Best Version - Little Women Discussion

[–] sweet_fanny_adams 19 years ago

I absolutely agree. It's the best version ever. Acting, atmosphere - it's so cosy. June Allyson IS Jo! One of my fave movies!

reply

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 19 years ago

yaaay you rock!! :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome! To the! Tragic! Kingdom!

reply

[–] Movies-Are-My-Life 19 years ago

I haven't seen any other versions, but I did think that this was quite a good film.

"Even, today, when people tell me I'm beautiful, I do not believe a word of it."-Uma <3

reply

[–] kak122760 19 years ago

I actually like the 1978 mini-series the best, but of the theatrical releases this one rates as my best, probably only because it was the first one I saw.

reply

[–] yala_bi 19 years ago

This was my favourite version too. Peter Lawford, whom I usually don't care for, was the best Laurie there has ever been.

reply

[–] srljb 19 years ago

Absolutely my favourite version of this movie.

Everything about it is so warm and quanit feeling and it had the a great bunch playing the March Family.

Wish they'd release this on DVD!!!

Ding Dong The Witch is Dead
Which Old Witch, The Wicked Witch
Ding Dong The Wicked Witch is Dead

reply

[–] becbeckbec 18 years ago

I love this movie... I grew up watching it but I never really understood all of it until tonight... when I just watched it again.. I absolety LOVED it... I even cried a little :) I saw the most recent version a while back and I hated it! I don't remember that much, but I do remember that Laurie looked like a hippy and Amy grew up really fast...

I think this movie is wonderful

reply

[–] nerdygirl 18 years ago

Yeah, it's a little un-faithful but my favorite version...seen 1933 And 1994as well and this one is by FAR my favorite.

Liz Taylor is PERFECT as Amy...never seen a better one. I only saw the '33 version like twice, but I've seen the '94 version almost as much, and Kirsten Dunst and whoever played older Amy TOGETHER don't do half as much for bringing Amy to life as Liz does in like 15 minutes of the movie.

Margaret O'Brien is the perfect Beth. I'm glad the ages were switced because I adore her portrayal. She's 10, no 20 times, the Beth that Claire Danes was. I love how this version handles Beth's death too...it's just as powefull, if not more so, OFF screen as on. That scene between Jo and Beth in the attic before Beth dies.....I've memorized it but it still makes me cry.

Janet Leigh is just the most wonderful Meg.

And June Allyson...the BEST JO EVER! Enough said. And her and Peter Lawford...truly the best Jo and Laurie ever...come on, the scene in Laurie's parlor with dress catching on fire....perfect.

This version blows the other movie versions out of the water.

reply

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 18 years ago

<<She's 10, no 20 times, the Beth that Claire Danes was>>

Much as I absolutely LOVE Margaret O'Brien, I have to disagree here. O'Brien is, without a doubt, my favorite Beth--but that doesn't mean Danes was horrible. On the contrary, I think she was one of the strongest actors of the '94 version. Understated and well acted.
Totally agree with your points on Jo and Amy, though. ;)

&--
"I made a newspaperman out of ya, Hildy!"
"Exactly! I'm going some where I can be a woman!"

reply

[–] lambeaugal 18 years ago

I agree Shearer Goddard Russell...Danes had the timidity (to quote Amy) and innocence essential to the role of Beth. I'm watching the O'Brien version now on TCM actually, and it is my favorite of the three (if there are more, I've only seen the three).

Great screen name, by the way...Norma, Paulette and Jane are goddesses!!

"Go forth and multiply...not you though, you're annoying."

reply

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 18 years ago

<<Danes had the timidity (to quote Amy) and innocence essential to the role of Beth.>> Absolutely! The scene where she gets the piano always makes me cry, but not as hard as I absolutely wail when O'Brien goes back to thank Mr. Laurence in the '49 version. She's just so sincere!!!!!
p.s. thanks for the kudos on the name, but a common mistake: the Russell is for Rosalind, not Jane! (roz russell, shearer, and goddard were all in "the women" together, so that's where it comes from)

~I coulda been a contessa!~

reply

[–] kalexschroeder 17 years ago

I've never seen the other versions; only the '49. But after reading what others had to say about them, I don't think they could ever live up to this one.

reply

[–] addictedtosawyer 17 years ago

<<Danes had the timidity (to quote Amy) and innocence essential to the role of Beth.>> Absolutely! The scene where she gets the piano always makes me cry, but not as hard as I absolutely wail when O'Brien goes back to thank Mr. Laurence in the '49 version. She's just so sincere!!!!!

This scene always gets me too. She has so much emotion in that scene. She's so happy, yet she's crying. She feels a lot in that scene, not just simple emotion of joy, and I think Claire Dane's did an excellent job of showing that.

I missed the beginning of this version, but I liked what I saw. I did manage to catch the scene when Beth thanks Mr. Lawrence for the piano. It is very moving, but i still prefer the Claire Danes scene more. As to which movie is the best version, I really can't say yet. I want to wait til I see this one in its entirety before i may a decision.

reply

[–] morgain_le_faye 17 years ago

I really liked Hepburn as Jo. I liked June Allyson as well. They both had the necessary spunk for Jo. I like the recent one though because it keeps with the Transcendentalist tone of the novel (and of Louisa May Alcott) whereas this one and the 33 version Christianize the story. I also believed that Susan Serandon played a very strong Marmie, moreso than either of the other two. I would need to watch all three (plus some of the other version) more closely to provide better analysis, but these are my views as of yet.

reply

[–] mse326 17 years ago

I have to agree with morgain, I think people dismiss Hepburn's Jo because of the highclass New England accent. She did a wonderful job as did June Allyson. I also think Winona Rider did a good job too and I normally don't like her at all. Sarandon is definitely the best marmee and Meg, Amy, and Beth got to Leigh, Taylor, and O'Brien. Overall this is my favorite version though I do like Hepburn best and like the other two versions very much as well.

"Life is hard. After all, it kills you."-Katharine Hepburn

reply

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 17 years ago

As talented as Susan Sarandon is and as much as I like her in other movies I've seen her in (i.e. Thelma & louise!!) I was not so fond of her portrayal of Marmee. It was probably not entirely her fault, but she and Jo spent way too much time being overtly feministic. I don't have a problem with feminists (duh I'm a girl), but it just seemed so '90s and fake (there is definitely no such tone in the book). So I guess that dialogue just transcended into the acting part of it and Sarandon just felt to me like merely an actor in a costume instead of a 19th century mother.
Mary Astor (naturally) I just find to be so perfect.

"I'm fixing the bike so daddy can ride it in heaven."
RIP Steve Irwin

reply

[–] ashkanpashakola 17 years ago

yes i agree its the best version and one of the best all times movies i liked the 1978 version too but the ryder version is rubbish !

reply

[–] mmspaulding 16 years ago

I have only seen this version and the 1994 version besides having read the book, and I thought the 49 version put the other to shame. If you've read the book, it isn't about being a feminist and wild, it's more about family and doing your duty with love. This version simply has the ambiance that displays that feeling - Susan Sarandon was a terrible Marmee - when has Marmee complained about wearing corsets??? No, the Marmee in the book would lovingly preach dignity to her daughters before she would complain about female dress in front of neighbors. I liked Kirstin Dunst as Amy, but she didn't portray the selfishness so characteristic of young Amy, and when she's grown, her character has no personality. Winona Ryder playing Jo? She feminized the part way too much. Finally, Beth...I do not mind that they switched the ages of Beth and Amy, because the 49 version has such a wonderful Beth. Claire Danes, while she acted the part well enough - and I know I am going to make some enemies here - but I honestly find Claire Danes one of the ugliest people I've ever seen. I was so glad she was Beth because at least I knew she would die in the movie and I wouldn't have to see her anymore.

In the 94 version, I kept waiting for them to repeat some of the beautiful lines in the book...but they didn't, or they messed it up so that it lost its poetry. I felt that even though the 49 version left out some parts, they kept the heart and soul of it, and this newer version, although it showed some of the missing parts, was not true in spirit.

reply

[–] viktik 16 years ago

I agree completely...the best version by far!! I've seen all three, and I own this one. I never get tired of it. The cast is just awesome!!

viktik

"But those are Mrs. DeWinter's things." "I am Mrs. DeWinter now."

reply

[–] Beetlehands 16 years ago

after watching the 1994 version w/ winona i found this HORRIBLE! and the girl that played jo ..ANNOYING!

reply

[–] Genesgirl 16 years ago

Wow, I can't fathom how anyone could prefer the 1994 version over this one. Everyone in this version is just perfect in the role! And June Allyson is Jo personified, hands down. Winona is just too dainty looking and acted too ladylike to pull off the part. There was nothing tomboyish about her at all!

"The time to make up your mind about people is never."

reply

[–] Beetlehands 16 years ago

tell that to oscar.. allyson wasnt even considered for an oscar.

reply

[–] Genesgirl 16 years ago

That doesn't mean much to me. Quite a few actors and actresses who gave magnificent performances down through the years weren't nominated for an Oscar.

"The time to make up your mind about people is never."

reply

[–] Beetlehands 16 years ago

it means a lot actually.. can you give me some examples of these unnoticed performance?

reply

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 16 years ago

I sure can, Brian:
-Greta Garbo in any movie
-Barbara Stanwyck in any movie
-Bette Davis not winning for "All About Eve"
-Richard Burton not winning for "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"
-Julianne Moore not winning for "The Hours"
-Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar
-neither did Charlie Chaplin
-or Cary Grant
-or Peter O'Toole
-or Robert Altman
-or Myrna Loy or William Powell
-Kate Winslet or Leonardo DiCaprio
-Helena Bonham Carter

I've got more. I'm not saying Winona Ryder is a bad actress, because she's not, but June Allyson's portrayal of Jo is SO much truer to the spirit of the character in the book (the same can be said of the movies themselves). So no, Oscars actually don't mean that much. Sure they're fun to watch and it's fun to see who's wearing what, but several of the movies' greatest stars and filmmakers went their entire careers without garnering a single competitive Oscar. Also I have a problem with any academy that would deem Keira Knightley worthy of a nomination, particularly for a performance as shoddy as the one in "Pride and Prejudice."

"Just close your eyes...but keep your mind wide open."

reply

[–] WhisperingBells1959 15 years ago

I just finished watching this one online and though I haven't seen the '33 version, I DEFINITELY prefer this over the '94 version.

My favorite performance had to be... Elizabeth Taylor simply kicked ass as Amy. She pulled off the selfishness and vanity of the role really well. (even though the scene where she burned Jo's book was not included, it was well compensated for) At first I thought Margaret O'Brien was way, WAY too young for Beth, but then I got used to her... great acting on her part. The Laurie in this version kinda looked like he was in his late 20s or early 30s, but he totally got the boyish charm spot on- I also thought the chemistry between Jo and Laurie in this one was the best. Though I am a huge fan of Christian Bale and his acting was excellent in the recent version, he never quite convinced me as Laurie. Same with Winona Ryder and Jo. I thought Kirsten Dunst as young Amy was really cute, but she was too young- supposed to be 12 in the book- and that is probably why it's harder to imagine Amy a spoiled little brat, because a young child can certainly be spoiled but usually not vain. Amy is both. June Allyson was really great as Jo. I especially loved her speaking voice and pathetic whistling, haha. The one thing I didn't like was that Meg's character was not in the movie enough. Janet Leigh did a great job for the short screen time she had.

And one more thing that just annoyed the heck out of me in the '94 version was the kissing scenes. He-LLO? You don't make out with your fiancee on your doorstep in plain view in the 1850s/60s! AND, you don't make out with your best friend BEFORE you propose marriage to them... Hollywood has changed over a long period of time- they add modern crap to all their movies, no matter what the timeline is supposed to be. I thought the kind of dated feeling in the '49 version was great in setting the tone.

"Remember men, we're fighting for this woman's honor, which is probably more than she ever did."
-Duck Soup

reply

[–] Mayesgwtw39 15 years ago

Shearer_Goddard_Crawford==You nailed it!

This is the best vesion--and Miss Taylor is hysterical!

reply

[–] Beetlehands 15 years ago

i thought the character of jo march was supposed to be likable? winona was but june was just unwatchable. so i say if june played her according to the book.. i dont like the character in the book.. i like the updated portrayal that ryder gave us.

thank you winona ryder!

reply

[–] ashkanpashakola 15 years ago

yes ryder is a sexy actress she can not be a tomboy . june allyson was best jo although katherine hepburn also had brilliant performance as jo

reply

[–] Beetlehands 15 years ago

funny how Winona was the only 1 of the 3 that got a nomination. that actual says a lot considering the competition in the 90's as opposed to in the 30's and 40's when there wasnt nearly as many movies made in 1 year.

reply

[–] ashkanpashakola 15 years ago

yes but the best all time movies produced in 30s and 40s . movies like gone with the wind or casablanca can not remade again

reply

[–] Beetlehands 15 years ago

give it time.

reply

[–] WhisperingBells1959 15 years ago

Winona Ryder is a great actress, definitely one of my favorites, but I thought that she was miscast as Jo in the new version. She was likable, yes, but Jo was also described to be boyish in the book. Winona wasn't all that boyish in the '94 version. I thought June played Jo the best-- as a klutzy, pathetic, bold, yet simultaneously lovable fifteen year old girl (though she was arguably a tad old, lol). Katharine Hepburn was great, as well. Speaking of old, Janet Leigh, for some reason, was the only Meg who really looked her age!!! At least, for me.

"Remember men, we're fighting for this woman's honor, which is probably more than she ever did."
-Duck Soup

reply

[–] glitterfairy11 15 years ago

I've seen all 3 versions and the '49 version wins easily, no contest! Winona Ryder is one of my favourite actresses, but June Allyson is absolutely perfect as Jo, and Margaret O'Brien just breaks my heart every time. I agree it is the version that is most true to the spirit of the book. I think everyone is perfectly cast! As someone else said, I find myself willing Jo not to turn Laurie away this time!! My old drama teacher said that was the mark of a good production, when you know how something is going to end but start to believe/hope that this time it might end differently!

Who cares if it never won an oscar? Most people are able to judge for themselves the quality of a film without help from The Academy, who frequently give out awards for reasons other than merit (who was snubbed last year? who is about to die that we have overlooked for the last few decades? whatever!).

reply