Corinne H. Smith: Reviews

Little Women, directed by George Cukor (RKO Pictures, 1933)

This is the first of the major film interpretations of the semi-autobiographical American novel written by Louisa May Alcott. It's known to devoted fans as "The Katharine Hepburn," because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Frances Dee), Jo (Hepburn), Beth (Jean Parker) and Amy (Joan Bennett). We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their special devotion to their mother, whom they call Marmee (Spring Byington). The story is set mostly in Concord, Massachusetts, in the early 1860s; the main action centers around the most independent girl, second daughter Jo. Their father, Mr. March (Samuel Hinds), is away from home and is involved in the war effort. The Marches were once well off but now have to make do with what they have. And yet, they're mostly happy. Every once in a while, they get a visit from their stodgy but rich relative, Aunt March (Edna May Oliver), who dishes out a lot of judgment, but who also, reluctantly, doles out a few dollars to keep the household running.

And then there's the boy next door, known as Laurie (Douglass Montgomery), who lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (Henry Stephenson). They both become good friends of the March family. Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? Watch and find out. As the film rolls along, we see four young girls (who in theory start out at 16, 15, 13 and 12 years old) indeed turn into little women.

The book Little Women is a sizable volume that was originally released as two complete books. Each chapter offers scenes and dialogues that increase our understanding of the sisters' behaviors and personalities. Narrowing this treatment to the limitations of a film presentation (115 minutes here) means leaving out a lot of detail and background. An awful lot, actually. (And an awful lot of crying, too.) Screenwriters choose which vignettes are the most important ones to share, and their decisions ultimately shape how we see the girls. Folks who've read the classic will be able to fill in the blanks; those who haven't may come away with entirely different views of the sisters. In this version, writers Victor Heerman and Sarah Y. Mason focused almost entirely on Jo's life, foregoing any exploration of the inner lives of Meg, Beth, Amy and Laurie. Still, they won an Academy Award for Best Adaptation for their screenplay.

The major scenes are here. Without giving too much away, these are the highlights. Jo sells at least one of her stories. Laurie and the girls attend at least one trendy party. Mr. March falls ill in Washington, and Marmee must go to see him. Beth gets sick, then recovers. Marmee comes home. So does Mr. March. Meg and John Brooke seem to like each other a lot. Jo decides to move to New York City for a bit. Aunt March and Amy travel to Europe. Beth gets sick again. Jo gets writing encouragement from a colleague named Friedrich Bhaer. And you never know when Jo will shout "Christopher Columbus!" in surprise or exasperation. We also witness Jo and Laurie's relationship develop. (Fans often hope the two will get together, but Alcott had other plans.) All in all, 1933's Little Women is a satisfying film that is well worth watching.

Hepburn is believable as an independent young woman who is curious, excitable and strong, and who can show a soft side on occasion. Little Women was her fourth movie, and she was 26 when it was filmed. She worked with director George Cukor on a number of other films during her long career. You may be surprised to learn that she could also strum basic chords on a guitar. (Alas, others were not as successful at "playing" piano.)

My favorite minor character is Professor Friedrich Bhaer, portrayed by Paul Lukas. Lukas comes naturally to his required accent because he was born in Budapest. He's also terrific at showing Bhaer's nervousness and slight discomfiture whenever he comes face to face with Jo March. It is truly amusing to see Bhaer try to hide his growing admiration and infatuation for his "little friend." Watch him, and see if you agree.

Naturally, this 1933 movie was shot in black and white. This technique results in a simplicity and slight starkness that seems appropriate for the era. It serves to make the story seem even older than it is. It's also appropriate that the film was released during the Great Depression, when many families were challenged by money issues in their households. The premise was probably relatable to a good part of the population.

The set looks authentic. The real Alcott home, called Orchard House, is well known and has been open for public tours for more than a century. The film producers recreated it quite well, inside and out. The Laurence house even shares some external features in common with the real Wayside, the house next door to Orchard House. Someone did their homework here. The rest of the landscape doesn't look like eastern Massachusetts, but we see it only sparingly. The result is good enough.

Jo March is a leading literary example of an independent woman determined to make her own way in life. She deliberately chooses not to follow the traditional paths expected of a woman in her day and circumstance. As a fictional character, she has influenced many a young person to take a similar approach to life. She and her sisters mirror the real Alcott family of Concord. If you've never read Little Women and its sequels, you may be prompted to pick them up after seeing the movie. As for a recommended biography of author Louisa May Alcott, I'm partial to John Matteson's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Eden's Outcasts: The Story of Louisa May Alcott & Her Father, where you can learn "the rest of the story."

Little Women of 1933 has been followed by other movie versions, including the Susan Dey (1978), the Winona Ryder (1994), the Sarah Davenport (2018) and the Saoirse Ronan (2019). Alas, none conveys the richness of these lives as presented in Alcott's books.

Little Women, directed by Mervyn LeRoy (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1949)

One of the major film interpretations of the semi-autobiographical American novel written by Louisa May Alcott, this version of Little Women is known to fans as "The June Allyson," because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character. This movie shares much in common with the 1933 film. We'll see why, in a minute.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Janet Leigh), Jo (June Allyson), Beth (Margaret O'Brien) and Amy (Elizabeth Taylor). We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their special devotion to their mother, whom they call Marmee (Mary Astor). The story is set mostly in Concord, Massachusetts, in the early 1860s; and the main action centers around the most independent girl, second daughter Jo. Their father, Mr. March (Leon Ames), is away from home and is involved in the war effort. The Marches were once well off but now have to make do with what they have. And yet, they're mostly happy. Every once in a while, they get a visit from their stodgy but rich relative, Aunt March (Lucile Watson), who dishes out a lot of judgment; but who also, reluctantly, doles out a few dollars to keep the household running. And then there's the boy next door, known as Laurie (Peter Lawford), who lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (C. Aubrey Smith). They both become good friends of the March family. Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? Watch and find out. As the film rolls along, we see four young girls (who in theory start out at 16, 15, 13 and 12 years old) indeed turn into little women.

This version of Little Women is in truth a thinly-disguised remake of the 1933 film. Yes, this one was shot in color instead of in black and white; and it cast contemporary actors in the roles. But the same exact theme music is employed for both. And the same kinds of scenes are portrayed in both, with only minor new changes in the dialogue (that don't always make sense). As a result, the action again focuses mostly on Jo and not on the rest of the girls. It's no wonder that the two movies are so similar when you look at the credits. The screen writers listed here are Victor Heerman, Sarah Y. Mason and Andrew Solt. The first two were the award-winning writers of the 1933 film. So what MGM do, 16 years later? Take RKO's script and hire Andrew Solt to make a few updates? Did no one go back and read the book for context and clarity? Probably not. The new changes seem random and don't correspond to Alcott's book at all. The 1933 film is more faithful to the book.

The new cast is decent enough, overall. June Allyson makes a pretty good tomboy for Jo. Young Elizabeth Taylor is quite believable as a selfish and snobby Amy. C. Aubrey Smith is great as the gruff but lovable neighbor, Mr. Laurence. Italian-born actor Rossano Brazzi does a good job at portraying Professor Bhaer, who is supposed to have a German accent, or at least, a European one. My only quibble is with Peter Lawford. He puts a far more serious spin on Laurie than the merry Douglass Montgomery did in the previous film. He doesn't look like a fun guy to hang out with at all. Because of his behavior, he makes it almost too easy and too believable that Jo would want to keep him as just a friend. Nevertheless, it is interesting to watch Lawford as a much younger actor than we usually see or remember him in films.

The real-life Alcott home, Orchard House, is replicated accurately here, both inside and out. In fact, the team of Cedric Gibbons, Paul Groesse, Edwin B. Willis and Jack D. Moore won an Academy Award for color art direction and set decoration for this Little Women. At times you can tell that the landscape backgrounds are painted. But they were painted well. You can successfully suspend your disbelief as the characters interact in front of the scenery.

The bottom line is that when you watch both the 1933 and the 1949 Little Women, the older one comes out on top. If you're curious, sure, go ahead with "The June Allyson." It's just not different enough to appreciate it as a fresh approach to the story. And if you know Miss Alcott's book inside and out, you may not like this version at all. At least someone tried -- sort of -- to give the post-war public something new.

The Little Women of 1949 has been followed by other movie versions, including the Susan Dey (1978), the Winona Ryder (1994), the Maya Hawke (2018) and the Saoirse Ronan (2019). None of them duplicated scripts from one another. And if you want to know the full story, you should always return to Louisa May Alcott's original work. No 122-minute movie can cover it all.

Little Women, directed by Paddy Russell (BBC, 1970)

This is yet another of the major film interpretations of the semi-autobiographical American novel written by Louisa May Alcott. This one is known to fans as "the Angela Down," because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character. This version was broadcast as a nine-episode mini-series on the BBC in the UK.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Jo Rowbottom), Jo (Angela Down), Beth (Sarah Craze) and Amy (Janina Faye). We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their special devotion to their mother, whom they call Marmee (Stephanie Bidmead). The story is set mostly in Concord, Massachusetts, in the early 1860s; and the main action centers around the most independent girl, second daughter Jo. Their father, Mr. March (Patrick Troughton), is at first away from home and is involved in the war effort.

The Marches were once well off but now have to make do with what they have. Every once in a while, they get a visit from their stodgy but rich relative, Aunt March (Jean Anderson), who dishes out a lot of judgment, but who also, reluctantly, doles out a few dollars to keep the household running. And then there's the boy next door, known as Laurie (Stephen Turner), who lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (John Welsh). They both become good friends of the March family. Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? Watch and find out. As the film rolls along, we see four young girls (who in theory start out at 16, 15, 13 and 12 years old) indeed turn into little women.

At 205 minutes, this mini-series / movie is the longest of the Little Women to date. Screen writers Alistair Bell and Denis Constanduros are credited with having "dramatised" Miss Alcott's work. They chose to use fairly liberal pens to do this. The basic points of the original plots are here, but they're often altered enough to be quite different from the book. For example: Instead of an ice skating scene featuring Jo and Laurie and Amy, we see them rowing in a boat on a river with a rickety wooden pier standing nearby. Maybe the producers had to use what resources were available to them. And did they even read the book? Their last 15 minutes don't come close to replicating Miss Alcott's finale.

The production itself consists almost entirely of interior shots and vignettes. We never see the March house from the outside. Only four scenes were shot in an actual landscape, and these were all filmed around the same river. To convey the change of scenery when characters travel to Europe, two aerial views of stock footage are shown. No background music is ever used to help to augment emotion or to soften transitions from one scene to another. As a result, the changes tend to be stark and abrupt. It's too easy to lose interest when everything seems the same. I guess this was the BBC style, back then.

The cast members do decent work. Angela Down plays a very indignant and often pouty Jo. Janina Faye's Amy is a loud-mouthed brat ... as she should be. Stephanie Bidmead makes an ultra-traditional Marmee, even in her manner of dress. The character of Mr. March, as played by Patrick Troughton, appears more often here than he does in other versions. Jean Anderson is suitably snooty as Aunt March. The Marches' housekeeper Hannah (Pat Nye) is especially terse and opinionated. German-born actor Frederick Jaeger does a terrific job of portraying Professor Bhaer. It's too bad we don't see more of him. The rest of the actors suppress their English accents for the most part, and yet some traces almost always slip through. And really, their speech shouldn't have mattered. The filmmakers could have approached the story as a full British version, and the audience could have accepted this. Especially since it was reaching an exclusively English audience at the time. As it is, the movie gives us a faux American fable.

Everyone has loud moments in this film. Everyone. Whenever their characters have arguments, or whenever they face personal challenges, they yell. Someone should have told the actors that anger and frustration can be convincingly conveyed with quiet drama at times, too. We need some welcome relief from continuous confrontation, from moment to moment.

What a difference 47 years can make! The BBC production of Little Women of 2017 is a tremendous improvement over what the network did with this one in 1970. If you choose to watch only one of these, then go with the other movie, the "Maya Hawke." The bottom line is that this is my least favorite of the Little Women movies. The filming technique puts me off, as does all of the yelling. I doubt that this is what Miss Alcott had in mind. Crying, yes. Constant yelling and bickering? Not so much.

The Little Women of 1970 has been followed by the Susan Dey (1978), the Winona Ryder (1994), the Maya Hawke (2017), the Sarah Davenport (2018) and the Saoirse Ronan (2019). It was preceded by the Katharine Hepburn (1933) and the June Allyson (1949). If you're curious, you could watch some of the others and make your own decisions about them. Better yet: go back to Miss Alcott's original novel. None of the movies can cover the detail discovered in the book.

Little Women, directed by David Lowell Rich (Groverton/Universal Television, 1978)

One of the major film interpretations of the semi-autobiographical American novel written by Louisa May Alcott, this one is known to fans as "The Susan Dey," because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character. This version was a two-part TV mini-series that aired on NBC in October 1978.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Meredith Baxter Birney), Jo (Susan Dey), Beth (Eve Plumb) and Amy (Ann Dusenberry). We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their special devotion to their mother, whom they call Marmee (Dorothy McGuire). The story is set mostly in Concord, Massachusetts, in the early 1860s; and the main action centers around the most independent girl, second daughter Jo. Their father, Mr. March (William Schallert), is away from home and is involved in the war effort. The Marches were once well off but now have to make do with what they have. Every once in a while, they get a visit from their stodgy but rich relative, Aunt March (Greer Garson), who dishes out a lot of judgment; but who also, reluctantly, doles out a few dollars to keep the household running. And then there's the boy next door, known as Laurie (Richard Gilliland), who lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (Robert Young). They both become good friends of the March family. Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? Watch and find out. As the film rolls along, we see four young girls (who in theory start out at 16, 15, 13 and 12 years old) indeed turn into little women.

With 194 minutes available to her, screen writer Suzanne Clausen had the advantage of having more time to fill than in a standard two-hour movie. Her approach was to use the basics of the original book but to enhance them with more details and explanations. She exercised a wide interpretation and took some liberties in the process. She combined some events, invented others, altered dialogues, substituted first names for others, etc. Some changes were minor, and others were fairly major. Our views of the characters are changed a bit, as a result. I guess she just wanted to put her own spin on a classic tale.

Most of the producers of the other Little Women movies made research trips to Concord, Massachusetts, and to the Alcott home, Orchard House. Then they built a similar house elsewhere, on their own set. Not this team! They didn't make any effort to match the March house with its real-life model. None. The house we see on the screen is of a totally different style, both inside and out. And when we reach scenes that show the greater landscape, we see western hillsides and at least one snow-capped mountain. It's clearly not New England or eastern Massachusetts. Yet Richard C. Goddard and Howard E. Johnson won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Art Direction for a Series. The characters' wardrobes do seem to be historical enough, and the village street views seem authentic. But I still give them an F for the house.

The cast represents the epitome of 1970s cultural entertainment. Susan Dey of The Partridge Family is Jo, the main character. Eve Plumb, i.e. Jan Brady of The Brady Bunch, is her sister, Beth. (Thank goodness she doesn't have to whine, "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!") Meredith Baxter Birney is recognizable from any number of series, including Bridget Loves Bernie. Richard Gilliland, who plays Laurie, should look familiar, too. He has appeared in many TV series, and he later played Mary Jo's boyfriend J.D. Shackleford in Designing Women. You may even rack your brain to remember that Joyce Bulifant, who plays Jo's New York landlord Mrs. Kirke, was Murray Slaughter's wife Marie on The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Yes, it's old-home week for us Boomers and fans of the 1970s. Going back in our own time is an added benefit of the viewing experience here.

My favorite character to watch is Robert Young, who portrays Mr. Laurence. What an inspiring choice for this role! He plays the kindly gentleman perfectly. I like to hear his voice and to watch his interactions with the girls. And he looks great with his full head of white hair and his bushy mustache. Not Marcus Welby-like at all.

I have to admit that Dey grew on me, as Jo. I didn't expect her to succeed in the role, and she does, at least in my opinion. But the oddest part of this show comes when she meets Professor Friedrich Bhaer, who is at least 15 years older than she is. Someone decided to fill this spot with William Shatner. C'mon! Laurie Partridge meets Captain Kirk? Really? And he has to put on a fake German accent too, to boot? Geesh. We can only suspend our disbelief so far, you know. In spite of this mis-match, I like most of this movie. I would watch it again. Especially since I know who will show up near the end.

The mini-series generated a decent enough response that NBC decided to use it as the basis for a Little Women television series, starring a few of the same cast members. Alas, this project proved to be unsuccessful. Only a few episodes aired in February and March 1979. Then the show quietly disappeared.

The Little Women of 1978 has been followed by other movie versions, including the Winona Ryder (1994), the Maya Hawke (2017), the Sarah Davenport (2018) and the Saoirse Ronan (2019). It was preceded by the Katharine Hepburn (1933) and the June Allyson (1949). If you're curious, you could watch some of the others and make your own decisions about them. Better yet: go back to Miss Alcott's original novel. None of the movies can cover the detail in the book.

Little Women, directed by Gillian Armstrong (Columbia Pictures, 1994)

This is another of the major film interpretations of the semi-autobiographical American novel Little Women, written by Louisa May Alcott. It's known to fans as "the Winona Ryder," because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character. Quite a number of Alcott fans point to this version as being their favorite. I can admit that it has its good points.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Trini Alvarado), Jo (Ryder), Beth (Claire Danes) and Amy (Kirsten Dunst and Samantha Mathis). We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their special devotion to their mother, whom they call Marmee (Susan Sarandon).

The story is set mostly in Concord, Massachusetts, in the early 1860s; and the main action centers around the most independent girl, second daughter Jo. Their father, Mr. March (Matthew Walker), is at first away from home and is involved in the war effort. The Marches were once well off but now have to make do with what they have. Every once in a while, they get a visit from their stodgy but rich relative, Aunt March (Mary Wickes), who dishes out a lot of judgment, but who also, reluctantly, doles out a few dollars to keep the household running. And then there's the boy next door, known as Laurie (Christian Bale), who lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (John Neville). They both become good friends of the March family. Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? Watch and find out. As the film rolls along, we see four young girls (who in theory start out at 16, 15, 13 and 12 years old) indeed turn into little women.

Although this production was filmed in British Columbia, its set designer, Jan Rolfs, created a good replica of the real-life Alcott home, Orchard House, for the Marches to live in. Historic Deerfield, Massachusetts, was a town stand-in for Concord. The rest of the landscape is not quite New England-like and the trees are wrong, but they're not terribly out of place. I quite like the original music score by Thomas Newman. The main theme can be majestic at times and can then soften to mellowness when it has to. It fits the story perfectly.

The casting is pretty darned good. Ryder makes a wonderful Jo, and a merrier one than most. She probably has higher highs than any of the actresses who have worked in this role. Alvarado and Danes portray Meg and Beth very well. Dunst is a suitably bratty young Amy, and Bale is a nice choice for Laurie. He shows emotion when he should, and he also grows up noticeably over the course of the film.

Wickes has always been one of my favorite actresses, ever since I first saw her in White Christmas, and I can think of no better person to take on the role of a rich, quirky and demanding great aunt. Irish actor Gabriel Byrne plays a decent Professor Bhaer, complete with the requisite German accent. Sarandon is an interesting Marmee. She plays the girls' mother as an outspoken feminist of her time. It's almost as if Sarandon was told to play the part this way because of who she is in person. Her character goes beyond how Marmee appears in the book. And yet, this portrayal works, especially for a 20th or 21st-century audience.

Screenwriter Robin Swicord did a good job overall at narrowing down the scope of the book to fit into a 118-minute film. This happens to be the only version of Little Women that mentions the 19th-century Transcendentalist movement in Concord. And yet, telling this history is a deliberate interjection, because Alcott doesn't mention it and doesn't use the term at all in her book.

Even so, my sole objection with this film (you knew one was coming!) is that Swicord put Jo and Professor Bhaer together far too soon. What happens between the two of them in the theater diminishes what happens between them in the last minutes of the film. This is all I can say without revealing details. I think that the theater scene should have been handled differently. Nevertheless, if this version turns out to be your favorite one, then you have made a credible choice.

The Little Women of 1994 has been followed by the Maya Hawke (2017), the Sarah Davenport (2018) and the Saoirse Ronan (2019). It was preceded by the Katharine Hepburn (1933), the June Allyson (1949), the Angela Down (1970) and the Susan Dey (1978). If you're curious, you could watch some of the others and make your own decisions about them. Better yet, go back to Alcott's original novel. None of the movies can cover the detail discovered in the book.

Little Women, directed by Vanessa Caswill (BBC/Masterpiece, 2017)

Another of the major film interpretations of Little Women, the semi-autobiographical American novel written by Louisa May Alcott, this one is known to fans as "the Maya Hawke," because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character. This version aired on television as three episodes on PBS in December 2017.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Willa Fitzgerald), Jo (Maya Hawke), Beth (Annes Elwy) and Amy (Kathryn Newton). We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their special devotion to their mother, Marmee (Emily Watson). The story is set mostly in Concord, Massachusetts, in the early 1860s, and the main action centers around the most independent girl, second daughter Jo. Their father, Mr. March (Dylan Baker), is at first away from home and is involved in the war effort. The Marches were once well off but now have to make do with what they have. Every once in a while, they get a visit from their stodgy but rich relative, Aunt March (Angela Lansbury), who dishes out a lot of judgment, but who also, reluctantly, doles out a few dollars to keep the household running. And then there's the boy next door, known as Laurie (Jonah Hauer-King), who lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (Michael Gambon). They both become good friends of the March family. Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? Watch and find out. As the film rolls along, we see four young girls (who in theory start out at 16, 15, 13 and 12 years old) indeed turn into little women.

Because of its three-episode format, this television show moves along like a three-act play. The storyline fits this structure perfectly, too. And at 175 minutes in length, it offers screenwriter Heidi Thomas the advantage of having more time to fill than in a standard two-hour movie. As a result, she could interject scenes that are hinted at but are not fully covered in the book or in other movie versions -- like views from Civil War battlefields, or Meg giving birth, for example.

The main action focuses on Jo, as it should. And some of the other characters reveal a few more characteristics than usual. Mr. March is much more involved with the family here, which is an interesting approach. Thomas also chooses to go beyond the basic plot and show "the rest of the story" at the end. My one quibble is how little we see of Professor Bhaer. I would have liked to have seen more scenes of him with Jo.

The cast members portray their characters quite well. Each sister is clearly defined, with her own nuances and personality. Hawke plays an extremely hard-boiled and determined Jo. Newton's Amy is a selfish brat who somehow matures into a young lady. Hauer-King is simply adorable as Laurie, and he also shows that he can react with unexpected emotion. Lansbury is good as snobby and filled-to-the-brim-with-attitude Aunt March.

English actor Mark Stanley dons a slight German accent for his stint as Professor Bhaer but, as I mentioned above, I don't think we see enough of him to form any sort of opinion about the man. And Watson's Marmee is terrific, loving, human and real. She deserves more than a nod or two for her performance here.

The filming was done in Ireland. The house is an authentic reproduction of Alcott's family home, Orchard House, in Concord. The surrounding landscape looks lush and is not like any found in New England, yet it's not intrusive as being noticeably incorrect.

But the production style? Oh, my! Such drama, such detail, such seriousness, such intensity! This is what happens when BBC and Masterpiece take on an American classic. They use a very different approach to shooting the scenes of the story. More attention is paid to the use of old-style language and to intimate depictions of daily life. In addition to the usual vignettes, we see random close-ups of hands: using pen and ink, lacing corsets, lifting a piano lid, holding the reins. Some scenes are more graphic than we will find in other versions, and this may not be a bad thing. I also like the subtle choices of background music. The overall result is a more thoughtful and more realistic portrayal of this fictional family.

Life in the March house was not all merriness, and it was not at all an idyllic life. Even though this film presents a bit darker representation than the other Little Women, it can still be a special joy to watch.

The Little Women of 2017 has been followed by the Sarah Davenport (2018) and the Saoirse Ronan (2019). It was preceded by the Katharine Hepburn (1933), the June Allyson (1949), the Susan Dey (1978), and the Winona Ryder (1994). If you're curious, you could watch some of the others and make your own decisions about them. Better yet: go back to the original novel. None of the movies can cover the detail discovered in the book.

Little Women, directed by Clare Niederpruem (Pinnacle Peak/Universal, 2018)

One of the major film interpretations of the semi-autobiographical American novel written by Louisa May Alcott, the 2018 version of Little Women is known to fans as "the Sarah Davenport," because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character. It carries the tagline "New generation, same sisters," because it's a modern retelling of the classic story. Here Miss Alcott's family tale comes into the 21st century.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Melanie Stone), Jo (Sarah Davenport), Beth (Allie Jennings) and Amy (Elise Claire Jones and Taylor Murphy) -- and they are Millennials. We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their special devotion to their mother, whom they call Marmee (Lea Thompson). Their father, Mr. March (Bart Johnson), is at first away from home and is involved in the war effort, seemingly in the Middle East.

The Marches are a middle-class family and are generous to charitable causes. The main plot features Jo as a 29-year-old grad student at Columbia University, where she hopes to launch her writing career. Professor Bhaer (Ian Bohen) advises her from the very beginning, acting as a writing coach and an editor of her work. When Jo lives in New York City, she stays with their Aunt March (Barta Heiner), who dishes out a lot of judgment, but who also lets her great-niece live with her for free, in exchange for dog-sitting duties. And then there's the boy who moved in next door to the Marches. He's known as Laurie (Lucas Grabeel), and he lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (Michael Flynn). They both become good friends of the March family, and Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? Watch and find out. As the film rolls along, we see four young girls indeed turn into little women.

Screenwriters Clare Niederpruem and Kristi Shimek must have had some good debates as they distilled scenes from the original book and adapted them into a fresh storyline based in our own time. The duo decided to use a series of flashbacks to explain how some of the later details developed. As a result, we go back and forth between some periods of childhood and some as the girls become young adults. There's a fair amount of yelling and crying, as can be expected. Kudos to the writers for coming up with a new approach to the sisters' "castles in the air." It's different and fun.

The movie was filmed in Utah and in Los Angeles. The characters don't mention Concord or Massachusetts at all. (Or if they do, I missed it). But the story seems to be set in New England. Since it's a contemporary retelling, the March house doesn't have to look anything like the real Alcott home, Orchard House. And it doesn't. Yet, there are some rewarding moments for audiences looking for regional references. The best of these remarks comes when Jo and Laurie are sifting through their college acceptance and rejection letters. Laurie seems to be disgusted with the whole process and says in frustration, "I would settle for UMass Lowell at this point." Ha! I laughed out loud.

The cast members portray their characters well. Each sister is clearly defined and has her own nuances and personality. Davenport plays a very determined and perpetually peeved Jo. I love her red sneakers. She reminds me of Julia Roberts in Runaway Bride. Stone and Jennings play Meg and Beth perfectly. Young Amy (Jones) is a quintessential last-child brat. Bohen is a soft-spoken and intelligent Professor Bhaer, who prefers to go by the name Freddy. (Really? Freddy Bhaer, as in Teddy Bear? Okay.) Thompson does a decent job at being a caring mother here; but I just can't get her role in Back to the Future out of my mind whenever I see her. Grabeel is the unexpected and interesting choice to play Laurie. What a genius move: to cast a real musician in the role of the character who is supposed to be a musician! Other movie producers haven't done this. Here he performs "Beautiful Day" and "All the Things." Since I'm older, I was unfamiliar with his voice and music. They fit this story well.

To diehard Alcott fans: I recommend that you approach this movie with an open mind -- or just skip it all together. Part of the fun of it is to recognize and to pick out glimpses and snippets from the book. And remember that this is just one interpretation, not the interpretation. Aspiring writers of all ages should also be interested in the film, since it focuses on Jo's writing goals and her attempts to get published. Some will see this movie as a mere teen chick flick. Nevertheless, I happen to like it a lot. And I haven't been a teenager in decades.

The Little Women of 2018 is the only truly contemporary version that I'm aware of. It has been followed in traditional form by the Saoirse Ronan (2019). It was preceded by the Katharine Hepburn (1933), the June Allyson (1949), the Angela Down (1970), the Susan Dey (1978), the Winona Ryder (1994) and the Maya Hawke (2017). If you're curious, you could read Alcott's original novel to see how Clare Niederpruem and Kristi Shimek brought the story to the present day. What would you have done, if you had been given this project?

Little Women, directed by Greta Gerwig (Columbia Pictures, 2019)

One of the major film interpretations of the semi-autobiographical American novel written by Louisa May Alcott, this version is known to fans as "the Saoirse Ronan" because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character. This version was released on Christmas Day, 2019.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Emma Watson), Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Beth (Eliza Scanlen) and Amy (Florence Pugh). We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their warm devotion to their mother, whom they call Marmee (Laura Dern). The story is set mostly in Concord, Massachusetts, in the early 1860s; and the main action centers around the most independent girl, second daughter Jo. Their father, Mr. March (Bob Odenkirk), is at first away from home and is involved in the war effort. The Marches were once well off but now have to make do with what they have. Every once in a while, they get a visit from their stodgy but rich relative, Aunt March (Meryl Streep), who dishes out a lot of judgment. And then there's the boy next door, known as Laurie (Timothee Chalamet), who lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (Chris Cooper). They both become good friends of the March family. Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? You'll find out.

The first time you watch this movie, you'll probably be confused. Director and screenwriter Greta Gerwig is an ardent fan of Miss Alcott's book, and she wanted to bring a fresh perspective to it. To do this, she starts in the middle of the story and uses a series of flashbacks to fill in the blanks. We're given a textual reference on the screen for only the first backstory. This disjointed back and forth works fine with an informed audience. Otherwise, it makes for confusion. The other Little Women that used flashbacks was the Sarah Davenport of 2018. Then we were given date references on the screen, each time the technique was used. And younger actors were used when the girls were children. It made sense. Here's a hint to keep your wits about you, for this one: watch for Jo's hair length and Amy's braids. They'll clue you in on the proper chronology.

The second time you watch this movie, you'll witness its power. Crowd scenes that were at first blurry will now suddenly make the stars pop, as if you were viewing them through 3D glasses. The scale of the production will become borderline magnificent. The fashions, the architecture, the carriages, the food. It's as if you're right there with the Marches and the Laurences. You can more fully enjoy the experience and can even become part of it, the second time around.

Gerwig gets major kudos for filming the movie in Massachusetts and for using local folks for extras. It's the most authentically set Little Women to date. We residents can recognize some of the places. Everything looks right and familiar. Gerwig also does well by framing the movie around Jo's writing career. She gives us special, unexpected insights into the publishing process of the 1800s. Good jobs, here.

I have two quibbles. First, the reason Jo went to New York is revealed only in passing, in her last letter to Laurie. Newcomers to this story should be given more information. We need the scene when she complains to Marmee that she longs for a change of pace. And secondly: Where is Laurie's musicality, here? He's supposed to want to be a musician. He shows nothing of this interest, except when he tells Amy in France that he's writing an opera. His artistic bent is his reason for resisting going into his grandfather's business. We need to see proof of it.

[Note to future LW filmmakers: Can we have a Beth, a Laurie and a Professor Bhaer who are actually able to play the piano, as their characters do in the book? This keyboard fakery is tiresome. And obvious.]

Saoirse Ronan plays Jo with an ever-present urgency and curiosity, which is refreshing. Emma Watson is polite and perfect for Meg. Laura Dern is a soothing presence as Marmee. Meryl Streep, of course, is the best person today to be a rich and cantankerous aunt. Timothee Chalamet makes for an adorable good boy-bad boy Laurie. Chris Cooper is warm and real as the rich yet kindly neighbor, Mr. Laurence. French-born actor Louis Garrel is wonderful as Friedrich Bhaer, and I wish Jo had a few more scenes with him.

The person who steals the show for me is Florence Pugh. Amy is the character who has to transform the most over the course of the movie; and she does this, both physically and personally. Other Amys of the past were just snotty brats who grew up to be somewhat snooty dilettantes. Not this Amy, this time. She becomes more mature as she ages. Gerwig's approach puts Amy on equal footing with Jo. I think Pugh has an award-winning performance here.

I have to admit that during the time of the filming, Emma Watson and a companion walked into my workplace and asked for directions. I gave them the information and they left, even as I saw that the co-worker beside me had turned suddenly catatonic. See, I had the advantage of not knowing who Watson was. I guess I'll know her now, if she ever stops in again.

The bottom line is that to fully appreciate this film's approach and scale, and to overcome its initial confusion, you have to see it more than once. And you have to have read Alcott's book. Recently. Go back now and do it.

The Little Women of 2019 has been preceded by the Katharine Hepburn (1933), the June Allyson (1949), the Angela Down (1970), the Susan Dey (1978), the Winona Ryder (1994), the Maya Hawke (2017) and the Sarah Davenport (2018). If you're curious, you could watch some of the others and make your own decisions about them. All have unique interpretations. And yet, none of the movies can cover the detail discovered in the book.