Claire Danes as Beth makes me cry everytime 😭 she’s my favorite sister next to Joe. I can’t watch the new version - well I could but I don’t want to (yet)... the 94 version is one of my absolute favorite movies of all times 💖
Never seen the entirety of either film, nor read the book, but watching Claire Danes' performance of Beth in that one pivotal scene with Winona Ryder is one of the saddest and most heartbreaking moments ever put to film.
Hated the new version. It was hard to follow, costuming was incorrect (no bonnets hair down). Meg was not well played, Amy was too old for young Amy. The 90’s version was best followed by the Hepburn version.
The 2019 movie was so bad that I couldn’t even finish it! I absolutely love the novel, but the movie completely butchered the storyline and characters.
I think you're bang on about Chalamet feeling too contemporary for Laurie. He doesn't feel as brotherly as Bale either. I think Chalamet's redeeming factor is his chemistry with both Saoirse and Florence, whereas Bale does a better job of embodying the character as a whole!
Agreed! I think Bale also has great chemistry with Winona Ryder but I agree with everything else you said. He also didn’t seem as lively or silly most of the time and then all of a sudden was at 110% and cartoony, which was a bit difficult to watch!
I feel like in the 1994 version you could kinda see why Jo loved Laurie as more of a brother but in the 2019, especially with all the hype of Chalamet, you couldn’t really see that... hence people didn’t see why Laurie and Jo weren’t supposed to be together...
Also I felt like the 2019 version didn’t flesh out Jo and Frederich’s relationship compared to the 1994 (yet again I wish the 1994 also showed more of their relationship too!)
My introduction to little women was the 2019 film and I was really confused by it. I didn’t know who the characters were and only realized who was who by the middle of the film. I hated that the characters didn’t age it felt so unrealistic and lazy and was probably another factor in why I was confused about the timeline. And I felt like Beth was the only sister who didn’t have any goals so i wasn’t surprised when she died. But seeing you talk about the other versions makes me want to give the story a chance and watch the 90s version and read the book.
oh dear I hope you see the 90s versions, it is so so so so much more realistic, and wayyyyyy more historically accurate in all ways from clothing to the girls demeanour/ behaviours.
Little Women is my favorite book of all time (I can talk about it endlessly), and I love everything about the 90s movie (especially the soundtrack), so I've been really apprehensive of watching the 2019 film, and honestly, nothing I've seen about it makes me want to watch it. But this video did make me want to reread the book for the millionth time. Whenever life got too much (much like it is right now), I would open that book, and it was like going home. I cherished the familiarity of the March family and of Orchard House. I feel like I connect with Jo the most. We're both writers, we're both stubborn to a fault, we both do stupid things out of anger, we're both more emotional than we like to let on, and we were both more comfortable being friends with boys when we were younger. And there's a moment that has stuck with me from the first moment I read it, where Meg calls November "the most disagreeable month of the whole year," and Jo replies, "That's the reason I was born in it." As a fellow November baby, I felt that deeply.
Aw yay! I agree, I can’t believe I forgot to mention the soundtrack! It’s perfection ❤️ I feel the exact same way about the feeling of going home. This story is so beautifully crafted! I relate to Amy for many of the same reasons 😂 creative/artistic, dramatic, emotional, stubborn, tender hearted at the core. I also relate to her as the baby of the family, always being left out, and her know it all attitude 😅 That’s so funny that you were also born in November! Apparently Amy is a Leo and so am I 🤔
I didn't like the 2019 version. The 90s version set a really high bar and there were too many issues with the 2019 version. You forgot to mention that none of the sisters looked even vaguely like each other. They also looked the same age which made them not believable as sisters and Florence Pugh was much too old to play Amy - Emma Watson the oldest sister looks younger than her. Plus the switching around and confusing flashblacks interspersed in odd ways made the story hard to follow and ultimately made it hard to connect to the storyline and characters. The 2019 did not deserve awards. They took a good story and didn't do a good job of telling it.
I mentioned that Jo seemed older than Meg in the 2019 version, that Florence Pugh felt too old to play young Amy, and that Emma Watson looked nothing like the other girls as far as colouring is concerned in this video. I also mentioned how I disliked the flashbacks 😉 Seems like we have many of the same opinions on it, though I overall enjoyed the 2019 film.
So true, i didnt like it either. Yesterday i watched the 2019 version. And i was so confused about the story. I didnt understand the story beccause of all the flashbacks and back and fourts. And didn't knew they played teens. Amy was so weird as the youngest. It was so not believable that she was the youngest. And Timothy looked more like a teen in the grownup version. It was all so very confusing. I never read the book so i had no expectations. The 1994 version was good and in the right order. And it had more depht.
@@PlantBasedBride In the flashbacks I would think wait what happened to the characters?? They should have added tags like 7 years ago or something But anyway I really liked the film
Plant Based Bride it’s so good. I feel like it’s being forgotten about because of the 2019 movie. But trust me I loved the PBS version more then the 2019 movie.
Warning: this is a very long post. I think your ranking is spot-on. I'm usually someone who votes for a book before a movie, but I think my nostalgia for the 1994 adaptation just eclipses my admiration for the book (which, admittedly, is still very high). They did such a wonderful, authentic job of adapting material that can come across as old-fashioned and kept it beautiful and real, proving why a story written in the 1860s is still incredibly relevant and full of lessons for us to learn today. The only thing that I feel like the '94 version falls down on is Amy and Laurie's story once she's grown up. It was extremely clipped, and I am still waiting for the day that a movie adaptation does justice to the fantastic way they come together in the book (rowing together -- it just warms my heart). I don't necessarily think the 2019 version is much better, but because it did more justice to older Amy in general, their relationship allllmost works better for me than the 1994. But in every other way, I'd pick the 1994 over the 2019 every time. You want to be able to care about these characters, and it shouldn't take you until the second half of the movie to do so. In contrast, I care about every single person in the 1994, even grouchy old Aunt March. And I bawl every time Mr. Laurence presents that piano to Beth (another instance that the book is better, because you see the evolution of their sweet friendship, but the performance of that scene in the movie is so touching, I can forgive them leaving out the rest). And I agree that Prof. Bhaer is not any better serviced when he's cast younger. I say this as someone who saw the '94 version in the theaters at the age of ten and, not knowing anything about the story beforehand, was so mad when Jo turned down Laurie. It was Christian Bale! Of Newsies! I'd seen Gabriel Byrne in one other movie at that time in my life, and he'd been a bad guy in it, and I couldn't make heads or tails of him being a love interest that triumphs over Christian Bale. (!!!) But in retrospect, it works so well, and for the reasons you enumerated. He was still aged down, but not so egregiously as the 2019, which I'm convinced was just trying to go for sexiness. -shrug- Another thing that I think contributes to the 2019 characters feeling "off", as you expressed, is something kind of superficial but really changes things -- the costuming. I think the costuming for the 2019 version is atrocious. There is something to be said for creative liberty, sure, but the idea that Greta Gerwig had of the Marches being "hippies" is just off. (As though sewing your own clothes in the 1860s wasn't commonplace for . . . oh, everyone! Not to mention that, aside from believing in integration in addition to abolition, the Marches were not terribly radical in their thinking, and in some ways, even for the time, were old-fashioned.) And as superficial a thing as clothing can be, if they had been more authentic to the periods presented, I think it would have made a huge difference to the way the characters were portrayed (and would have helped a bit with all the time-jumping, to see the different fashions). In different clothing you carry yourself differently, your body language changes, not to mention that costuming is an excellent short-hand for presenting character. You used the word "contemporary" to describe Timothee Chalamet, and I think that word is appropriate for explaining what's off about so much of the performances, that they belong to 2019 rather than 1865. And that contemporary feel would have been greatly tempered if their costumes had been more appropriate to the time period. As it was, they felt like 2019 people who just happened to be wearing 1860s-inspired clothing. The costuming in the 1994 version, by contrast, was impeccable. The clothes felt and LOOKED lived in, you could actually see the same dresses rotate through different scenes -- heck, even after the time skip, Amy is wearing an old dress of Meg's, which is such a TRUE touch of a poor family and hand-me-downs -- and it made these wonderful actors adjust themselves so that the way they acted felt much more believable of the period, not just that they happened to be dropped into it. (I'm not a costumer, but I have been an avid fan of period dramas for too long not to know general fashions of different eras and therefore absolutely despise it when I see recent adaptations of various novels trying to set themselves apart by giving the characters more contemporary looks -- wearing hair down all the time, for example. SOO not cool.) Okay, I think I've rambled long enough. I enjoyed hearing your take on the book and the two adaptations, especially since your opinion highly mirrored my own. ;) I, too, was surprised at how much I didn't hate the 2019 version, but the 1994 is like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.
I had MANY problems with the 2019 version. But I love what you touch on from 22:05 through 23:00. Admittedly i haven't read the book in a long time, but I do make a point of watching the 94 version every year and I'm very familiar with the dialogue. And what bothered me the most about how they handled the dialogue you were discussing, in the timestamp noted above, is that certain scenes did feel very rushed. They would all burst in, spout out lines like they were checking them off a list, and then burst back out of the room. And they were lines that I remembered from the 94 movie, so they were either both quoting the novel or the 19 one was quoting the 94 one. It just felt like an obligation, "We have these lines that we gotta put in there. Action. Cut. Moving on." And then dialog that was clearly added to the new one, like Amy's speech on marriage as an adult.... Oh, we have ALL the time in the world for her to speak at a normal pace, take pauses, discourse back and forth with Laurie. That and my other issues with the film made it feel like the ones making it had their own story to tell, but because they were doing it through this adaptation, they felt like they had to pay it the barest lip service to still qualify it as one. Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk.
you spoke all of the words from my brain!! i just rewatched 2019, rewatched 94 in the middle of summer and finished rereading the book a few weeks ago. the 94 was also what i grew up with - i would watch it when i was sick and it would always make me feel better. you said literally every qualm i had with the 19 film, and another thing you haven’t mentioned is that i felt like the dialogue was like, half modernized. there would be some lines that were so incorrect in the civil war era context, but some lines would be straight from the book. it just felt disjointed and aimless. i also felt it was very far from the book in terms of aim and character, though i did enjoy the movie and agree, it was a lot better in the second half. glad i found this video!!
I am in love with Louisa May Alcott, but I admit my favorite book of hers is An Old Fashioned Girl. In regards to the movies, I actually prefer the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn. It was the first version I saw and Kate is one of my all-time favorite actors. I did like the new movie and watched it with my son, who did not know the story at all. I asked him afterward if he was able to follow the storylines and he said it was not a problem. Thanks so much for going through the comparison of the book and movies.
@@PlantBasedBride I have read almost everything that is in print that she wrote and most everything that was written about her. You could say I'm obsessed with LMA.
@@PlantBasedBride Rose (the old fashioned girl)'s story continues with Rose In Bloom. Another is Under the Lilacs, but that story I did not read as often (less than 25 times?) haha.
I totally vibe with the dialogue notes!!!! I felt like they were read like a 12 year old in a stage production. They felt very fake, without genuine emotion. It was like they were running lines, like you said, and someone was telling them which emotion to portray. It threw me off so much that I had a hard time watching the film
When you were talking about the impact the movie had on you and how emotional it makes you, I 100% felt that! I first saw the 1994 version when I was 9. I was so fascinated by the sister relationship and the relationship with their mother. I’m the youngest of three girls. My sisters are a lot older than me and none of us got along as kids. We also did not have a good relationship with our mom. We are all much closer now, but that movie showed me what a loving family looks like. I watched it every time it came on tv. Claire Danes portrayal of Beth was especially heartbreaking. I really enjoyed the 2019 version, but the 1994 version will always have a special place in my heart.
Ask that question to a 14-19 year old and they will say the 2019, hands down. Ask that question to a 39-44 year old and they will say the 1994. Why? because just like music, you tend to develop a preference to entertainment which is more contemporary to your era. Ask a reader of the book, and you'll get a higher percentage preferring the 1994 version, who will then run home to re-read the book after vomiting while watching the 2019.
But have those 14-19 year olds seen older versions of the film and read the book to compare? If they’ve only seen the new film they have no way to pick a preference 🤷♀️
@@PlantBasedBride That's a good question. For those of the younger generation who are not aware of anything else besides what is popular today, can they really be expected to pick a preference?
@@wonderlasting As a teenager who has read the book and seen both films, I can say that the book is my favorite, with the 2019 coming in second, and the 1994 as a close third. The reason I preferred the 2019 film over the 1994 film was I felt that the actors reflected the book characters better, and like you said earlier, it was more contemporary. I also really loved the ending of the 2019 film and that put it above the 1994 version for me.
I'm 22 but I preferred the 1994 version. It just felt more authentic, original and true to the book. The 2019 version felt like just another remake, plus too politically correct. Don't have a problem with political correctness but I feel it doesn't belong in such a classic novel adaptation.
We are so on the same page! I love love love the 1994 version and fell in love with Laurie in my childhood. I agree that the 2019 version was okay but the 90’s version will have my heart. My favorite thing about the 2019 is the nod to Jo’s preferred ending of the book and I felt like there was an implication that Jo added in Friedrich Behr to appease her editor in a very “meta” moment.
Still haven’t seen the new movie. I’m scared to watch it😬 I love the 40’s and 90’s versions❤️I’m obsessed, been obsessed, can watch them over and over and overrrrrr. When I have bad anxiety, these movies are my medicine.
Loved the 1994 film. Warmed the heart the same way reading the book did. But the best adaptation fir me is the 1987 anime series calked the Tales of Little Women i watched growing up. That is like straight out of the pages perfection,right to the color of their bonnets. Whenever i imagine the LW, its the anime version that i see. 2019 version wasn't bad, saved by the fact that the novel is such a great one, but the casting was definitely off & didn't have an ounce of that fuzzy warm christmassy feeling! The problem i guess is 2019 one thought of modernising some aspects, completely missing the point that certain stories like LW & P&P are timeless.
90's version for me, although I enjoyed this film too. I recommend watching the 2017 bbc little women series as well. Btw you remind me so much of Anne Shirley^^
I have not read the novel...yet. I saw Little Women in 1994 in the theaters. What got me into the theater was that at the time I was in college and listening to the radio and it was playing some really nice music. The music was actually from the soundtrack to Little Women that was in the theater at the time. I loved what I heard so I decided to go see it by myself at the theater. I really did not know what the movie was all about but I liked some films Winona Ryder was in. I walked down to the movie theater which was a couple of miles from campus. The movie turned out to be be something I would cherish to this day. I am a guy and I am not afraid to say that. I guess this is because of family and also the music that I fell in love with, also because at the time I was living in Richmond, VA in and area that was called the Fan which has older buildings in an area with a deep history in the Civil War and era in which Little Women took place. I just watched Little Women 2019 yesterday. I was pretty skeptical because of the era in which this film was released (I mean with all the political garbage affecting the film industry). In the new film, they did skip around chronologically that I thought was irritating but I knew what was going on because of my experience with the 1994 film. As I watched the 2019 version I kept thinking of the scenes from the 1994 version. I never saw the whole Little Women movie from 1949 (Elizabeth Taylor), just a few scenes so the 1994 movie to me is canon. LOL! The 1994 film to me is definitely more intimate and delicate, almost magical, I guess because of that time in my life being away at college and things changing with my relationships and life as a result. Thanks for sharing your views.
I've actually never watched or read " Little Women" but after this video I definitely do it. Thanks for this review! By the way, James Norton is a great actor, one of my favorites. He was awesome in "War & Peace" (BBC Series) and "Grantchester" (British TV Series).
I’ll have to look into some of his other work! And I’m so glad that you’re interested in checking out little women after this video ☺️ I hope you love it as much as I do! ❤️
I left the theater feeling SO disappointed with the 2019 film. This film did a HUGE disservice to Character development of the four sisters and to Laurie. Little Women is my favorite book and the the 2019 film was almost a completely different story.
I have just watched the 2019 version and read the first chapters of the book (Little Women was just not a thing in my country while I was growing up hahah), but I actually loved the non linear timeline in the movie. I totally think that books and movies should not just reflect each other as they are different media, and innovation should always be tried, so I enjoyed a lot that the movie is in a more modern format. The same happens with pride and prejudice: I love both versions, the Keira Knightley one and the Colin Firth one equally, for different reasons. Also, what's this second channel you mentioned? Hahaha
Oh I agree, I love seeing new interpretations! It’s not that it was non-linear but the way the time jumps were handled (very sudden & choppy) that I disliked ☺️ I have another channel linked in the sidebar of my my main channel page for media criticism. I started it last year during season 8 of GOT and then stopped making videos because GOT made me so distraught 😂 I plan on making more, but it’s hard to find the time on top of the content I produce here, on Instagram, and for my patrons ❤️
Have you ever watched the 1933 version? It's pretty great, in its own ways, with actresses that all seem SO much older than those in either the 1990s or 2019 versions, but worth a look! I have to agree that I'm avoiding the 2019 version because the 90s flick was SO AMAZING (WINONA FOREVER!), but I'm curious to see how it turned out, so one of these days I'll have to give it a whirl.
I haven’t! I really want to watch the earlier movies and other adaptations now that I’ve done this little experiment ☺️ It was honestly a lot more enjoyable than I expected! I’m sure you’d have a good time if you’re a fan of this story ❤️
I read the book and watched the 90s version yearsssss ago so I really can't remember the details. I remember enough to not be motivated to watch the 2019 version though LOL. Who needs another remake?? I'm going to definitely re-read soon! I think I'm a mix of the sisters, depending on the situation... although I do like Meg. It seems exhausting being a Jo all the time lol
Haha I felt the same when the 2019 version was announced. I still enjoyed it, but was it necessary? Probably not 😂 I agree about being a mix! And I agree being Jo 24/7 must be a lot 🤣
@@PlantBasedBride Every generation will have their own _Little Women_ -- or three, in the 2010s, I guess. I would actually love to see a version with a free Black family, though, considering the Civil War theme. Also, although not necessarily in that version, Michael Sheen would make an awfully good Professor Bhaer (still).
Apologies if anyone already mentioned this, but it’s a series. You should read Little Men and Jo’s Boys as well. Also, I really liked a biography of LMA called Marmee and Louisa. I want to say there was like a long lost trunk of their letters discovered by some later relative that led to that book. Super interesting from an American (feminist) history perspective, too. Enjoy!!
ugh finally I found people who I can agree to. No offense to all the actors and actresses, but 2019 version was not good. Every character's emotions and journeys were so tender and felt close in 94 version. This new one seems like it turned this beautiful people into a dysfunctional family with loud mouths
Has anyone seen the 2017 miniseries by the BBC and PBS with Angela Lansbury? I love that versión. I think is the Best adaptation, with the 1994 film right behind (that one is a bit too religious for my taste).
I've only seen the 2019 version, the other movies plus the book are on my to do list. I related to Meg. I like Emma Watson as a person but not as an actress but the character Meg is the oldest like me and goes and settles down first like I did.
Great analysis. Prior to reading the novel during quarantine, the only thing I knew about Little Women was the “Friends” episode about Little Women and The Shining (which is hilarious if you’ve read both of those or don’t mind massive spoilers). Now that I’m a fan of the book, I honestly love both of these movies almost equally. The ‘90s film has such a warm and cozy atmosphere, and the casting is just aces. Likewise, I really like the parallel timelines in the 2019 version. Telling it chronologically makes for a great story about young girls becoming adults, whereas showing the similarities between past and future makes for a story about adults looking back on childhood.
I tried watching the 2019 version but couldn't even make it half way through the new actress are unlikable Laurie is way to young and Saoirse Ronan as joe was wrong fuly cast and you can tell from the very first scene where she is with Laurie at the ball Florence Pugh as amy was so laughale every line she spoke hurt my head why was she cast as amy in the first place they also took away all the emotion of megs death and Eliza Scanlen and meg I mean she wasn't to bad but unlike the 1994 version were you fall in love with ever person the story doesn't jump back and fourth the actress has perfect chemistry and Susan Sarandon was the best marme plus the 1994 version story was easy to follow I've red the book and really enjoyed it but like a said anyone who has seen the older versions will not beable to get through this film it is was to complicated and has a hell of alot of over or force acting
I'm about 20 years older than you, so I read the book in the 80s, quite a bit before seeing either of the movies. For me, the book wins, no contest. I do really enjoy the 90s movie, and have watched it more times than I've read the book by now. The 90s movie is a close second for me, but John always bothered me in it (even though I like the actor). I actually read Little Men first and liked it better when I was a child. That showed a bit of a follow up with John and Meg, so I think that had something to do with it. I liked the new movie okay, but I think I would have liked it less if I didn't already know what was going on. I remember thinking at the time that it would have been confusing for anyone brand new to the story. I probably won't watch it again. I recommend Little Men (the book, not the movie) if you're interested in how Jo makes Aunt March's estate into a school (about 10 years later). I think as an adult I prefer Little Women, but I still like Little Men. I haven't read any of the rest of the series.
I remember starting Little Women at 9 or 10. I loved the beginning but found it difficult to transition into their adulthood. After your review, I most definitely have added it to my TBR list!
You took the words LITERALLY straight out of my head. I have no disagreements with anything you said. Rare, for something on the internet lol Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)
I agree with you on so many things, I felt super weird about Dr Behr's age, it seems like in general they tried to smooth out a lot of things in the new film if that makes sense. Laurie also seems more politically correct in the new movie, when in the 90's one I wanted to slap him a few times but that makes him who he is x'D Amy too, she's much more "mischievous" in the 90's film ... Also super weird to have the same actress in both timelines ?? You get this absolutely adult woman playing a kid and it's really unsettling ^^' I watched both films this year so I'm not especially biased but I did like the 90's version a lot more. I just think it's written better, a lot of things made more sense and it doesn't rely solely on the actresses (as the new one kinda did IMO) even though they're absolutely amazing. 100% with you on this one !
Yes, totally! I think that’s what bothers me most about Chalemet’s Laurie, actually. Reserved and flat most of the time, and then all of a sudden out of nowhere he would explode into super cartoon silly Laurie, and then go right back to incredibly flat reserved Laurie. We didn’t even really see his transition to going off the rails in Europe and Amy bringing him back, which is such an important development for his character!
Thank you for this video! I grew up watching the 90s version and I’m not sure how I have never sat down to read the novel because I love the story. I’m also surprised that I haven’t watched the 1949 version, although, I believe that I started watching it when I was younger and just never finished it. I’m terrified to watch the 2019 version because, to me, the 90s actors ARE those characters. I just feel like they brought the characters to life so well. When you first mentioned Beth (Claire Danes version), I started tearing up! I love Saoirse Ronan as an actress and she is my only reason for even considering watch the 2019 version. I’m not sure which sister I relate to the most. I’m creative like Amy (drawing, painting, imaginative) but, I’m also “shy” like Meg and compassionate like Beth. I’m a NYer so, I have that built in headstrong nature like Jo but, I don’t believe I’m as fearless as she is. Lol. Great review and, if anything, you solidified my love for the 90s version and reminded me that I need to sit down and READ!! Lol. Thank you! I would also be interested in seeing the character breakdown that you mentioned.
Aw I’m glad I reinforced your love of the 90s version! I think most of us have a little of each sister in us, even if we lean more towards one or another ☺️ I hope you enjoy reading the book and I’d be interested to know your thoughts if you watch the 2019 film!
I think Beth is the shy one (in the book, there is a lot about her being timid, and she's home schooled because she can't stand to go to school with a crowd of other kids). Not that she isn't compassionate.
Just discovered your account and I'm so happy with that. your videos are so beautiful and unique. love also the concept that you tell stories and combine this with painting. you radiate a warm atmosphere, giving it a lot of peace. And About little woman I like both films. I haven't read the books yet, I really want this but there are so many different versions and covers that I don't know which one is correct. thanks for your videos and stay your beautiful self. Oh and i like Amy because she is verg gracefull and creative with her paintings, What i really like.
I agree that the timeline hopping was confusing, and I think this decision also made the "adulthood" less played out - the young years are perfect for unconnected scenes, but the adult life seemed to be just a background, instead of full story itself. This said, I loved how it played off in Beth storyline, this one sequence was actually brilliant, with the colours and everything. I'm currently re-reading the book (I haven't remember much, to be honest) and I am suprised how shy and lovely young Laurie is. Both film versions are making him seem to be more fitted for Jo, than it is in the book. And what do you think about the ending? I hated that Jo got married in the story, and adding the conversation with the editor (apparently based on facts) was oh-so-satisfying!
I also grew up with the 90s film and still preferred the 2019 movie... goes to show there's no clearcut way to say in advance which you will like the most.
i'm doing a project on this exact topic for school right now! i read the novel and watched the 1949, 1994, and 2019 movies (as well as a video of the Broadway musical) and i'm comparing them for my senior thesis. wild!!
Oh, what an awesome coincidence! I haven’t seen the 30s and 40s films but would like to. I also love the musical ❤️ the song with Beth and Jo at the sea makes me sob like a baby every time! I would love to read your thesis, TBH ☺️
also this is very interesting. i would have ranked them 1. novel 2. 2019 3. 1994. i like the 2019 version better because in my opinion it's closer to the book, especially because they went back and did their research on how louisa may alcott wrote the novel so they could incorporate that into the story. i could talk for hours about little women adaptations though (also you picked the best three. 1949 and the musical are both worse.)
@@PlantBasedBride i'll send you my thesis when i'm done if you want! i'm focusing on how society and its norms have forced the story to change (i think alcott wanted to be a LOT more progressive/feminist than she was allowed to in the 1860s, but more recently adaptations have changed to reflect her original intentions because society has become more progressive/feminist!)
Yes, that’s such an interesting topic to explore! You can definitely see how different adaptations pushed the envelope of the story in different ways based on the time they were made and the social climate. I’d love to read it!
I'm I the only person who sort of "grew up" with the 1948 (or 49?) version and I recently watched the '94 one and I love them both!! Even though the other one is pretty inaccurate... Now I want to read the book again
As someone who adores classics and sells them for a living this video is just perfect. So thank you very much for doing it. My ranking will be first the book, second the 90s movie and third the 2019 one. However, I must add that the clothes, makeup and complements as well as the hairstyles of the 2019 movie are just impeccable.
The 1994 film was my first exposure to this story, then the book, then the 2019 version. Honestly, I love both versions, although the 94 version is a bit better for me due to the perfect casting, and more accurate production.
Florence definitly deserve that Oscar nomination She manage to pull off bratty child and elegant and mature young woman all with the same character She was my favorite part of the movie as well I actually watch the movie bcause Emma Watson was in it... but fell in love with Amy / Florence
I read the book in fourth grade (originally) and _Jo's Boys_ in sixth grade. Not sure when I read _Little Men,_ but I did at some point. I've seen the following adaptations: *1933 dir. by George Cukor, starring Katharine Hepburn* (Jo), Frances Dee (Meg), Jean Parker (Beth), Joan Bennett (Amy) [I will be following this order rather than birth order, as Jo is usually the main character]. Spring Byington (Marmee), Edna May Oliver (Aunt March -- also Lady Catherine in the 1940 _Pride and Prejudice),_ Douglass Montgomery (Laurie), Paul Lukas (Professor Bhaer). *1949 d. Mervyn LeRoy. June Allyson,* Janet Leigh, Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor. Mary Astor, Lucille Watson, Peter Lawford, Rosanno Brazzi. *1978 (NBC miniseries) d. David Lowell Rich. Susan Dey,* Meredith Baxter Birney, Eve Plumb, Ann Dusenberry. Dorothy McGuire, Mildred Natwick, Richard Gilliland, William Shatner (seriously). *1994 d. Gillian Armstrong. Winona Ryder,* Trini Alvarado, Claire Danes, Samantha Mathis/Kirsten Dunst. Susan Sarandon, Mary Wickes, Christian Bale, Gabriel Byrne. *2017 (BBC miniseries) d. Vanessa Caswill. Maya Hawke,* Willa Fitzgerald, Annes Elwy, Kathryn Newton. Emily Watson [so close to getting an Emily/Emma Watson mother-daughter casting!], Angela Lansbury, Jonah Hauer-King, Mark Stanley. *2018 (cinema. modern version) d. Clare Niederpruem. Sarah Davenport,* Melanie Stone, Allie Jennings, Elise Jones/Taylor Murphy. Lea Thompson, Barta Heiner, Lucas Grabeel, Ian Bohen. *2019 d. Greta Gerwig. Saoirse Ronan,* Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlen, Florence Pugh. Laura Dern, Meryl Streep, Timothee Chalamet. So far. 1994 is my favorite adaptation, but I also think the others are mostly good. The 2017 miniseries uses things from the book not usually retained and is quite interesting. I like the look of the Jo (daughter of Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke). I don't like how the 2019 version goes out of order so you know things too soon, and, as a general thing, I prefer Jo not to be blonde.
Though the 90s adaptation will always be my favorite, there is a lesser known adaptation that was released by PBS in 2018 that is even more faithful to the novel. I love it so much! If there wasn't the 90s version, it would be my absolute favorite adaptation of Little Women.
Sorry but I couldn't even take Florence Pugh acting seriously. Her portraying young Amy seemed overly dramatized and I couldn't get past the deep voice when she was trying to portray young Amy. Her voice reminded me of the real smart blonde girl on Gilmore Girls.
Thank you so much for your look at Little Women. I appreciate it because it does agree with many of my opinions on the 1994 and 2019 films. 1994 remains my favorite of the two. I really liked the closer look at Jo and Professor Bhaer (although it meant less for the Amy and Laurie scenes). To me Timothy Chalamet is fine as young Laurie but doesnt seem mature enough for older Laurie. Christian Bale handles it better, but Chalamet had better Amy-Laurie scenes. Greta Gerwig's script opened up more moments for Amy and Laurie, which was the best part of the 2019 movie. It's not perfect (wanted more details of their overseas romance, like the book), but Florence Pugh's performance as adult Amy left me wanting to see more of her overseas experience. I hope you will catch the 1978 2-part TV miniseries with Susan Dey as Jo. It is very good too. The 1949 movie is also good, although they swiched the ages of Amy and Beth because they had access to two popular actresses--young Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and adorable Margaret O'Brien as Beth.
There are two much older versions, one in 1949 with June Allyson as Jo and 1933 with Katharine Hepburn as Jo. Both of these actresses feel more like book Jo than Ryder's - Alcott describes Jo as "Fifteen-year-old Jo was very tall, thin, and brown, and reminded one of a colt, for she never seemed to know what to do with her long limbs, which were very much in her way. She had a decided mouth, a comical nose, and sharp, gray eyes, which appeared to see everything, and were by turns fierce, funny, or thoughtful. Her long, thick hair was her one beauty, but it was usually bundled into a net, to be out of her way. Round shoulders had Jo, big hands and feet, a flyaway look to her clothes, and the uncomfortable appearance of a girl who was rapidly shooting up into a woman and didn’t like it." Ryder, to me, is rather too delicate and "graceful" to inhabit that rough and tumble bigness of Jo. Allyson, though petite also, has an unrefined aspect that plays nicely against the other sisters (though I don't like that they switched the age orders of Beth and Amy here). Hepburn is, on paper and in many moments, ideal casting: New England stock, a real-life nonconformist, an athlete, and she has that long, lean line that she can manipulate to show awkwardness, discomfort, and the slow evolution to an adult. For me, the 1933 version fails in pacing and emotional indulgence. But oh, how can you ever argue with the great and wonderful Edna May Oliver as Aunt March! I like a lot of the 1949 version, especially Margaret O'Brien as Beth, but feel Elizabeth Taylor was a major mis-step, and the character suffers, thereby bringing down the general respect toward the material. The 1994 version is very, very good, though I haven't seen it in a long time; but as I said above, for me, Ryder is too similar to her sisters, too assured, too graceful, for Jo. Saoirse Ronan is almost perfect casting, to my mind, and I agree with the general consensus that Amy is treated better here than she usually is. I think there were too many ideas here, and that the script and direction tended to lose focus and its eye on whatever target was central. I think I would have preferred a movie about Alcott herself and what went into the creation of her best-known book.
The 1994 version is one of my absolute favorites of all time, but I just watched the 2019 version a few weeks ago and I have to say that I love it soo much too!! It didn't take away anything from the 1994 version IMO, and I thought it had different strengths. Beautiful score and cinematography in both versions. I enjoyed seeing more of Meg, Amy, and Beth in the 2019 version. I could go on and on with the comparisons but I think it's definitely possible to be a fan of both! I don't think I can pick a favorite. I mean 1994 feels more accurate, but 2019 breathes more life and adds a modern touch to the story to make the time more relatable to the audience.
Felt the 2019 cofusing because they kept going back and forth and coudnt tell what age they were ,unless you paid attention ,the 90s version told it from start to finish ,so the 90s version is still my favorite just an opinion ,please post more soon ,like metv ,
I read the book in middle school and have never seen the 90s version. I have seen the 2019 version and did truly love it, but my ultimate favorite version of Little Women is the musical. My community theatre group put it on and I went and watched them in it and fell in love. It's my all-time favorite version and I don't think anything will replace it. The book is second, even though I did love the new movie. My main complaint was not feeling as connected to Beth, who is my favorite character in the book. I definitely relate most to her and Meg, so I missed having that connection with her character.
I've only seen the Katherine Hepburn version and read the book, but both were when I was 10. I'd really like to revisit them and see the other two versions.
Please watch the BBC Little Women mini series, its 3 episodes each 1 hour and its so lovely and wonderful and I would love to hear your opinion on it! Maya Hawke plays Jo in that one, shes Robin in Stranger Things and the maincharacter from The Society plays Amy, I forgot her name atm. But Id love to hear from someone who also cares about this story as much as I do what your opinions are
Oh wow, really? I suppose not everyone is going to love it, no matter how many people do! What’s your favourite book, if you don’t mind me asking? I’m curious what style of literature is your cup of tea!
I know this video is a few years old but I’m only just now seeing it and I agree one thousand percent with literally everything you’ve said (it’s kinda strange how much I agree). I was about 10 when the 1994 film came out and I saw it in theaters and it has held such a special, high place in my heart for the last almost 30 years (wow, I feel old). Jo has always been my favorite and I always related to her (and couldn’t stand Amy), but with time and perspective and rereading the book, Amy has really grown on me and I feel like I relate to both of them. As for Laurie, as much as I like Chalamet I felt his version gave me incel vibes and I was much more irritated with him than Bale’s version. I felt I could empathize with Laurie in the 1994 version but he just rubbed me the wrong way in the 2019 version, AND I also felt like he came across as way too contemporary. In fact, the 2019 dialogue came across as quite contemporary and less believable to me. I appreciate that the 2019 version touches on Marmee’s anger, even though I felt Laura Dern was very much a miscast here. She just didn’t give Marmee energy that was true to Marmee in the books. And just overall, the cast and acting in the 1994 version is perfection. It felt like the casting directors really took their job seriously and studied the characters, whereas the 2019 version felt like a casting of Greta’s friends or something. I could go on and on and on about Little Women but that’s what’s coming to mind now.
I relate to Jo the most. I considered the others, but do you remember the conversation in the 1994 version where Jo talks to Marmee about never fitting in everywhere? I've literally had that conversation with my mom. I wish I could relate to Beth, but she's so pure and I'm just... Yeah, I'm not Beth. *Sigh*
I've always related to all of them. Meg, because I always wanted to get married and because especially as a girl I was very superficial and wanted to be glamorous. Jo, because she's the main character (and I always relate to the main character) and because I not necessarily was like her but more wanted to be like her. Beth, because I'm dramatic like that... Constantly expecting tragedy to strike and vainly imagining I could be half as sweet and innocent as she was throughout it all. Amy perhaps least of all, but in a way I envied all the opportunities she had as the youngest sister.
If you want to really challenge yourself there’s about half a dozen other versions of little women you could watch and then rank all of them. 1933 Katherine Hepburn, 1949 June Allyson, 1970 BBC, 1978 Susan Day, 2017 BBC, 2018 Lea Thompson, an anime, and a manga. I’ve read the book and the two sequels she wrote; “Little Men” and “Jo’s Boys,” and seen the 1933, 1949, 1970, 1994, 2017, and 2019. Yes, I’m crazy Almost forgot the terrifying “The March Sisters at Christmas “
I had set this video aside when it came out because I hadn't read the book yet... And I finished it today! It was lovely to hear your thoughts :) Since you like the 90s version so much, you might also like My Brilliant Career by the same (brilliant) director, if you haven't seen it yet. The main character is very much like Jo, although this is much less cosy.
I feel like I relate more to Amy even though I’m more like Joe in the not really wanting to get married lol but I feel like Amy is a go getter but also a realistic responsible adult. She knew her family was her responsibility to take care of since Joe didn’t look like would be able to provide because she was too much of a dreamer so she took that, and in the end she had everything she wanted. I feel like I’m a dreamer like Joe too but more grounded so makes me more Amy
Yesss such a great point! She didn’t want to marry rich out of pure selfishness, but to provide for her family and know they would all be taken care of ❤️
I actually got a bit annoyed with Amy and her great speech. She decided she could not accept being an average artist, and support herself doing illustrations for journals or seed catalogs, and commisions for portraits or whatever, getting as far as her talent and hard work could take her, she was somehow too good for that unlike Jo who wrote trash to support herself and the family, and worked, and worked hard to become a good writer, and later a teacher. This annoyed me so much so that I actually looked up Louisa May Alcott's real youngest sister, because I got curious about the inspiration, who actually did support herself as an artist, and is recognized as pretty good, epecially her flower pieces. Oth I get her idea that a good marriage was a way to help her family, it was an accepted solution in that time, so why shouldn't she?
The music alone in the 94 version is irreplaceable..I turn it on in the winter. Infact I'm listening to it now. Haha. The 94 film was closer to the book I thought. And it was straight forward. The 94 was warm feeling. The new one was too.... on the surface or something... it's the music though. I'm telling you. And though the movie was shot on scene, I felt the 94 version was more periodically correct. I don't know. It's the music. Though. Hahaha!!!
And can you believe that James Norton played a sociopath murderer in a British TV series? And there are other film version of this book, they are all worth a watch.
I didn't like the 1994 version. I watched it maybe 10 years ago and felt extremely bored. Even the cast couldn't save it for me. So I was reluctant to watch the 2019 version but I loved it. I think nostalgia plays a huge part in liking something. I didn't have any for the 90s film.
Little women 1933 is and will always be my favorite. Katherine Hepburn is Jo no one can say Christopher Columbus like Katherine. She just embodies Jo the best and I’m seen the ‘49, ‘78 miniseries, 94 and 2019 next 2 I’m going to see is 2018 pureflix and 2017 miniseries. I can’t imagine I would like those 2 as good as 1933.
I could not get past the ugly historically inaccurate clothing and Amy being the same age as the other girls in the 2019 version. Dont get me wrong I love Little Women and I still had fun watching the 2019 version, but overall it just didn't feel realistic to me. I also liked James Norton as Mr Brooke more then the 90s cast also.
Plant Based Bride, have you ever watched the 1933 version of Little Woman with Katherine Hepburn or the 1949 movie version of Little Women with June Allyson. Both movies are equally excellent and as good as the 1994 movie version of in every way. Katherine Hepburn acting in Little Women 1933 movie is quintessentially the character Jo.
The 2019 Little women casting was beyond terrible.. I only liked Saoirse Ronan. Timothée Chalamet ruined the movie for me, he was so bad as Laurie. I will always love the 1994 version -it is a beautiful moving movie and the death of Beth was the saddest scene ever.
Do you feel joe and laurie had more chemistry in the 1994 version but in the 2019 version joe and Behr had more chemistry? Was that intentional by the respective directors?
I agree that Jo and Laurie had more chemistry in the 1994 version though I’m not sure I agree that Jo and Behr had more chemistry in the new version… I definitely prefer the portrayal of Behr in the 94 film and I feel their relationship makes more sense in the 94 film but again I’m probably biased because that’s my favourite version 😅
It's been ages since I saw little women. If I remember correctly my very first contact must have been a cartoon series in the eighties or maybe early ninties. I saw the film from 94 and I do remember exactly three scenes. One us the small puppet Amy places on her nose to keep it all nice and thin. Jo's crying because she'd let cut of her hair. And of course Beth's sad good bye which is the reason I have never ever watched something related ever again because I tear up just thinking about it... I really do not like films that make me cry without the necessary happy end in sight.
You should check out By The Book youtube channel. She has a rundown of 4 (I think) versions of Little Women movies. I think you’d find her channel interesting.
I need to read this book, I read most of it when I was about 11 but I am yet to get to the end of an adaptation. I always get to the bit where Laurie and Amy get together and I can't go on. There was a BBC adaptation a couple of years ago and I literally stopped it halfway through an episode and never went back. My shipping is too strong but I've ogtta get OVER it.
Aw, that’s because you wanted Jo and Laurie together? I actually love Amy and Laurie together, and I really like Jo ending up with Bhaer. But that’s just me☺️
The 2019 version was so cringe. I hated the fact that the child version of Amy was played by and adult. It added an extra level of creepy to the film. Having an adult pretend to be a child is weird. Why not just cast an actual child? I don't get it. I disliked Chalamet as Laurie, he just didn't seem to fit the character. I felt as if Jo's character was completely off. I get they were trying to for the woke "independent, don't need a man" vibe, but it just came across wrong. Jo seemed miserable throughout the film and at the end of it. Don't know why they bothered having Bhaer as a character as he added nothing to the film. It's like the second half of the book didn't matter because it was just about Jo whining over the fact that she rejected Laurie. In the book she doesn't have romantic feelings for him at all, but magically in the 2019 she suddenly has feelings? Felt very fangirl to me. I hated how they jump back and forth from past to present, it completely messes with the narrative. I didn't care for the fact that Jo is portrayed as a "strong, independent" woman, but really isn't. She spends most of the film whining and miserable. In the book and most film adaptations, she's portrayed as spirited and tough. Her personality and nature is what makes her a "strong independent" woman rather than just having her be a lonely spinster. She's also able to maintain this and still form a relationship with a man who compliments her. She's able to receive criticism from Bhaer about her writing and improve. In the 2019 version Bhaer doesn't matter and she "needs no criticism." Hated every part of this film. I hated how people kept raving about it. I also hated how people had the audacity to say it deserved Oscars when it is the worst adaptation of this film I've seen. Even the costumes and hairstyles are mediocre and not faithful to the time period.
I haven’t read the book(but it came up on my library today!) and I only watched the 90s a really long time ago But I like the 2019 version I feel like it was really realistic except young amy Florence’s voice really is very mature (but also beautiful) but I like how she portrayed baby amy really baby and you could see the evolution on her maturity Also I think Timothee was better than Christian Bale because he is younger he acted like his age my memory of Christian is that he is trying to hard 😅
1) 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn and Douglass Montgomery. Katherine embodies Jo in that version. 2) 1994 version because Claire Danes woke my sexuality. 😂 💜💜💜
I’ve read Little Women so many times and it is my favorite book of all time. In my opinion here’s who wins out for best performances of each character JO: 2019 AMY: 2019 MEG: 2018 Masterpiece miniseries (but tbh I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Meg that’s just right) BETH: 2019 LAURIE: 90s (note the masterpiece Laurie is 🤮) FREDRICH: 90s AUNT MARCH: 2019 (need I say more? All hail queen meryl) JOHN BROOK: 2019 Overall I love the 2019 one the most. But nothing beats the book for me. I will say one thing that takes down the 2019 version a couple notches is the costumes. Omg awful. They didn’t fit the characters. They weren’t accurate. They didn’t contribute to the story in a meaningful way. And they weren’t even pretty. But then again neither the 90s version nor the 2019 version nor the pbs masterpiece version have good costumes. Someone stop hiring Jacqueline Durran and start hiring actual dress historians, or at least people with a background in dress history.
I am so surprised that you prefer Eliza to Claire as Beth! Claire Danes is such a sublime Beth to me ❤️ I also didn’t love Meryl’s Aunt March... 😬 I know it’s sacrilege at this point, but she just didn’t have enough to do and didn’t feel particularly dynamic! I felt she was wasted. And I totally agree about the costumes. I much prefer the 90s costumes!
Claire Danes as Beth makes me cry everytime 😭 she’s my favorite sister next to Joe. I can’t watch the new version - well I could but I don’t want to (yet)... the 94 version is one of my absolute favorite movies of all times 💖
Agreed. Danes is the perfect Beth in every way ❤️
Yess she was. I was crying so much when she died. She was so sweet
Never seen the entirety of either film, nor read the book, but watching Claire Danes' performance of Beth in that one pivotal scene with Winona Ryder is one of the saddest and most heartbreaking moments ever put to film.
Omg it sits with me for days everytime I watch the movie.
Hated the new version. It was hard to follow, costuming was incorrect (no bonnets hair down). Meg was not well played, Amy was too old for young Amy. The 90’s version was best followed by the Hepburn version.
same here . Also they cast Emma Watson, what were they thinking ?
The 2019 movie was so bad that I couldn’t even finish it! I absolutely love the novel, but the movie completely butchered the storyline and characters.
Great to find some others who don't swoon over that version.
I think you're bang on about Chalamet feeling too contemporary for Laurie. He doesn't feel as brotherly as Bale either. I think Chalamet's redeeming factor is his chemistry with both Saoirse and Florence, whereas Bale does a better job of embodying the character as a whole!
Agreed! I think Bale also has great chemistry with Winona Ryder but I agree with everything else you said. He also didn’t seem as lively or silly most of the time and then all of a sudden was at 110% and cartoony, which was a bit difficult to watch!
Omg that’s what I was thinking too!
I feel like in the 1994 version you could kinda see why Jo loved Laurie as more of a brother but in the 2019, especially with all the hype of Chalamet, you couldn’t really see that... hence people didn’t see why Laurie and Jo weren’t supposed to be together...
Also I felt like the 2019 version didn’t flesh out Jo and Frederich’s relationship compared to the 1994 (yet again I wish the 1994 also showed more of their relationship too!)
I agree!!!! Although I actually found his chemistry with Saoirse to be really nonexistent. It was hard to buy into their scenes because of that.
My introduction to little women was the 2019 film and I was really confused by it. I didn’t know who the characters were and only realized who was who by the middle of the film. I hated that the characters didn’t age it felt so unrealistic and lazy and was probably another factor in why I was confused about the timeline. And I felt like Beth was the only sister who didn’t have any goals so i wasn’t surprised when she died. But seeing you talk about the other versions makes me want to give the story a chance and watch the 90s version and read the book.
Same here. I watched the 2019 version yesterday. And today the 1994 version. The 1994 version is better. But thats mine opinion
oh dear I hope you see the 90s versions, it is so so so so much more realistic, and wayyyyyy more historically accurate in all ways from clothing to the girls demeanour/ behaviours.
How did you like it?
Little Women is my favorite book of all time (I can talk about it endlessly), and I love everything about the 90s movie (especially the soundtrack), so I've been really apprehensive of watching the 2019 film, and honestly, nothing I've seen about it makes me want to watch it. But this video did make me want to reread the book for the millionth time. Whenever life got too much (much like it is right now), I would open that book, and it was like going home.
I cherished the familiarity of the March family and of Orchard House.
I feel like I connect with Jo the most. We're both writers, we're both stubborn to a fault, we both do stupid things out of anger, we're both more emotional than we like to let on, and we were both more comfortable being friends with boys when we were younger. And there's a moment that has stuck with me from the first moment I read it, where Meg calls November "the most disagreeable month of the whole year," and Jo replies, "That's the reason I was born in it." As a fellow November baby, I felt that deeply.
Aw yay! I agree, I can’t believe I forgot to mention the soundtrack! It’s perfection ❤️
I feel the exact same way about the feeling of going home. This story is so beautifully crafted!
I relate to Amy for many of the same reasons 😂 creative/artistic, dramatic, emotional, stubborn, tender hearted at the core. I also relate to her as the baby of the family, always being left out, and her know it all attitude 😅
That’s so funny that you were also born in November! Apparently Amy is a Leo and so am I 🤔
I didn't like the 2019 version. The 90s version set a really high bar and there were too many issues with the 2019 version. You forgot to mention that none of the sisters looked even vaguely like each other. They also looked the same age which made them not believable as sisters and Florence Pugh was much too old to play Amy - Emma Watson the oldest sister looks younger than her. Plus the switching around and confusing flashblacks interspersed in odd ways made the story hard to follow and ultimately made it hard to connect to the storyline and characters. The 2019 did not deserve awards. They took a good story and didn't do a good job of telling it.
I mentioned that Jo seemed older than Meg in the 2019 version, that Florence Pugh felt too old to play young Amy, and that Emma Watson looked nothing like the other girls as far as colouring is concerned in this video. I also mentioned how I disliked the flashbacks 😉 Seems like we have many of the same opinions on it, though I overall enjoyed the 2019 film.
Completely agree
So true, i didnt like it either. Yesterday i watched the 2019 version. And i was so confused about the story. I didnt understand the story beccause of all the flashbacks and back and fourts. And didn't knew they played teens. Amy was so weird as the youngest. It was so not believable that she was the youngest. And Timothy looked more like a teen in the grownup version. It was all so very confusing. I never read the book so i had no expectations. The 1994 version was good and in the right order. And it had more depht.
@@PlantBasedBride In the flashbacks I would think wait what happened to the characters??
They should have added tags like 7 years ago or something
But anyway I really liked the film
Did you see the PBS version? It’s amazing. But the 90’s version will always hold a place in my heart.
I haven’t! I’ve heard it’s great, though, so it’s on my list.
Plant Based Bride it’s so good. I feel like it’s being forgotten about because of the 2019 movie. But trust me I loved the PBS version more then the 2019 movie.
@@kerstanb Yes, much better (I say, 4 years too late).
I would highly recommend the 2017 BBC Little Women three-part series. I'm certain you would appreciate that version very much.
Warning: this is a very long post.
I think your ranking is spot-on. I'm usually someone who votes for a book before a movie, but I think my nostalgia for the 1994 adaptation just eclipses my admiration for the book (which, admittedly, is still very high). They did such a wonderful, authentic job of adapting material that can come across as old-fashioned and kept it beautiful and real, proving why a story written in the 1860s is still incredibly relevant and full of lessons for us to learn today. The only thing that I feel like the '94 version falls down on is Amy and Laurie's story once she's grown up. It was extremely clipped, and I am still waiting for the day that a movie adaptation does justice to the fantastic way they come together in the book (rowing together -- it just warms my heart). I don't necessarily think the 2019 version is much better, but because it did more justice to older Amy in general, their relationship allllmost works better for me than the 1994.
But in every other way, I'd pick the 1994 over the 2019 every time. You want to be able to care about these characters, and it shouldn't take you until the second half of the movie to do so. In contrast, I care about every single person in the 1994, even grouchy old Aunt March. And I bawl every time Mr. Laurence presents that piano to Beth (another instance that the book is better, because you see the evolution of their sweet friendship, but the performance of that scene in the movie is so touching, I can forgive them leaving out the rest). And I agree that Prof. Bhaer is not any better serviced when he's cast younger. I say this as someone who saw the '94 version in the theaters at the age of ten and, not knowing anything about the story beforehand, was so mad when Jo turned down Laurie. It was Christian Bale! Of Newsies! I'd seen Gabriel Byrne in one other movie at that time in my life, and he'd been a bad guy in it, and I couldn't make heads or tails of him being a love interest that triumphs over Christian Bale. (!!!) But in retrospect, it works so well, and for the reasons you enumerated. He was still aged down, but not so egregiously as the 2019, which I'm convinced was just trying to go for sexiness. -shrug-
Another thing that I think contributes to the 2019 characters feeling "off", as you expressed, is something kind of superficial but really changes things -- the costuming. I think the costuming for the 2019 version is atrocious. There is something to be said for creative liberty, sure, but the idea that Greta Gerwig had of the Marches being "hippies" is just off. (As though sewing your own clothes in the 1860s wasn't commonplace for . . . oh, everyone! Not to mention that, aside from believing in integration in addition to abolition, the Marches were not terribly radical in their thinking, and in some ways, even for the time, were old-fashioned.) And as superficial a thing as clothing can be, if they had been more authentic to the periods presented, I think it would have made a huge difference to the way the characters were portrayed (and would have helped a bit with all the time-jumping, to see the different fashions). In different clothing you carry yourself differently, your body language changes, not to mention that costuming is an excellent short-hand for presenting character. You used the word "contemporary" to describe Timothee Chalamet, and I think that word is appropriate for explaining what's off about so much of the performances, that they belong to 2019 rather than 1865. And that contemporary feel would have been greatly tempered if their costumes had been more appropriate to the time period. As it was, they felt like 2019 people who just happened to be wearing 1860s-inspired clothing. The costuming in the 1994 version, by contrast, was impeccable. The clothes felt and LOOKED lived in, you could actually see the same dresses rotate through different scenes -- heck, even after the time skip, Amy is wearing an old dress of Meg's, which is such a TRUE touch of a poor family and hand-me-downs -- and it made these wonderful actors adjust themselves so that the way they acted felt much more believable of the period, not just that they happened to be dropped into it. (I'm not a costumer, but I have been an avid fan of period dramas for too long not to know general fashions of different eras and therefore absolutely despise it when I see recent adaptations of various novels trying to set themselves apart by giving the characters more contemporary looks -- wearing hair down all the time, for example. SOO not cool.)
Okay, I think I've rambled long enough. I enjoyed hearing your take on the book and the two adaptations, especially since your opinion highly mirrored my own. ;) I, too, was surprised at how much I didn't hate the 2019 version, but the 1994 is like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.
I had MANY problems with the 2019 version. But I love what you touch on from 22:05 through 23:00. Admittedly i haven't read the book in a long time, but I do make a point of watching the 94 version every year and I'm very familiar with the dialogue. And what bothered me the most about how they handled the dialogue you were discussing, in the timestamp noted above, is that certain scenes did feel very rushed. They would all burst in, spout out lines like they were checking them off a list, and then burst back out of the room. And they were lines that I remembered from the 94 movie, so they were either both quoting the novel or the 19 one was quoting the 94 one. It just felt like an obligation, "We have these lines that we gotta put in there. Action. Cut. Moving on." And then dialog that was clearly added to the new one, like Amy's speech on marriage as an adult.... Oh, we have ALL the time in the world for her to speak at a normal pace, take pauses, discourse back and forth with Laurie.
That and my other issues with the film made it feel like the ones making it had their own story to tell, but because they were doing it through this adaptation, they felt like they had to pay it the barest lip service to still qualify it as one.
Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk.
Yeah, it is questionable if she even married Bhaer or that was just in _her_ novel, and we had to have the cliché run to stop the -plane- train.
you spoke all of the words from my brain!! i just rewatched 2019, rewatched 94 in the middle of summer and finished rereading the book a few weeks ago. the 94 was also what i grew up with - i would watch it when i was sick and it would always make me feel better. you said literally every qualm i had with the 19 film, and another thing you haven’t mentioned is that i felt like the dialogue was like, half modernized. there would be some lines that were so incorrect in the civil war era context, but some lines would be straight from the book. it just felt disjointed and aimless. i also felt it was very far from the book in terms of aim and character, though i did enjoy the movie and agree, it was a lot better in the second half. glad i found this video!!
I am in love with Louisa May Alcott, but I admit my favorite book of hers is An Old Fashioned Girl. In regards to the movies, I actually prefer the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn. It was the first version I saw and Kate is one of my all-time favorite actors. I did like the new movie and watched it with my son, who did not know the story at all. I asked him afterward if he was able to follow the storylines and he said it was not a problem. Thanks so much for going through the comparison of the book and movies.
I haven’t read any of her other work! I’ll have to check it out. I definitely want to watch the earlier versions now as well ☺️
@@PlantBasedBride I have read almost everything that is in print that she wrote and most everything that was written about her. You could say I'm obsessed with LMA.
Incredible! Other than An Old Fashioned Girl is there anything in particular I should check out?
@@PlantBasedBride Rose (the old fashioned girl)'s story continues with Rose In Bloom. Another is Under the Lilacs, but that story I did not read as often (less than 25 times?) haha.
Me tok, im young and it was not difficult to follow the storyline. May because thid new generation like to jump to things.
I totally vibe with the dialogue notes!!!! I felt like they were read like a 12 year old in a stage production. They felt very fake, without genuine emotion. It was like they were running lines, like you said, and someone was telling them which emotion to portray. It threw me off so much that I had a hard time watching the film
When you were talking about the impact the movie had on you and how emotional it makes you, I 100% felt that! I first saw the 1994 version when I was 9. I was so fascinated by the sister relationship and the relationship with their mother. I’m the youngest of three girls. My sisters are a lot older than me and none of us got along as kids. We also did not have a good relationship with our mom. We are all much closer now, but that movie showed me what a loving family looks like. I watched it every time it came on tv. Claire Danes portrayal of Beth was especially heartbreaking. I really enjoyed the 2019 version, but the 1994 version will always have a special place in my heart.
Ask that question to a 14-19 year old and they will say the 2019, hands down. Ask that question to a 39-44 year old and they will say the 1994. Why? because just like music, you tend to develop a preference to entertainment which is more contemporary to your era. Ask a reader of the book, and you'll get a higher percentage preferring the 1994 version, who will then run home to re-read the book after vomiting while watching the 2019.
But have those 14-19 year olds seen older versions of the film and read the book to compare? If they’ve only seen the new film they have no way to pick a preference 🤷♀️
@@PlantBasedBride That's a good question. For those of the younger generation who are not aware of anything else besides what is popular today, can they really be expected to pick a preference?
@@wonderlasting As a teenager who has read the book and seen both films, I can say that the book is my favorite, with the 2019 coming in second, and the 1994 as a close third. The reason I preferred the 2019 film over the 1994 film was I felt that the actors reflected the book characters better, and like you said earlier, it was more contemporary. I also really loved the ending of the 2019 film and that put it above the 1994 version for me.
I'm 22 but I preferred the 1994 version. It just felt more authentic, original and true to the book. The 2019 version felt like just another remake, plus too politically correct. Don't have a problem with political correctness but I feel it doesn't belong in such a classic novel adaptation.
We are so on the same page! I love love love the 1994 version and fell in love with Laurie in my childhood. I agree that the 2019 version was okay but the 90’s version will have my heart. My favorite thing about the 2019 is the nod to Jo’s preferred ending of the book and I felt like there was an implication that Jo added in Friedrich Behr to appease her editor in a very “meta” moment.
Still haven’t seen the new movie. I’m scared to watch it😬 I love the 40’s and 90’s versions❤️I’m obsessed, been obsessed, can watch them over and over and overrrrrr. When I have bad anxiety, these movies are my medicine.
Haha I can relate!! I think it’s worth the watch, though ❤️
Loved the 1994 film. Warmed the heart the same way reading the book did. But the best adaptation fir me is the 1987 anime series calked the Tales of Little Women i watched growing up. That is like straight out of the pages perfection,right to the color of their bonnets. Whenever i imagine the LW, its the anime version that i see.
2019 version wasn't bad, saved by the fact that the novel is such a great one, but the casting was definitely off & didn't have an ounce of that fuzzy warm christmassy feeling!
The problem i guess is 2019 one thought of modernising some aspects, completely missing the point that certain stories like LW & P&P are timeless.
90's version for me, although I enjoyed this film too. I recommend watching the 2017 bbc little women series as well. Btw you remind me so much of Anne Shirley^^
Aw thank you! ❤️
I have not read the novel...yet. I saw Little Women in 1994 in the theaters. What got me into the theater was that at the time I was in college and listening to the radio and it was playing some really nice music. The music was actually from the soundtrack to Little Women that was in the theater at the time. I loved what I heard so I decided to go see it by myself at the theater. I really did not know what the movie was all about but I liked some films Winona Ryder was in. I walked down to the movie theater which was a couple of miles from campus. The movie turned out to be be something I would cherish to this day. I am a guy and I am not afraid to say that. I guess this is because of family and also the music that I fell in love with, also because at the time I was living in Richmond, VA in and area that was called the Fan which has older buildings in an area with a deep history in the Civil War and era in which Little Women took place. I just watched Little Women 2019 yesterday. I was pretty skeptical because of the era in which this film was released (I mean with all the political garbage affecting the film industry). In the new film, they did skip around chronologically that I thought was irritating but I knew what was going on because of my experience with the 1994 film. As I watched the 2019 version I kept thinking of the scenes from the 1994 version. I never saw the whole Little Women movie from 1949 (Elizabeth Taylor), just a few scenes so the 1994 movie to me is canon. LOL! The 1994 film to me is definitely more intimate and delicate, almost magical, I guess because of that time in my life being away at college and things changing with my relationships and life as a result. Thanks for sharing your views.
I've actually never watched or read " Little Women" but after this video I definitely do it. Thanks for this review!
By the way, James Norton is a great actor, one of my favorites. He was awesome in "War & Peace" (BBC Series) and "Grantchester" (British TV Series).
I’ll have to look into some of his other work! And I’m so glad that you’re interested in checking out little women after this video ☺️ I hope you love it as much as I do! ❤️
I adore "Grantchester." He's so good in it.
James Norton is also in "Death comes to Pemberley" as well. Really liked his character in that story and the screen adaptation.
I left the theater feeling SO disappointed with the 2019 film. This film did a HUGE disservice to Character development of the four sisters and to Laurie. Little Women is my favorite book and the the 2019 film was almost a completely different story.
I grew up watching the 1949 version. I always enjoyed it but with no sisters I never really got such a strong connection to it.
I really want to watch the 30s and 40s versions!
I have just watched the 2019 version and read the first chapters of the book (Little Women was just not a thing in my country while I was growing up hahah), but I actually loved the non linear timeline in the movie. I totally think that books and movies should not just reflect each other as they are different media, and innovation should always be tried, so I enjoyed a lot that the movie is in a more modern format. The same happens with pride and prejudice: I love both versions, the Keira Knightley one and the Colin Firth one equally, for different reasons. Also, what's this second channel you mentioned? Hahaha
Oh I agree, I love seeing new interpretations! It’s not that it was non-linear but the way the time jumps were handled (very sudden & choppy) that I disliked ☺️ I have another channel linked in the sidebar of my my main channel page for media criticism. I started it last year during season 8 of GOT and then stopped making videos because GOT made me so distraught 😂 I plan on making more, but it’s hard to find the time on top of the content I produce here, on Instagram, and for my patrons ❤️
@@PlantBasedBride I would have done the same because of got 😂
Yeah, specially for me that I do not lie time jumps. I like that the 2019 version told me to be prepare for that seen the begining.
I love love love the 2019 version BUT I’ve also never seen the 90s one and so don’t have the emotional attachment to it you do.
Good point! I’d be curious what you think of it if you were to watch the 90s version after having seen the new film 🤔
Have you ever watched the 1933 version? It's pretty great, in its own ways, with actresses that all seem SO much older than those in either the 1990s or 2019 versions, but worth a look! I have to agree that I'm avoiding the 2019 version because the 90s flick was SO AMAZING (WINONA FOREVER!), but I'm curious to see how it turned out, so one of these days I'll have to give it a whirl.
I haven’t! I really want to watch the earlier movies and other adaptations now that I’ve done this little experiment ☺️ It was honestly a lot more enjoyable than I expected! I’m sure you’d have a good time if you’re a fan of this story ❤️
I read the book and watched the 90s version yearsssss ago so I really can't remember the details. I remember enough to not be motivated to watch the 2019 version though LOL. Who needs another remake?? I'm going to definitely re-read soon!
I think I'm a mix of the sisters, depending on the situation... although I do like Meg. It seems exhausting being a Jo all the time lol
Haha I felt the same when the 2019 version was announced. I still enjoyed it, but was it necessary? Probably not 😂
I agree about being a mix! And I agree being Jo 24/7 must be a lot 🤣
how was this 15 hours ago?! the video was posted 10 minutes ago what
My patrons get early access to my videos ☺️
@@PlantBasedBride Every generation will have their own _Little Women_ -- or three, in the 2010s, I guess. I would actually love to see a version with a free Black family, though, considering the Civil War theme. Also, although not necessarily in that version, Michael Sheen would make an awfully good Professor Bhaer (still).
Apologies if anyone already mentioned this, but it’s a series. You should read Little Men and Jo’s Boys as well. Also, I really liked a biography of LMA called Marmee and Louisa. I want to say there was like a long lost trunk of their letters discovered by some later relative that led to that book. Super interesting from an American (feminist) history perspective, too. Enjoy!!
Oh, and 90’s film hands down. Also was surprised that I enjoyed the 2019 film so much, but it was still no contest! 🤣
ugh finally I found people who I can agree to. No offense to all the actors and actresses, but 2019 version was not good. Every character's emotions and journeys were so tender and felt close in 94 version. This new one seems like it turned this beautiful people into a dysfunctional family with loud mouths
Love the 90’s version!! Would love to hear your thoughts on the made for TV version in 2017.
Has anyone seen the 2017 miniseries by the BBC and PBS with Angela Lansbury? I love that versión. I think is the Best adaptation, with the 1994 film right behind (that one is a bit too religious for my taste).
I've only seen the 2019 version, the other movies plus the book are on my to do list. I related to Meg. I like Emma Watson as a person but not as an actress but the character Meg is the oldest like me and goes and settles down first like I did.
I always liked Meg as well. My husband thought I was similar to Meg in the 2019 version but much more like Amy in the 90s version 😂
Great analysis. Prior to reading the novel during quarantine, the only thing I knew about Little Women was the “Friends” episode about Little Women and The Shining (which is hilarious if you’ve read both of those or don’t mind massive spoilers). Now that I’m a fan of the book, I honestly love both of these movies almost equally. The ‘90s film has such a warm and cozy atmosphere, and the casting is just aces. Likewise, I really like the parallel timelines in the 2019 version. Telling it chronologically makes for a great story about young girls becoming adults, whereas showing the similarities between past and future makes for a story about adults looking back on childhood.
I tried watching the 2019 version but couldn't even make it half way through the new actress are unlikable Laurie is way to young and Saoirse Ronan as joe was wrong fuly cast and you can tell from the very first scene where she is with Laurie at the ball Florence Pugh as amy was so laughale every line she spoke hurt my head why was she cast as amy in the first place they also took away all the emotion of megs death and Eliza Scanlen and meg I mean she wasn't to bad but unlike the 1994 version were you fall in love with ever person the story doesn't jump back and fourth the actress has perfect chemistry and Susan Sarandon was the best marme plus the 1994 version story was easy to follow I've red the book and really enjoyed it but like a said anyone who has seen the older versions will not beable to get through this film it is was to complicated and has a hell of alot of over or force acting
I'm about 20 years older than you, so I read the book in the 80s, quite a bit before seeing either of the movies. For me, the book wins, no contest. I do really enjoy the 90s movie, and have watched it more times than I've read the book by now. The 90s movie is a close second for me, but John always bothered me in it (even though I like the actor). I actually read Little Men first and liked it better when I was a child. That showed a bit of a follow up with John and Meg, so I think that had something to do with it. I liked the new movie okay, but I think I would have liked it less if I didn't already know what was going on. I remember thinking at the time that it would have been confusing for anyone brand new to the story. I probably won't watch it again. I recommend Little Men (the book, not the movie) if you're interested in how Jo makes Aunt March's estate into a school (about 10 years later). I think as an adult I prefer Little Women, but I still like Little Men. I haven't read any of the rest of the series.
_Jo's Boys_ is really good.
I remember starting Little Women at 9 or 10. I loved the beginning but found it difficult to transition into their adulthood. After your review, I most definitely have added it to my TBR list!
You took the words LITERALLY straight out of my head. I have no disagreements with anything you said. Rare, for something on the internet lol Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)
I agree with you on so many things, I felt super weird about Dr Behr's age, it seems like in general they tried to smooth out a lot of things in the new film if that makes sense. Laurie also seems more politically correct in the new movie, when in the 90's one I wanted to slap him a few times but that makes him who he is x'D Amy too, she's much more "mischievous" in the 90's film ... Also super weird to have the same actress in both timelines ?? You get this absolutely adult woman playing a kid and it's really unsettling ^^'
I watched both films this year so I'm not especially biased but I did like the 90's version a lot more. I just think it's written better, a lot of things made more sense and it doesn't rely solely on the actresses (as the new one kinda did IMO) even though they're absolutely amazing. 100% with you on this one !
Yes, totally! I think that’s what bothers me most about Chalemet’s Laurie, actually. Reserved and flat most of the time, and then all of a sudden out of nowhere he would explode into super cartoon silly Laurie, and then go right back to incredibly flat reserved Laurie. We didn’t even really see his transition to going off the rails in Europe and Amy bringing him back, which is such an important development for his character!
@@PlantBasedBride Exactly ! He goes from nice boy to drunk idiot with two girls on his arm parading around the ball room like ???
Great video! Please do this for Pride and Prejudice. I’d love your thoughts on that.
Yes!! I’d love to see this kind of video for Pride and Prejudice!!
Ohh that could be fun! I might have time if I’m stuck self-isolating much longer 😂
Thank you for this video! I grew up watching the 90s version and I’m not sure how I have never sat down to read the novel because I love the story. I’m also surprised that I haven’t watched the 1949 version, although, I believe that I started watching it when I was younger and just never finished it. I’m terrified to watch the 2019 version because, to me, the 90s actors ARE those characters. I just feel like they brought the characters to life so well. When you first mentioned Beth (Claire Danes version), I started tearing up! I love Saoirse Ronan as an actress and she is my only reason for even considering watch the 2019 version. I’m not sure which sister I relate to the most. I’m creative like Amy (drawing, painting, imaginative) but, I’m also “shy” like Meg and compassionate like Beth. I’m a NYer so, I have that built in headstrong nature like Jo but, I don’t believe I’m as fearless as she is. Lol.
Great review and, if anything, you solidified my love for the 90s version and reminded me that I need to sit down and READ!! Lol. Thank you! I would also be interested in seeing the character breakdown that you mentioned.
Aw I’m glad I reinforced your love of the 90s version! I think most of us have a little of each sister in us, even if we lean more towards one or another ☺️ I hope you enjoy reading the book and I’d be interested to know your thoughts if you watch the 2019 film!
I think Beth is the shy one (in the book, there is a lot about her being timid, and she's home schooled because she can't stand to go to school with a crowd of other kids). Not that she isn't compassionate.
Just discovered your account and I'm so happy with that. your videos are so beautiful and unique. love also the concept that you tell stories and combine this with painting. you radiate a warm atmosphere, giving it a lot of peace. And About little woman I like both films. I haven't read the books yet, I really want this but there are so many different versions and covers that I don't know which one is correct. thanks for your videos and stay your beautiful self. Oh and i like Amy because she is verg gracefull and creative with her paintings, What i really like.
I remember watching the 2019 version and thinking WHY have they chosen an actress to play Jo that looks older than the actress that played Meg
This is kind of superficial, but I also don't like that Jo is blonde.
I agree that the timeline hopping was confusing, and I think this decision also made the "adulthood" less played out - the young years are perfect for unconnected scenes, but the adult life seemed to be just a background, instead of full story itself. This said, I loved how it played off in Beth storyline, this one sequence was actually brilliant, with the colours and everything.
I'm currently re-reading the book (I haven't remember much, to be honest) and I am suprised how shy and lovely young Laurie is. Both film versions are making him seem to be more fitted for Jo, than it is in the book.
And what do you think about the ending? I hated that Jo got married in the story, and adding the conversation with the editor (apparently based on facts) was oh-so-satisfying!
I also grew up with the 90s film and still preferred the 2019 movie... goes to show there's no clearcut way to say in advance which you will like the most.
How interesting! I’d love to hear more about why you prefer the new movie ☺️
I do think it would be great if someone would do the whole trilogy of _Little Women, Little Men,_ and _Jo's Boys._
i'm doing a project on this exact topic for school right now! i read the novel and watched the 1949, 1994, and 2019 movies (as well as a video of the Broadway musical) and i'm comparing them for my senior thesis. wild!!
Oh, what an awesome coincidence! I haven’t seen the 30s and 40s films but would like to. I also love the musical ❤️ the song with Beth and Jo at the sea makes me sob like a baby every time! I would love to read your thesis, TBH ☺️
also this is very interesting. i would have ranked them 1. novel 2. 2019 3. 1994. i like the 2019 version better because in my opinion it's closer to the book, especially because they went back and did their research on how louisa may alcott wrote the novel so they could incorporate that into the story. i could talk for hours about little women adaptations though (also you picked the best three. 1949 and the musical are both worse.)
@@PlantBasedBride i'll send you my thesis when i'm done if you want! i'm focusing on how society and its norms have forced the story to change (i think alcott wanted to be a LOT more progressive/feminist than she was allowed to in the 1860s, but more recently adaptations have changed to reflect her original intentions because society has become more progressive/feminist!)
Yes, that’s such an interesting topic to explore! You can definitely see how different adaptations pushed the envelope of the story in different ways based on the time they were made and the social climate. I’d love to read it!
"Streep Streepin'" is the best description for what Meryl has been doing for the last couple of years 😂
I'm I the only person who sort of "grew up" with the 1948 (or 49?) version and I recently watched the '94 one and I love them both!! Even though the other one is pretty inaccurate...
Now I want to read the book again
I haven’t seen the 40s version but I’d like to!
I love the 90s film
As someone who adores classics and sells them for a living this video is just perfect. So thank you very much for doing it. My ranking will be first the book, second the 90s movie and third the 2019 one. However, I must add that the clothes, makeup and complements as well as the hairstyles of the 2019 movie are just impeccable.
The 1994 film was my first exposure to this story, then the book, then the 2019 version. Honestly, I love both versions, although the 94 version is a bit better for me due to the perfect casting, and more accurate production.
Florence definitly deserve that Oscar nomination
She manage to pull off bratty child and elegant and mature young woman all with the same character
She was my favorite part of the movie as well
I actually watch the movie bcause Emma Watson was in it... but fell in love with Amy / Florence
I read the book in fourth grade (originally) and _Jo's Boys_ in sixth grade. Not sure when I read _Little Men,_ but I did at some point. I've seen the following adaptations:
*1933 dir. by George Cukor, starring Katharine Hepburn* (Jo), Frances Dee (Meg), Jean Parker (Beth), Joan Bennett (Amy) [I will be following this order rather than birth order, as Jo is usually the main character]. Spring Byington (Marmee), Edna May Oliver (Aunt March -- also Lady Catherine in the 1940 _Pride and Prejudice),_ Douglass Montgomery (Laurie), Paul Lukas (Professor Bhaer).
*1949 d. Mervyn LeRoy. June Allyson,* Janet Leigh, Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor. Mary Astor, Lucille Watson, Peter Lawford, Rosanno Brazzi.
*1978 (NBC miniseries) d. David Lowell Rich. Susan Dey,* Meredith Baxter Birney, Eve Plumb, Ann Dusenberry. Dorothy McGuire, Mildred Natwick, Richard Gilliland, William Shatner (seriously).
*1994 d. Gillian Armstrong. Winona Ryder,* Trini Alvarado, Claire Danes, Samantha Mathis/Kirsten Dunst. Susan Sarandon, Mary Wickes, Christian Bale, Gabriel Byrne.
*2017 (BBC miniseries) d. Vanessa Caswill. Maya Hawke,* Willa Fitzgerald, Annes Elwy, Kathryn Newton. Emily Watson [so close to getting an Emily/Emma Watson mother-daughter casting!], Angela Lansbury, Jonah Hauer-King, Mark Stanley.
*2018 (cinema. modern version) d. Clare Niederpruem. Sarah Davenport,* Melanie Stone, Allie Jennings, Elise Jones/Taylor Murphy. Lea Thompson, Barta Heiner, Lucas Grabeel, Ian Bohen.
*2019 d. Greta Gerwig. Saoirse Ronan,* Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlen, Florence Pugh. Laura Dern, Meryl Streep, Timothee Chalamet.
So far. 1994 is my favorite adaptation, but I also think the others are mostly good. The 2017 miniseries uses things from the book not usually retained and is quite interesting. I like the look of the Jo (daughter of Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke). I don't like how the 2019 version goes out of order so you know things too soon, and, as a general thing, I prefer Jo not to be blonde.
The 1994 cast is fabulous and I first saw it as a teenager.
Though the 90s adaptation will always be my favorite, there is a lesser known adaptation that was released by PBS in 2018 that is even more faithful to the novel. I love it so much! If there wasn't the 90s version, it would be my absolute favorite adaptation of Little Women.
Sorry but I couldn't even take Florence Pugh acting seriously. Her portraying young Amy seemed overly dramatized and I couldn't get past the deep voice when she was trying to portray young Amy. Her voice reminded me of the real smart blonde girl on Gilmore Girls.
Thank you so much for your look at Little Women. I appreciate it because it does agree with many of my opinions on the 1994 and 2019 films. 1994 remains my favorite of the two. I really liked the closer look at Jo and Professor Bhaer (although it meant less for the Amy and Laurie scenes).
To me Timothy Chalamet is fine as young Laurie but doesnt seem mature enough for older Laurie. Christian Bale handles it better, but Chalamet had better Amy-Laurie scenes.
Greta Gerwig's script opened up more moments for Amy and Laurie, which was the best part of the 2019 movie. It's not perfect (wanted more details of their overseas romance, like the book), but Florence Pugh's performance as adult Amy left me wanting to see more of her overseas experience.
I hope you will catch the 1978 2-part TV miniseries with Susan Dey as Jo. It is very good too. The 1949 movie is also good, although they swiched the ages of Amy and Beth because they had access to two popular actresses--young Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and adorable Margaret O'Brien as Beth.
There are two much older versions, one in 1949 with June Allyson as Jo and 1933 with Katharine Hepburn as Jo. Both of these actresses feel more like book Jo than Ryder's - Alcott describes Jo as
"Fifteen-year-old Jo was very tall, thin, and brown, and reminded one of a colt, for she never seemed to know what to do with her long limbs, which were very much in her way. She had a decided mouth, a comical nose, and sharp, gray eyes, which appeared to see everything, and were by turns fierce, funny, or thoughtful. Her long, thick hair was her one beauty, but it was usually bundled into a net, to be out of her way. Round shoulders had Jo, big hands and feet, a flyaway look to her clothes, and the uncomfortable appearance of a girl who was rapidly shooting up into a woman and didn’t like it."
Ryder, to me, is rather too delicate and "graceful" to inhabit that rough and tumble bigness of Jo. Allyson, though petite also, has an unrefined aspect that plays nicely against the other sisters (though I don't like that they switched the age orders of Beth and Amy here).
Hepburn is, on paper and in many moments, ideal casting: New England stock, a real-life nonconformist, an athlete, and she has that long, lean line that she can manipulate to show awkwardness, discomfort, and the slow evolution to an adult. For me, the 1933 version fails in pacing and emotional indulgence. But oh, how can you ever argue with the great and wonderful Edna May Oliver as Aunt March!
I like a lot of the 1949 version, especially Margaret O'Brien as Beth, but feel Elizabeth Taylor was a major mis-step, and the character suffers, thereby bringing down the general respect toward the material.
The 1994 version is very, very good, though I haven't seen it in a long time; but as I said above, for me, Ryder is too similar to her sisters, too assured, too graceful, for Jo.
Saoirse Ronan is almost perfect casting, to my mind, and I agree with the general consensus that Amy is treated better here than she usually is. I think there were too many ideas here, and that the script and direction tended to lose focus and its eye on whatever target was central. I think I would have preferred a movie about Alcott herself and what went into the creation of her best-known book.
The 1994 version is one of my absolute favorites of all time, but I just watched the 2019 version a few weeks ago and I have to say that I love it soo much too!! It didn't take away anything from the 1994 version IMO, and I thought it had different strengths. Beautiful score and cinematography in both versions. I enjoyed seeing more of Meg, Amy, and Beth in the 2019 version. I could go on and on with the comparisons but I think it's definitely possible to be a fan of both! I don't think I can pick a favorite. I mean 1994 feels more accurate, but 2019 breathes more life and adds a modern touch to the story to make the time more relatable to the audience.
Felt the 2019 cofusing because they kept going back and forth and coudnt tell what age they were ,unless you paid attention ,the 90s version told it from start to finish ,so the 90s version is still my favorite just an opinion ,please post more soon ,like metv ,
I read the book in middle school and have never seen the 90s version. I have seen the 2019 version and did truly love it, but my ultimate favorite version of Little Women is the musical. My community theatre group put it on and I went and watched them in it and fell in love. It's my all-time favorite version and I don't think anything will replace it. The book is second, even though I did love the new movie. My main complaint was not feeling as connected to Beth, who is my favorite character in the book. I definitely relate most to her and Meg, so I missed having that connection with her character.
I love the musical as well! Astonishing and Some Things Are Meant To Be are 🥰🥰🥰
I've only seen the Katherine Hepburn version and read the book, but both were when I was 10. I'd really like to revisit them and see the other two versions.
I really want to watch that version!
Please watch the BBC Little Women mini series, its 3 episodes each 1 hour and its so lovely and wonderful and I would love to hear your opinion on it! Maya Hawke plays Jo in that one, shes Robin in Stranger Things and the maincharacter from The Society plays Amy, I forgot her name atm. But Id love to hear from someone who also cares about this story as much as I do what your opinions are
i cannot get myself to finish the novel, it is just not my style and I barely understand what is going on. it's nice that you like it tho
Oh wow, really? I suppose not everyone is going to love it, no matter how many people do! What’s your favourite book, if you don’t mind me asking? I’m curious what style of literature is your cup of tea!
@@PlantBasedBride i love dystopian and thriller books like a basic one is hunger games haha but i also love espionage! 💗🍓☁️
Haha that makes sense then 😂 I love dystopia and dark themes but I also love a good cozy family story from time to time!
I love the 90s movie ❤️
One of my favorite books and I love the 1949 version and the 1994 version. I wouldn’t ever waste my time with the new movie.
The 94 version is just perfection. From the score to the casting performances and overall feel it just is in a different league than the current one
Agreed 100%!
I know this video is a few years old but I’m only just now seeing it and I agree one thousand percent with literally everything you’ve said (it’s kinda strange how much I agree). I was about 10 when the 1994 film came out and I saw it in theaters and it has held such a special, high place in my heart for the last almost 30 years (wow, I feel old).
Jo has always been my favorite and I always related to her (and couldn’t stand Amy), but with time and perspective and rereading the book, Amy has really grown on me and I feel like I relate to both of them. As for Laurie, as much as I like Chalamet I felt his version gave me incel vibes and I was much more irritated with him than Bale’s version. I felt I could empathize with Laurie in the 1994 version but he just rubbed me the wrong way in the 2019 version, AND I also felt like he came across as way too contemporary. In fact, the 2019 dialogue came across as quite contemporary and less believable to me. I appreciate that the 2019 version touches on Marmee’s anger, even though I felt Laura Dern was very much a miscast here. She just didn’t give Marmee energy that was true to Marmee in the books. And just overall, the cast and acting in the 1994 version is perfection. It felt like the casting directors really took their job seriously and studied the characters, whereas the 2019 version felt like a casting of Greta’s friends or something. I could go on and on and on about Little Women but that’s what’s coming to mind now.
I relate to Jo the most. I considered the others, but do you remember the conversation in the 1994 version where Jo talks to Marmee about never fitting in everywhere?
I've literally had that conversation with my mom.
I wish I could relate to Beth, but she's so pure and I'm just... Yeah, I'm not Beth. *Sigh*
I've always related to all of them. Meg, because I always wanted to get married and because especially as a girl I was very superficial and wanted to be glamorous. Jo, because she's the main character (and I always relate to the main character) and because I not necessarily was like her but more wanted to be like her. Beth, because I'm dramatic like that... Constantly expecting tragedy to strike and vainly imagining I could be half as sweet and innocent as she was throughout it all. Amy perhaps least of all, but in a way I envied all the opportunities she had as the youngest sister.
Plus there is the miniseries on public broadcasting here in the states coming up shortly.
Oh, exciting!
Is that the BBC miniseries coming to PBS (you might not remember if you even see this)?
If you want to really challenge yourself there’s about half a dozen other versions of little women you could watch and then rank all of them. 1933 Katherine Hepburn, 1949 June Allyson, 1970 BBC, 1978 Susan Day, 2017 BBC, 2018 Lea Thompson, an anime, and a manga. I’ve read the book and the two sequels she wrote; “Little Men” and “Jo’s Boys,” and seen the 1933, 1949, 1970, 1994, 2017, and 2019. Yes, I’m crazy
Almost forgot the terrifying “The March Sisters at Christmas “
I had set this video aside when it came out because I hadn't read the book yet... And I finished it today! It was lovely to hear your thoughts :) Since you like the 90s version so much, you might also like My Brilliant Career by the same (brilliant) director, if you haven't seen it yet. The main character is very much like Jo, although this is much less cosy.
Here is an opinion I think Tom holland as Laurie would be PERFECT!
I feel like I relate more to Amy even though I’m more like Joe in the not really wanting to get married lol but I feel like Amy is a go getter but also a realistic responsible adult. She knew her family was her responsibility to take care of since Joe didn’t look like would be able to provide because she was too much of a dreamer so she took that, and in the end she had everything she wanted.
I feel like I’m a dreamer like Joe too but more grounded so makes me more Amy
Yesss such a great point! She didn’t want to marry rich out of pure selfishness, but to provide for her family and know they would all be taken care of ❤️
I actually got a bit annoyed with Amy and her great speech. She decided she could not accept being an average artist, and support herself doing illustrations for journals or seed catalogs, and commisions for portraits or whatever, getting as far as her talent and hard work could take her, she was somehow too good for that unlike Jo who wrote trash to support herself and the family, and worked, and worked hard to become a good writer, and later a teacher.
This annoyed me so much so that I actually looked up Louisa May Alcott's real youngest sister, because I got curious about the inspiration, who actually did support herself as an artist, and is recognized as pretty good, epecially her flower pieces.
Oth I get her idea that a good marriage was a way to help her family, it was an accepted solution in that time, so why shouldn't she?
The music alone in the 94 version is irreplaceable..I turn it on in the winter. Infact I'm listening to it now. Haha. The 94 film was closer to the book I thought. And it was straight forward. The 94 was warm feeling. The new one was too.... on the surface or something... it's the music though. I'm telling you. And though the movie was shot on scene, I felt the 94 version was more periodically correct. I don't know. It's the music. Though. Hahaha!!!
And can you believe that James Norton played a sociopath murderer in a British TV series? And there are other film version of this book, they are all worth a watch.
There is an older version that 90's with Elizabeth Taylor and is also pretty 🙂 I want to see the new version, by now I love 90's versión like you 😁
Yes, I want to see the 30s and 40s versions as well as the PBS series!
I didn't like the 1994 version. I watched it maybe 10 years ago and felt extremely bored. Even the cast couldn't save it for me. So I was reluctant to watch the 2019 version but I loved it. I think nostalgia plays a huge part in liking something. I didn't have any for the 90s film.
Little women 1933 is and will always be my favorite. Katherine Hepburn is Jo no one can say Christopher Columbus like Katherine. She just embodies Jo the best and I’m seen the ‘49, ‘78 miniseries, 94 and 2019 next 2 I’m going to see is 2018 pureflix and 2017 miniseries. I can’t imagine I would like those 2 as good as 1933.
I could not get past the ugly historically inaccurate clothing and Amy being the same age as the other girls in the 2019 version. Dont get me wrong I love Little Women and I still had fun watching the 2019 version, but overall it just didn't feel realistic to me. I also liked James Norton as Mr Brooke more then the 90s cast also.
Plant Based Bride, have you ever watched the 1933 version of Little Woman with Katherine Hepburn or the 1949 movie version of Little Women with June Allyson. Both movies are equally excellent and as good as the 1994 movie version of in every way. Katherine Hepburn acting in Little Women 1933 movie is quintessentially the character Jo.
I haven’t but I would really like to!❤️
The 2019 Little women casting was beyond terrible.. I only liked Saoirse Ronan. Timothée Chalamet ruined the movie for me, he was so bad as Laurie. I will always love the 1994 version -it is a beautiful moving movie and the death of Beth was the saddest scene ever.
Do you feel joe and laurie had more chemistry in the 1994 version but in the 2019 version joe and Behr had more chemistry? Was that intentional by the respective directors?
I agree that Jo and Laurie had more chemistry in the 1994 version though I’m not sure I agree that Jo and Behr had more chemistry in the new version… I definitely prefer the portrayal of Behr in the 94 film and I feel their relationship makes more sense in the 94 film but again I’m probably biased because that’s my favourite version 😅
@@PlantBasedBride the new Behr is too hot, it's distracting !
It's been ages since I saw little women. If I remember correctly my very first contact must have been a cartoon series in the eighties or maybe early ninties. I saw the film from 94 and I do remember exactly three scenes. One us the small puppet Amy places on her nose to keep it all nice and thin. Jo's crying because she'd let cut of her hair. And of course Beth's sad good bye which is the reason I have never ever watched something related ever again because I tear up just thinking about it... I really do not like films that make me cry without the necessary happy end in sight.
A cartoon series?? I need to watch that! Aw, Beth’s story is very tragic but overall the ending is happy ❤️
You should check out By The Book youtube channel. She has a rundown of 4 (I think) versions of Little Women movies. I think you’d find her channel interesting.
Oh cool! Thanks for the recommendation ☺️
this is a really weird question but since you brought it up, your nails are natural? or do you put extension/acrylic nails? love the color btw!
They’re not! I use glue on nails from the drugstore and paint them with regular polish ☺️
My favourite one was the 2019 film
500 pages??? I just borrowed a copy from a friend and it's SO short? It has 193 pages. I'm confused...
Oh, ok, so, the book my friend lent me is only half the book, it's meant for children to read in school xDu I'll have to get a full copy
Haha yes it was initially published in two parts!
2019 version sucked
I loved Amy and Laurie!!!
Same!!
I need to read this book, I read most of it when I was about 11 but I am yet to get to the end of an adaptation. I always get to the bit where Laurie and Amy get together and I can't go on. There was a BBC adaptation a couple of years ago and I literally stopped it halfway through an episode and never went back. My shipping is too strong but I've ogtta get OVER it.
Aw, that’s because you wanted Jo and Laurie together? I actually love Amy and Laurie together, and I really like Jo ending up with Bhaer. But that’s just me☺️
Plant Based Bride I know, I didn't know he was a professor but that's so Jo!
You watch 2018?
The 2019 version was so cringe. I hated the fact that the child version of Amy was played by and adult. It added an extra level of creepy to the film. Having an adult pretend to be a child is weird. Why not just cast an actual child? I don't get it. I disliked Chalamet as Laurie, he just didn't seem to fit the character.
I felt as if Jo's character was completely off. I get they were trying to for the woke "independent, don't need a man" vibe, but it just came across wrong. Jo seemed miserable throughout the film and at the end of it.
Don't know why they bothered having Bhaer as a character as he added nothing to the film. It's like the second half of the book didn't matter because it was just about Jo whining over the fact that she rejected Laurie. In the book she doesn't have romantic feelings for him at all, but magically in the 2019 she suddenly has feelings? Felt very fangirl to me.
I hated how they jump back and forth from past to present, it completely messes with the narrative.
I didn't care for the fact that Jo is portrayed as a "strong, independent" woman, but really isn't. She spends most of the film whining and miserable. In the book and most film adaptations, she's portrayed as spirited and tough. Her personality and nature is what makes her a "strong independent" woman rather than just having her be a lonely spinster. She's also able to maintain this and still form a relationship with a man who compliments her. She's able to receive criticism from Bhaer about her writing and improve. In the 2019 version Bhaer doesn't matter and she "needs no criticism."
Hated every part of this film. I hated how people kept raving about it. I also hated how people had the audacity to say it deserved Oscars when it is the worst adaptation of this film I've seen. Even the costumes and hairstyles are mediocre and not faithful to the time period.
The one with Katherine Hepburn.
It’s on my list ❤️
I haven’t read the book(but it came up on my library today!) and I only watched the 90s a really long time ago
But I like the 2019 version
I feel like it was really realistic except young amy
Florence’s voice really is very mature (but also beautiful) but I like how she portrayed baby amy really baby and you could see the evolution on her maturity
Also I think Timothee was better than Christian Bale because he is younger he acted like his age my memory of Christian is that he is trying to hard 😅
I agree that Florence was great as young Amy, despite her voice! Oh my goodness I could not disagree more Bale is Teddy forever don’t even start 😂😂😂
1) 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn and Douglass Montgomery. Katherine embodies Jo in that version. 2) 1994 version because Claire Danes woke my sexuality. 😂 💜💜💜
I really want to watch the earlier versions! I also love Claire Danes as Beth, she’s incredible ❤️
I’ve read Little Women so many times and it is my favorite book of all time. In my opinion here’s who wins out for best performances of each character
JO: 2019
AMY: 2019
MEG: 2018 Masterpiece miniseries (but tbh I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Meg that’s just right)
BETH: 2019
LAURIE: 90s (note the masterpiece Laurie is 🤮)
FREDRICH: 90s
AUNT MARCH: 2019 (need I say more? All hail queen meryl)
JOHN BROOK: 2019
Overall I love the 2019 one the most. But nothing beats the book for me. I will say one thing that takes down the 2019 version a couple notches is the costumes. Omg awful. They didn’t fit the characters. They weren’t accurate. They didn’t contribute to the story in a meaningful way. And they weren’t even pretty. But then again neither the 90s version nor the 2019 version nor the pbs masterpiece version have good costumes. Someone stop hiring Jacqueline Durran and start hiring actual dress historians, or at least people with a background in dress history.
I am so surprised that you prefer Eliza to Claire as Beth! Claire Danes is such a sublime Beth to me ❤️ I also didn’t love Meryl’s Aunt March... 😬 I know it’s sacrilege at this point, but she just didn’t have enough to do and didn’t feel particularly dynamic! I felt she was wasted. And I totally agree about the costumes. I much prefer the 90s costumes!