Little Women

Last week I reviewed the 1933 version of _Little Women_, directed by George Cukor and starring Katharine Hepburn. I refer you to that review for more details. This review will be a brief (for my standards, at least) comment on the 1949 adaptation, directed by Mervyn LeRoy and starring June Allyson, Rossano Brazzi, Elizabeth Taylor, and Janet Leigh.Let me begin by saying that LeRoy’s film is, primarily, a Technicolor version of the 1933 film. The actors are, of course, different, but the script is the same. There is only one “original” scene in the 1949 version: we see the March sisters going to a store to buy presents after Aunt March gives them money. As one critic rightly observed, the scene is meant to exalt consumerism during the prosperous post-WWII years. By making money circulate, one helps the economy. The money, supposedly, comes back to you eventually… This scene is not in the novel, and it would have been anachronistic in Cukor’s film, which was released during the Great Depression and emphasized the need for families to stick together during hard times. _Little Women_, incidentally, rings truer during troubled times, as the novel is set in the time of the Civil War. In our relatively (or apparently, however you want to look at it) peaceful time, the latest adaptations have chosen to highlight social issues such as women’s rights and societal privilege.One of the main criticisms leveled at the 1933 version is concerned with Katharine Hepburn’s performance, which many viewers consider to be over the top. I must say I agree, though as I pointed out in my previous review, this does not diminish Katharine Hepburn’s worth as an actress. Those who have reservations about Hepburn’s Jo may approve of June Allyson’s magnificent performance in the 1949 version. Hepburn’s influence on it is noticeable, but Allyson delivers a more balanced performance.Another issue with the 1933 version had to do with its pace, which to me seemed a bit rushed towards the end. This remains the same in the 1949 version. Professor Bhaer makes his first appearance roughly at the 1:30 mark, that is, three quarters into the film, and many important developments occur within the last ten minutes of the movie. This version, incidentally, exhibits the smallest age different between the actress playing Jo and the actor playing Bhaer. Allyson and Brazzi were born only one year apart.Cukor’s version omits the manuscript and the skating incidents. (As in my previous review, I am being purposely obscure to avoid giving away important plot points, though I don’t prioritize plot when I watch movies.) LeRoy’s version follows this convention, and there is also no mention of the Pickwick Club here. We do hear, however, the reason why Mr. March lost money, something that is omitted in the 1933 adaptation, and the 1949 version also adds a minor anecdote about Laurie running away from school to join the army under a different name.My assessment: the LeRoy version is an improvement over the previous one when it comes to the acting, but it seems that the producers’ main goal was to colorize Cukor’s film. We are even shown a rainbow, to drive the point home. Some scenes are reproduced almost shot-by-shot, most notably the school scene: the teacher is even played by the same actor, who according to imdb.com wears the same outfit and holds the same board with the same writing on it. It would be 45 years before the next adaptation of Alcott’s classic was released. This version, directed by Gillian Armstrong and starring Winona Ryder, is my personal favorite. It is faithful to the text and adds to it without falling into facile opportunism the way the latest adaptation does. LeRoy’s version, then, is my second favorite.Next on my list, something completely different: _In Cold Blood_ (Richard Brooks, 1967).Thanks for reading, and enjoy the film!

Love it..... Highly Recommend

Nice classical movie

Have seen a lot of versions, but this is the one I've seen the most and truly my favorite.

Aside from the legendary Katharine Hepburn-George Cukor 1933 RKO version, this is probably my personal favourite film adaptation of the Louisa May Alcott story. Filmed in glowing Technicolor, and using many of the 1933's original set and costume designs, it provides a nice showcase for the always popular pairing of June Allyson and Peter Lawford (those cute co-eds from "Good News").Controversy has always dogged MGM's 1949 colour remake, chiefly for it's casting. Whilst her teenage years were well and truly behind her when she landed the role of Jo, it's hard to imagine the role being played by anybody other than June Allyson. She was MGM's "go-to" girl for such assignments in that period. Likewise, Elizabeth Taylor's role of Amy - in a none-too-flattering blonde wig - has always been unfairly dismissed as one of the rare missteps in Taylor's film resume, but when you look back at the depiction of Amy in the book and then refer again to Taylor's performance, it sits quite comfortably. Peter Lawford's casting as Laurie is quite charming. Laurie is such a cardboard character in this version (less so but still quite stiff in the 1933 movie); Lawford does what he can to enliven the character.The "veterans" of the cast add some depth - Mary Astor is a brilliantly-understated Marmee and Lucile Watson is crabby old Aunt March. Margaret O'Brien once again cries until the cows come home as frail, doomed Beth. For whatever reason, the ages of Amy and Beth were switched from the book; this version depicts Beth as the youngest, mainly because Ms O'Brien could never visually pass as the older sister of Elizabeth Taylor. Dramatically it also works quite well, as Beth being the "baby" of the family illustrates further her weak health situation.Lovers of the 1933 film will find some scenes (right down to the sets and actors' blocking) are copied almost verbatim in this version! Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; I wonder if George Cukor ever picked up on the fact that he also "directed" the 1949 remake by osmosis? There is however one charming scene that the 1949 version possesses which is all it's own, and it's the one where the girls visit the general store to buy Christmas gifts with their $1 from Aunt March. Presumably it replaces the delightful parlour pantomime "The Witch's Curse" from the 1933 version.For all it's shortcomings, the film is beautifully shot, lovingly put together; and despite a hefty 2-hour running time, clips along at a very brisk pace. LITTLE WOMEN fans are recommended.

Plays in English,without subtitles.Lovely film,one of MGM,s best .A fine piece of storytelling,nicely acted,gorgeous costumes and top-notch set designs.The TV images from this DVD are excellent.Just shows how beautiful Technicolour was.

Love this film With the original cast

Wanted the original version for long time but unable to buy. Seeing this had subtitles, i read reviews and so many said possible to turn them off. I took chance and glad i did. It works perfectly. Pleasure to watch it again. It just has something the modern remakes dont have.

Bought this as a present for my friend, and was i little bit worried incase it wouldn't work on British dvd player. Received prompt and works fine on my dvd player..very happy!

Just so pleased to find this film on DVD. I have been looking for it for years. It is a Korean import apparently. The DVD plays perfectly, no subtitles, just Korean writing in the box. I have ordered three copies as presents and all are great.