
> >how Winona Ryder plays a perfect Jo. If her portrayal of "Jo' was
> >perfect, than I probably haven't read the book enough time to know how
> >"Jo" is supposed to be like. Winona was Winona in "Little Women". She
> >didn't look like nor acted like Jo,
> >--
> >
>
> Lets all face it; Winona can not act. I cringed every time she opened
> her mouth in Age of Innocence. I wish Hollwood would snap to on this one
> so she doesn't ruin any more good film.
>
Michelle Dean
> I like Winona Ryder but the more I see of her, the less I like. And if
> anyone believes that she plays a "perfect Jo", has not read the book. The
> current film of "Little Women" is devoid of ANY real emotion. I didn't
> believe Ryder's performance (or anyones for that matter) for a minute.
> It's a great-looking film (especially the fall scenes) and the sets are
> wonderful, but it just sits there like a piece of toast and never comes to
> life.
I agree with your comment of Winona Ryder; saw the movie last night, and
while she was okay as Jo, she simply wasn't what Alcott had meant Jo to
be. She was too quiet, almost demure for it. I don't think I ever once saw
her get compeletely angry; there was always a smile in her eyes.
It comes to life when it's not just Winona in a scene; she is greatly
helped by the talents of Kirsten Dunst and Claire Danes who are both
shamefully underwritten. Trini Alvarado was okay; she acted her part as
Meg fairly well, just compared to the other two sisters she was nothing.
> And while I'm venting: I'm a little annoyed they completely glossed
> over a rather interesting relationship in the book - the one between Beth
> and Laurie's grandfather. Good scenes in the book and in previous films.
> Here, they just tossed it away. And then that technical misstep when Amy
> aged several years!! It just didn't work.
My friend, during the "giving Beth the piano scene" leaned over to em
and said "Who's the old guy?". That should explain to those who haven't
yet seen it the great (*sarcasm*) importance of Mr. Laurence. I was also
disappointed, but glad that there were many other things in there that
hadn't been in the other films, such as Amy burning the manuscript.
I was *very* disappointed by the performance of Samantha Mathis;
perhaps it was just that Dunst was so good as Amy, but Mathis seemed
stiff. Not one word out of her mouth was believable. I see why they had to
age Amy, though. It has been tried with one actress (Elizabeth Taylor in
the June Allyson vehicle) and there were disastrous results; Taylor never
looked young enough to be Amy.
> I'll stick to the June Allison and Katherine Hepburn vehicles. Those films
> may have been melodramatic, but they're better than the current version.
> My opinion, of course. :)
The current version, IMHO, is wonderful even though it is somewhat fault
ridden. Claire Danes as Beth deserves an Oscar even though she can't have
had too much more than twenty lines.
Michelle
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| "I walk in the air between the rain,
E. Michelle Dean, aka | through myself and back again.
Eryn, Starlight, or Myriad | Where? I don't know."
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | -Counting Crows, "Round Here"
Ian J. Ball
Minnis) wrote:
> Same here. I think you'll find the movie appealed more to women. I was
> definately a minority in the theatre, along with about 10 other men. I
> only saw it because it was filmed right here in good ol' Victoria.
Huh? Where? Beach drive?
RICHARD MALACHE
ZR> It wasn't that I detested it, but I just wasn't at all _moved_ by
ZR> anything in it, except for Beth's dying scene. The acting was superb,
Wasn't Claire Danes incredible? What a death scene! Oh. And Wynona was OK too.
... Patience my ass!... I wanna KILL something!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
RICHARD MALACHE
Bl> average episode of MSCL than I got out of this movie.
Isn't that show the best? The only reason I went to see Little Women is
because of Claire Danes, and man, what a performance!
... "He's dead Jim." "I've got dibbs on the white meat."
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
RICHARD MALACHE
IJB> often annoying).
What is it you don't like about "My So-Called Life"?
... Deanna Troy's bra size: 1701-D
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Zzzzz.....
Michelle Dean <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
> I agree with your comment of Winona Ryder; saw the movie last night, and
>while she was okay as Jo, she simply wasn't what Alcott had meant Jo to
> It comes to life when it's not just Winona in a scene; she is greatly
>helped by the talents of Kirsten Dunst and Claire Danes who are both
Absolutely agree! If I hadn't known better, I'd thought my unconscious
mind wrote this without me knowing! =)
> My friend, during the "giving Beth the piano scene" leaned over to em
>and said "Who's the old guy?". That should explain to those who haven't
>yet seen it the great (*sarcasm*) importance of Mr. Laurence. I was also
Definitely. I was also very disappointed at the way Mr. Laurence was
neglected. I thought the relationship between Beth and Mr. Laurence was a
very emotional part of the whole story. And I was also very disappointed
that the movie didn't spend more time on Beth's character. She was the
emotional support of the family, especially to Jo. I have always liked
the way Jo and Beth's relationship was described in the book. But sadly I
didn't see that in the movie.
> I was *very* disappointed by the performance of Samantha Mathis;
>perhaps it was just that Dunst was so good as Amy, but Mathis seemed
>stiff. Not one word out of her mouth was believable.
Agree again. I knew she would be a disaster in this part, but it was
worse than I thought. *sigh*
> The current version, IMHO, is wonderful even though it is somewhat fault
>ridden. Claire Danes as Beth deserves an Oscar even though she can't have
>had too much more than twenty lines.
Agreed again. I liked the movie overall, although it didn't meet up to
the expectation I had before I went in. Since this is the only version of
Little Women I've seen, I really don't know how this version is compare to
the other one. My friends said I am critical of the movie because Little
Women is my favorite novel since a young child. If this is the case,
maybe I should avoid the other versions of this movie also.
Arun K. Subramanya
RICHARD MALACHE <richard...@xonxoff.com> wrote:
>
>Wasn't Claire Danes incredible? What a death scene! Oh. And Wynona was OK too.
I thought Winona was perfect, while Ms.Danes was quite OK. But I do
not watch "My so called life". So what do I know :-(( (sarcasm)
Well, milages vary
Arun
Jennifer Barber
aks...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Arun K. Subramanya) writes:
> In article <8A120CB.1D15...@xonxoff.com>,
> RICHARD MALACHE <richard...@xonxoff.com> wrote:
> >
> >Wasn't Claire Danes incredible? What a death scene! Oh. And Wynona was OK too.
>
> I thought Winona was perfect, while Ms.Danes was quite OK. But I do
Well, to add yet another worthless opinion, I found Ryder....better
than I expected (although that's not saying much), Danes quite good,
and Kirsten Dunst adorable. But everyone here seems to forget about
what was, IMO, the best performance in this movie--Christian Bale's.
Yu Mei Balasingam-Chow
Jennifer Barber <epon...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>Well, to add yet another worthless opinion, I found Ryder....better
>than I expected (although that's not saying much), Danes quite good,
>and Kirsten Dunst adorable. But everyone here seems to forget about
>what was, IMO, the best performance in this movie--Christian Bale's.
Precisely. I just saw the movie yesterday and I have to admit that everyone
seemed kinda ordinary and bland in it. Except Christian Bale. I think he
captured the spirit of the original Laurie from the book quite accurately.
It's not his fault that he was given a good number of bad lines that readily
dripped with sentimentality (during the proposal scene in the words, for
instance). Although I prefer him without the moustache and goatee he sprouted
later to prove that he'd "grown up". A commendable performance, IMO.
Also, what did people think of Aunt March? I thought they didn't make her out
to be as grumpy as she is in the book, but I kinda liked her. She threw in the
necessary bits of humor to lighten the tone of some of the scenes. Reminded
me of the role of Mrs Mingott in The Age of Innocence.
*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*
Yu Mei Balasingam-Chow yu...@nwu.edu l...@wizvax.com
"Reality continues to ruin my life." -- Calvin
*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*
hta...@east.sun.com
as Beth. First of all, I had always pictured Beth as smaller and frailer. I
did not think that Danes captured Beth's essential shyness and sweet nature.
I thought it was Ryder, and not Danes, who was wonderful in the death scene
and, contrary to other opinions read here, that scene made me think that Ryder
would have also been wonderful as Beth.
On the other hand, as someone else posted, I thought Christian Bale was fantastic
as Laurie - just as I would have pictured him, although wasn't he supposed to have
curls? Kirsten Dunst was good as the young Amy and I thought Samantha Mathis
was pretty good as the older one; in the book, there *was* a big transformation
between the younger Amy and the older, worldly, yet kinder, Amy.
I thought the details of continuity were good. I especially liked Amy as an older
girl wearing the dress that Meg had worn years before.
Thanks to all of you that wrote to me about bringing my 6 year old with me to the
movie. You all universally agreed that it would be a good thing. I must report
that she liked the movie although she had a real hard time differentiating between
the sisters and asked me in every scene 'Is that Jo?' 'Is that Beth?' Very
difficult also explaining things like why it is just as important for a woman to
get an education as for a man in the middle of a crowded theatre to a 6 year old :-)
I think I will need to see this one again - uninterrupted.
I did like the move although nothing will, for me, ever compare to the book.
H
Harrison
women and men watching LITTLE WOMEN.
I've seen LW 7 times now, and each time there isn't a dry eye in
the place!
--
"First I can show you some really rich pickings! Plenty of
houses left empty!"
Jim Mork
: My opinions are these. I liked Winona Ryder a lot. I thought she
: was wonderful as Jo. As for the comment of her not showing any anger,
Many of us males agree with you.