I have always had strong feelings about Little Women as a book and about Beth in particular. After reading the novel at 10, I dropped that nickname and forced my family to call me by my full name, which I still use as an adult. If that's what a Beth was, I didn't want to be one.
Gerwig's interpretation makes me almost love Beth, and that is saying something.
I also vastly prefer the '19 Jo and Amy for all the reasons you state.
Your comments about casting were interesting re '94 version. For the Ryder-Bale scene, I think you're exactly right. It feels like a betrayal the way it's done, but I hadn't thought about the reasons why. Would be curious to hear more about why else you think the characters are miscast.
Re: Casting - I think Ryder stands out more as miscast, where Bale's Laurie is more misused in the writing they give him or elements of his performance.
For Ryder, I just think she comes across as too feminine, too much like the other sisters, and the way she plays the early relationship with Laurie doesn't capture any of the nuance of their book relationship for me at all (ie. that for her it's completely platonic). Maybe I'm just missing something, but her performance feels more flirty, more romantic, especially when you compare it to what Saoirse does with the same time period in 2019.
For Bale, I actually think he's a really good Laurie a good chunk of the early film. But those few moments ruin the entire portrayal for me. I already mentioned how he responded to Jo's rejection. That felt completely out of character to me. And then I think I alluded to how his and Amy's relationship is portrayed, but that's the real kicker for me. The way he pursues her, the way he speaks to her, it just feels so callous, like he doesn't actually love Amy, he's just looking for a rebound in the March family, and that doesn't feel like Laurie to me at all.
Michael, good piece, you’ve really hit on some of the issues with adapting novels for the screen. I think I used to have stronger opinions about that, but now I consider film so different from prose fiction that I’m willing to accept revisioning. Particularly when the movie rivals or even exceeds the original (example: The Sweet Hereafter with the young Sarah Polley).
Perhaps it’s useful to think of an adaptation as analogous to a translation of a work. For some reason, translations don’t last, every so many years someone does another translation and the old ones pretty much fall away. Yet not a word of the original has changed. Quite the paradox.
Some of it, I suppose, has to do with reader expectations and reader realities in the present age, but I guess our “understanding” of a work also changes. In other words, it’s impossible to do the same adaptation or translation because we’re no longer capable of reading the work that way.
Still, there’s a part of me that wonders if someone is going to do a revision, why not just go whole hog and do something stunningly original, the way West Side Story and Romeo + Juliet did for Shakespeare’s play?
Some really great insights, Frank. Thanks for sharing.
The translation analogy is definitely interesting, but I would push back a little on the paradox you bring up. I do think there are examples where the adaptation has replaced the original in culture or in the collective imagination. So while there are some works that people seem to revisit for newer adaptations, there are others where the film is what people think of when the story is brought up (Blade Runner, The Godfather, Jaws, and Jurassic Park are a few quick examples that come to mind... no one is talking about remaking The Godfather as far as I'm aware).
Re: why not go for something more original a la West Side Story - I do think there is potentially inherent value in adapting a novel to the screen, even if it's relatively faithful. The act of bringing it to life visually, and with actors, means that even if the actual story beats are exactly the same, something new will be communicated in the choice of visuals, music, set design, performances, direction, and everything in between. They can't help but infuse something new each time that it gets done.
But having said that, it does seem like there have been attempts to adapt Little Women to a modern setting, and also to other cultural contexts (I believe there is a modern Korean drama version that takes a lot of liberties with the core elements of the story that seem kind of interesting).
I suppose the novels you list are simply not old enough for us to know if they’ll be foundational to the English-speaking world in the way, say, Shakespeare, Defoe (Crusoe), Austen, Dickens and perhaps this book by Alcott are. Sequels yes, newer adaptations no. At least not yet.
Regarding Don Quixote, Borges wrote “Fame is a form of incomprehension.” Maybe a good definition of a classic would be a book so well-known we think we understand it, but perhaps really don’t, hence the need for new adaptations.
Have you watched the 2017 mini series with Maya Hawke as Jo? I’ve only watched it once but I loved it a lot and I loved how it was a mini series so it could really flesh out the story and give us more insight into the sisters and their life’s.
(Will say I somewhat *deeply* offended by you crapping on the 1994 version but that was my literal childhood and I was obsessed with it, soooo nostalgia)
I’d like to hear your thoughts on it and how you think it compares to the others. I think that one also plays more into Jo’s tom boy nature, especially with a younger Maya Hawke. Also Kathryn Newton plays Amy and I think she’s my favorite Amy.
I have always had strong feelings about Little Women as a book and about Beth in particular. After reading the novel at 10, I dropped that nickname and forced my family to call me by my full name, which I still use as an adult. If that's what a Beth was, I didn't want to be one.
Gerwig's interpretation makes me almost love Beth, and that is saying something.
I also vastly prefer the '19 Jo and Amy for all the reasons you state.
Your comments about casting were interesting re '94 version. For the Ryder-Bale scene, I think you're exactly right. It feels like a betrayal the way it's done, but I hadn't thought about the reasons why. Would be curious to hear more about why else you think the characters are miscast.
Great thoughts, thanks for sharing!
Re: Casting - I think Ryder stands out more as miscast, where Bale's Laurie is more misused in the writing they give him or elements of his performance.
For Ryder, I just think she comes across as too feminine, too much like the other sisters, and the way she plays the early relationship with Laurie doesn't capture any of the nuance of their book relationship for me at all (ie. that for her it's completely platonic). Maybe I'm just missing something, but her performance feels more flirty, more romantic, especially when you compare it to what Saoirse does with the same time period in 2019.
For Bale, I actually think he's a really good Laurie a good chunk of the early film. But those few moments ruin the entire portrayal for me. I already mentioned how he responded to Jo's rejection. That felt completely out of character to me. And then I think I alluded to how his and Amy's relationship is portrayed, but that's the real kicker for me. The way he pursues her, the way he speaks to her, it just feels so callous, like he doesn't actually love Amy, he's just looking for a rebound in the March family, and that doesn't feel like Laurie to me at all.
I prefer Chalamet's Laurie, for sure. I was also curious about the Megs/Beths/Marmees, though you did mention why you prefer '19 Beth.
I love discussions like this! Glad to have found your Substack!
Glad you’re here!
Michael, good piece, you’ve really hit on some of the issues with adapting novels for the screen. I think I used to have stronger opinions about that, but now I consider film so different from prose fiction that I’m willing to accept revisioning. Particularly when the movie rivals or even exceeds the original (example: The Sweet Hereafter with the young Sarah Polley).
Perhaps it’s useful to think of an adaptation as analogous to a translation of a work. For some reason, translations don’t last, every so many years someone does another translation and the old ones pretty much fall away. Yet not a word of the original has changed. Quite the paradox.
Some of it, I suppose, has to do with reader expectations and reader realities in the present age, but I guess our “understanding” of a work also changes. In other words, it’s impossible to do the same adaptation or translation because we’re no longer capable of reading the work that way.
Still, there’s a part of me that wonders if someone is going to do a revision, why not just go whole hog and do something stunningly original, the way West Side Story and Romeo + Juliet did for Shakespeare’s play?
I love your translation analogy. Perfect way to reframe it.
Some really great insights, Frank. Thanks for sharing.
The translation analogy is definitely interesting, but I would push back a little on the paradox you bring up. I do think there are examples where the adaptation has replaced the original in culture or in the collective imagination. So while there are some works that people seem to revisit for newer adaptations, there are others where the film is what people think of when the story is brought up (Blade Runner, The Godfather, Jaws, and Jurassic Park are a few quick examples that come to mind... no one is talking about remaking The Godfather as far as I'm aware).
Re: why not go for something more original a la West Side Story - I do think there is potentially inherent value in adapting a novel to the screen, even if it's relatively faithful. The act of bringing it to life visually, and with actors, means that even if the actual story beats are exactly the same, something new will be communicated in the choice of visuals, music, set design, performances, direction, and everything in between. They can't help but infuse something new each time that it gets done.
But having said that, it does seem like there have been attempts to adapt Little Women to a modern setting, and also to other cultural contexts (I believe there is a modern Korean drama version that takes a lot of liberties with the core elements of the story that seem kind of interesting).
I suppose the novels you list are simply not old enough for us to know if they’ll be foundational to the English-speaking world in the way, say, Shakespeare, Defoe (Crusoe), Austen, Dickens and perhaps this book by Alcott are. Sequels yes, newer adaptations no. At least not yet.
Regarding Don Quixote, Borges wrote “Fame is a form of incomprehension.” Maybe a good definition of a classic would be a book so well-known we think we understand it, but perhaps really don’t, hence the need for new adaptations.
Have you watched the 2017 mini series with Maya Hawke as Jo? I’ve only watched it once but I loved it a lot and I loved how it was a mini series so it could really flesh out the story and give us more insight into the sisters and their life’s.
(Will say I somewhat *deeply* offended by you crapping on the 1994 version but that was my literal childhood and I was obsessed with it, soooo nostalgia)
I have not seen the mini series although I do love Maya Hawke. Glad to hear that you liked it. I might need to check it out.
And I hope you can forgive my strong opinions about 1994. I can see loving it, especially if you grew up with it!
I’d like to hear your thoughts on it and how you think it compares to the others. I think that one also plays more into Jo’s tom boy nature, especially with a younger Maya Hawke. Also Kathryn Newton plays Amy and I think she’s my favorite Amy.
Katheryn Newton as your favorite Amy when Florence Pugh is in the mix is a strong recommendation. I’ll have to check it out.
I strongly disagree. I love Gerwig, but she blew it here with the revisionism and the story frame.
Oh no, Luisa! What didn't you like about it?
Following!