Thanks for your comments - I'm going to agree with most of them, specifically about how the 1933 version should have worked, with Kate Hepburn theoretically a perfect fit for Jo. I do think that, in the first section, she is very, very good and "jo"-like. My feeling is that it's the script which lets her down once Beth is ill and Jo goes to NY. We tend to lose the core of Jo's nature in key places, I feel; Hepburn does her best, and there are lovely scenes, like the one where she confesses her loneliness to Meg, but the script and direction allow sentiment to take over a little too often. However. For me, Spring Byington is the "best" Marmee, and as Aunt March, I will take Edna May Oliver any way I can enjoy watching her.
June Allyson has that nice rough-and-tumble aspect to her, and, like Hepburn, isn't afraid to run around in those skirts. O'Brien is a lovey Beth, and it's rather sweet to have the two Hollywood "town cryers" sharing a scene. But I don't like the casting of Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and/or feel she wasn't directed well. And I understand that if you have O'Brien as Beth, Taylor can't be the youngest sister and so the script switches birth order. But I still don't like it.
I've only seen the 1994 version once, and should watch it again. I remember feeling that, much as I like Ryder generally, she comes off a little too "dainty" for Jo.
For me the 2019 version had some interesting ideas, and Ronan has that same rough on the edges feeling that I think Jo ought to have. Ultimately, for me, there was sensation of distance from the material and the story in this version, which left me unsatisfied. Though the structure didn't confuse me, it may have contributed to that sensation. Perhaps, like the end, though it made me smile and enjoy the twist, there was a sort of too-much-cleverness within it. "Little Women" isn't a "clever" work. It's a look at four sisters, and how growing up together, and apart, affects their lives and development.
reply
share