I've seen the Little Women movie adaptation three times now. I first watched in back in 2021 before I read the book and really enjoyed it. After reading the book, I enjoyed it even more because of how good of a book adaptation it was. The third time I watched it was just a few weeks ago, after listening to the audiobook of Little Women with my mom. We also decided to watch the movie from 1994, since neither of us had seen it.
The 1994 adaptation was very different from the most recent one, and I didn't like it very much. In this post, I'll explain the biggest differences, compare both versions to the book, and explain why I feel the 90s version doesn't hold a candle to the one from 2019.
The biggest difference right away in terms of structure is that the 1994 version shows the events of the book mostly chronologically, while the 2019 version switches between the girls as kids and grown up. The chronological story is easier to follow, but the dual timelines showcase the similarities between pivotal moments for the girls in childhood vs adulthood. In this area, I like them both for different reasons.
Speaking of the timeline, though, the 94 version does move around a few things, especially towards the end. Laurie doesn't confess his love for Jo right after Meg's wedding in the book, and in the movie, Meg's children aren't even born yet when Jo returns from New York. In the book, her kids are at least toddlers by that time. Those are just a couple examples I can think of, but I think there were a few more.
One of the biggest reasons I didn't like the older version as much is because it doesn't stick to the source material as much. In the 2019 version, almost all of the dialogue is word-for-word from the book and every scene was a moment from the book. In the 94 one, almost all of the dialogue was made up and there were a decent amount of scenes that were made up, too. Sometimes the dialogue that was put in didn't sound like what the characters would say. I don't know why they couldn't just use what was already in the book.
I also think that the modern adaptation was a lot more well-cast. The main four actors - Saoirse Ronan, Florence Peugh, Emma Watson, and Eliza Scanlen - were great at bringing the sisters to life on-screen. Aside from Winona Ryder as Jo and Christian Bale as Laurie, I didn't think the characters in the 94 adaptation were portrayed well. I especially thought that the actor for Mr. Brooke did not fit the character AT ALL. I don't know what was up with that goatee, weird hair, and awful-looking glasses, but he looked so dweeby and weird. The way he spoke was also just annoying. I didn't like that casting choice at all.
One thing I thought the 94 version did better was in showing the friendship between Jo and Mr. Bhaer. In the 2019 version, they interact a few times and are nice to each other, but it doesn't really develop or focus on the friendship they had. This makes their romance feel forced and out-of-nowhere. I get that that's what that movie was trying to do by showing that Louisa May Alcott didn't want Jo to be married, but there wasn't much development. The 94 version, however, showed them interacting at the boarding house a lot more and how they work well together.
What I didn't like about Jo and Mr. Bhaer's relationship in the older version, though, was how fast it moved. In the movie, they're kissing multiple times and being all lovey with each other before Jo moves back home, which makes no sense. The whole point is that Jo doesn't realize that she has feelings for him until he's about to leave. By having them seemingly together way before that, it takes away from that drama.
On that note, I don't know why the 94 movie was so obsessed with kissing. I like romance, but not when it doesn't exist in the original source. There was a scene of Meg and Mr. Brooke kissing before their wedding, Laurie kissed Jo after she rejected him, - which takes away from the importance of her turning him down - and as I already mentioned, Jo and Mr. Bhaer were kissing more than they did in the book. None of those scenes existed in the book, and I don't know why the movie creators felt the need to include them.
My big takeaway after watching the 94 version was that it felt more like a typical 90s movie rather than an adaptation of a book. While the modern version stuck very close to the book and truly felt like I was watching the book on-screen, the older version seemed like any other movie from the 90s. With all the made up dialogue and scenes, it didn't feel like a true adaptation.
Comments