Little Women (1994)
There have been so many versions of Little Women! It’s a very charming and heartwarming story – but sometimes it’s a good idea to stick with your favorite version and stop polluting your brain with the others.
For me, Little Women is best personified in the 1933 version. The casting of the March family and Professor Baehr are perfect, and the black-and-white footage adds to its nostalgia. Sixty years later, with the exception of Kirsten Dunst (who was two tons of adorable with her rag curls and clothes-pinned nose), the casting was all wrong! Susan Sarandon, an actress who’d been dazzling audiences with her sexuality since 1970, was cast as Marmee? How did anyone think she’d be believable? Yes, she was Mother of the Year in Lorenzo’s Oil, but not as Marmee. Marmee is not written like Mrs. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice; she is not supposed to be an example of femininity for her daughters to emulate or avoid as they see fit. She is sexless. Jo’s character does not rebel against her mother, but instead against her sisters. There are no “mother issues” in this story, and if Susan Sarandon were the mother of a troop of girls, there would be a whole of lot issues.
Claire Danes as the perpetually sickly Beth was another bad casting choice. Beth is supposed to look frail, as if she might transfer the remainder of her good health into the injured birds she nurses. Claire is robust and looks as if she might hitch up her skirts and compete in the 100-yard dash. Christian Bale acts Laurie well enough, coming across as wealthy and genuinely kind; but his good looks and confidence make it unbelievable that he would never be able to move on from crushing on the tomboy next door.
And finally, Winona Ryder. Her anger is palpable, her issues are deep-seated and ready to surface at any moment. These are not the qualities of Jo. At the heart of Jo, as is at the heart of each March girl, is love. She loves her mother, her sisters, her home, and her life. She is passionate about storytelling. She may feel competition against her more feminine sisters, or feel that she doesn’t receive as much love because she’s not as naturally pretty or endearing, but she never comes across as being beyond help. Winona seems like she’s in dire need of an intensive psychiatric program. She seems incapable of maturing, that she will be the thorn in the March family’s side the rest of their lives. Not only is that the opposite of Jo’s character, but it’s also a very unlikable protagonist!
So, while there are some memorable moments in this version, like Kirsten’s clothespin on her nose and the icky, spitty kiss in the doorframe, they don’t make it worth watching. If you’re not a die-hard Winona Ryder fan, you probably won’t like this version. You’ll be very disappointed and want to watch your favorite as quickly as possible to push this one out of your memory. Who really wants to watch Amy throw Jo’s manuscript in the fireplace? That’s a moment we’d all like to forget about.
More Kirsten Dunst movies here!
More Susan Sarandon movies here!
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of 1933's Little Women here!
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of 1949's Little Women here!
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of Louisa May Alcott's original novel here!
For me, Little Women is best personified in the 1933 version. The casting of the March family and Professor Baehr are perfect, and the black-and-white footage adds to its nostalgia. Sixty years later, with the exception of Kirsten Dunst (who was two tons of adorable with her rag curls and clothes-pinned nose), the casting was all wrong! Susan Sarandon, an actress who’d been dazzling audiences with her sexuality since 1970, was cast as Marmee? How did anyone think she’d be believable? Yes, she was Mother of the Year in Lorenzo’s Oil, but not as Marmee. Marmee is not written like Mrs. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice; she is not supposed to be an example of femininity for her daughters to emulate or avoid as they see fit. She is sexless. Jo’s character does not rebel against her mother, but instead against her sisters. There are no “mother issues” in this story, and if Susan Sarandon were the mother of a troop of girls, there would be a whole of lot issues.
Claire Danes as the perpetually sickly Beth was another bad casting choice. Beth is supposed to look frail, as if she might transfer the remainder of her good health into the injured birds she nurses. Claire is robust and looks as if she might hitch up her skirts and compete in the 100-yard dash. Christian Bale acts Laurie well enough, coming across as wealthy and genuinely kind; but his good looks and confidence make it unbelievable that he would never be able to move on from crushing on the tomboy next door.
And finally, Winona Ryder. Her anger is palpable, her issues are deep-seated and ready to surface at any moment. These are not the qualities of Jo. At the heart of Jo, as is at the heart of each March girl, is love. She loves her mother, her sisters, her home, and her life. She is passionate about storytelling. She may feel competition against her more feminine sisters, or feel that she doesn’t receive as much love because she’s not as naturally pretty or endearing, but she never comes across as being beyond help. Winona seems like she’s in dire need of an intensive psychiatric program. She seems incapable of maturing, that she will be the thorn in the March family’s side the rest of their lives. Not only is that the opposite of Jo’s character, but it’s also a very unlikable protagonist!
So, while there are some memorable moments in this version, like Kirsten’s clothespin on her nose and the icky, spitty kiss in the doorframe, they don’t make it worth watching. If you’re not a die-hard Winona Ryder fan, you probably won’t like this version. You’ll be very disappointed and want to watch your favorite as quickly as possible to push this one out of your memory. Who really wants to watch Amy throw Jo’s manuscript in the fireplace? That’s a moment we’d all like to forget about.
More Kirsten Dunst movies here!
More Susan Sarandon movies here!
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of 1933's Little Women here!
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of 1949's Little Women here!
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of Louisa May Alcott's original novel here!