LITTLE WOMEN
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule: Gillian Armstrong's version of the
Alcott novel is an idealized Currier and Ives print
of family life in 1860s Massachusetts. The semi-
autobiographical novel is very beautifully filmed
and at times a real tear-jerker, but is somehow
lacking in any real intellectual content. It is a
big children's book. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4)
The most enduring so-called "girls' book" ever written is Lousia May Alcott's 1868 LITTLE WOMEN, based in large part on her childhood experiences growing up in Concord, Massachusetts. The novel has previously been filmed five times, beginning with a 1918 silent version and including a British mini-series. It was even turned into a short- lived television series in 1979. The sixth filming may well rank as the most beautiful and compelling version, though certainly some will still prefer George Cukor's classic 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn as Jo March and Spring Byington as her mother. The newest version is directed by Australian Gillian Armstrong of MY BRILLIANT CAREER and MRS. SOFFEL.
The Marches are a very tightly-knit family of four sisters and their ever-perfect mother. The family lives in 1860's Concord, Massachusetts. I have heard about families like this but never actually believed they existed. They share everything with each other and are bound to each other with a love that transcends even the rare imperfections. They do things like give up their Christmas morning dinner, including delicacies like sausage that are almost unavailable during the Civil War, to feed a hungry immigrant family. The girls read poetry, put on little plays written by Jo (played by Winona Ryder), and steal glances out their window at the boy next door, Laurie (Christian Bale), and his stodgy tutor (Eric Stoltz). The girls roll bandages and take care of the sick and hungry while waiting anxiously for letters from their father who is off fighting for the Union cause. The sisters do have their occasional differences, but they always give them up with a sigh of relief when something happens to bind them even closer together. Eventually Laurie becomes like one of the family and there is no doubt that he will eventually court one of the March girls. When he goes off to school the film jumps ahead four years and everyone but young Amy (Kirsten Dunst) looks just the same. Amy (now Samantha Mathis) looks like she has aged about eight years. Each daughter develops into the woman her childhood characteristics made her. Jo writes melodramatic potboilers and goes to New York (following her mothers suggestion, "Embrace your liberty") to make her fortune. And she becomes romantically entangled (big surprise!) with a German philosopher who shares the boarding house where she is staying. There is sad family tragedy, there is warm family love, and there are romantic entanglements. Remarkably, Armstrong makes this story of traditional values (with just a light whisper of feminism) work for a 90s audience, assisted by Geoffrey Simpson's nostalgic camera work. British Columbia stands in for Concord and makes everything look homey and beautiful.
The casting of some of the major roles is a bit too Hollywood and not enough Alcott. Trini Alvarado looks more like a young Andie MacDowell than like Alcott's plumpish Meg. Alcott had Jo be tall and awkward, and even the film script calls for her to be plain and to have her long hair be her one nice feature. Does it sound like I am describing Winona Ryder? The casting of beauty in roles that call for plain tends to oversimplify the motivations of the various suitors. Claire Daines as Beth is the only daughter who approaches being homely- --in both senses of the word--in this version and the only one for whom we never see a suitor. Susan Sarandon conveys the warmth and wisdom of Alcott's overly-idealized mother. She is always there with just the right insight, with a nursing talent that puts doctors to shame, and with a noble and charitable thought for others. Kirsten Dunst seems far too precocious as the child Amy to grow into the placid Samantha Mathis adult version. Dunst does a good job, but she will be remembered more for her role as the adult vampire trapped in the body of a child from INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE.
Among other things, the film chronicles how Jo's childhood writing develops into what she writes as an adult. Here her imagination is seen as positive and constructive. But the timing of the release should invite interesting comparisons to Peter Jackson's HEAVENLY CREATURES. And LITTLE WOMEN sorely needs something for the viewer to think about when it is over rather than just being left with a warm feeling. I give LITTLE WOMEN a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
mark.leeper@att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews