Why I Love the 1994 Film of 'Little Women'
I first read ‘Little Women’ in my early teens and, by the time I’d finished, was totally in love with it. I’ve read it a few times since and my love for it hasn’t diminished over the years.
Of the film/TV adaptations, I’ve only watched 2 – the films of 1994 and 2019.
There were parts of the 2019 film I liked, which I’ve mentioned in my review of that film.
However, without a doubt, the 1994 film is my favourite.
I guess, just in case, it’s better to say there are SPOILERS ahead.
Obviously, any book that’s made into a film will be different. Scenes will be either left out entirely or rewritten to suit the visual medium.
I think what matters the most is that the film is done well, honouring the essence of the book.
As much as I love the 1994 film, I wish it could have included certain parts of the book…
Beth building a relationship with old Mr Laurence;
Amy’s time with Aunt March, which goes a long way in showing why the old lady preferred Amy over Jo as her companion;
Meg’s life after marriage and the trials she and John go through as a young married couple and, later, as parents;
The developing relationship between the older Amy and Laurie…
Having said that, this film continues to hold a special place in my heart.
So, why do I love the 1994 film ‘Little Women’ as much as I love the book?
I’ll start with the actors.
Each actor inhabits their roles so well, they’re the ones who come to mind each time I’ve re-read the book since watching the film.
As you can see, they look very similar to the image of the sisters on the cover of my book.
Winona Ryder brings warmth to the role of hot-headed Jo, more interested in creating stories and plays and not worried about getting married. She is suitably tomboyish while still managing to bring a degree of femininity to the character.
Trini Alvarado as Meg conveys the maturity one would expect from the oldest sister. She takes her responsibilities seriously, yet also yearns for the finer things in life and worries about finding a suitor.
Claire Danes as shy, musical Beth portrays the character’s loving homeliness without coming across as sappy. Her portrayal of Beth’s failing health is heartbreakingly real.
Kirsten Dunst plays the young Amy exactly as she is in the book – a spoilt child who tries to be good, and one who is obsessed with her looks. She’s artistic and finds nothing wrong in announcing she wants to marry a rich man.
Personally, I wasn’t that taken with Samantha Mathis as the older Amy.
Susan Sarandon brings a quiet strength to the role of Mrs March, the girls’ mother or Marmee as they call her. She’s the anchor of the family while her husband is serving in the war (the Civil War; the story starts in 1861). She teaches her girls, and shows by example, how to be strong and kind. While acknowledging that society has stricter rules for women than for men, she encourages them to be their best selves.
Christian Bale does a good job as Laurie, their neighbour, desperate to be part of the March family and quickly warming to his role as the girls’ honorary brother.
Gabriel Byrne as Friedrich Bhaer, the professor Jo meets at the boarding house in New York, brings a quiet confidence to the role yet also indulges the fun-loving side of his personality.
Erik Stoltz as John Brooke is patient and tolerant as Laurie’s tutor and convincing as Meg’s suitor.
The March family are the most well-developed characters in the film, followed by Laurie and Friedrich.
Not surprisingly, Jo is the one who has the most development.
Another thing I enjoyed about this film is having Jo as the narrator. We hear her voice first as the film opens, setting the time and condition of the family…
“My sisters and I remember that winter as the coldest of our childhood. A temporary poverty had settled on our family some years before...”
Marmee returns home and the girls rush to her side. She has a letter from their father, and they all settle down to read it.
Straightaway, we see the close-knit warmth of their family life.
I love the instantly recognisable scenes…
Jo accidentally burning Meg’s hair;
Jo and Laurie dancing at the party where they meet properly for the first time;
The girls’ secret society, the Pickwick Society, and the way they dress and act like a particular character from Dicken’s story;
When Jo sells her hair for money so Marmee can go care for their father…
Also, the film retains young Amy’s propensity to mix up her words, which Dunst does well.
The scenes with the girls at home – performing one of Jo’s play; getting ready for a party; doing their chores – highlight the natural rhythm of this vibrant household.
Things aren’t all sweetness and light though. As with any family, there are arguments with hateful actions and words flying about.
One of the stand-out scenes involving the sisters and Marmee is when Jo discovers Amy has burnt her manuscript.
When Jo’s fury explodes, I can’t help but feel sorry for Amy.
Yet another thing I appreciate is how this film shows us, visually, Beth’s failing health.
The scene that makes me cry every single time is Beth on her deathbed, talking to Jo. Unlike the book which describes what’s happening around them, the film focuses completely on the 2 girls.
Beth’s quiet anger as she wonders why everyone wants to go away and her acceptance of her fate shows the depth of her character, easily forgotten as she’s the quietest one who’s happy to stay in the background.
There’s great chemistry between Ryder (Jo) and Bale (Laurie) as the friendship of their characters grow.
When Laurie confesses his feelings for Jo, he’s so earnest, a part of me wants her to accept him even though I agree with her – they’re not at all suited and would probably kill each other.
I love how the relationship between Jo and Friedrich is developed in the film.
One of my favourite scenes is when they speak properly for the first time, and it’s just the 2 of them.
Jo’s self-consciousness as she covertly follows his lead before drinking her coffee – not sure what to do but not wanting to admit it – is something that chimed with my younger self.
Friedrich’s surprise when Jo speaks of her love for German poetry and his excitement when she asks if he’s heard the term ‘transcendentalist’ lays the foundation for much-shared interests.
In one of her letters to Beth, Jo writes about how poor Friedrich is. “Yet, as the weeks go by, I see that he is unfailingly generous to all of us who live in the house. I am grateful to have a friend.”
I love when he tells her she can do so much better than write sensationalist stories, that her writing should come “from life. From the depths of your soul… there is more to you than this, if you have the courage to write it.”
One of the great things about the film, in my opinion, is the emphasis that’s put on the progressive ideals of the March family, which mirrored that of Louisa May Alcott’s own family.
This is seen mainly in the scenes with Marmee…
When Amy’s teacher hits her on the hand with a ruler, we see the family’s outrage at the display of overtly physical punishment in a time when such punishment was considered to be the norm. Marmee writes to the teacher, telling him she’ll be withdrawing Amy from school.
But she doesn’t let Amy off the hook… “You’re more intent on reshaping your dear little nose than in fashioning your character.”
She’s constantly reminding the girls that their inner beauty matters more than what’s on the outside, as when she tells Meg and Jo, “If you feel your value lies in being merely decorative, I fear that someday you might find yourself believing that’s all that you really are. Time erodes all such beauty. What it cannot diminish is the wonderful workings of your mind. Your humour, your kindness, your moral courage.”
And about Meg marrying – “I would rather Meg marry for love and be a poor man’s wife than marry for riches and lose her self-respect.”
I’d better move on or I’ll end up describing and quoting the entire film!
Another thing I love about this film is the cinematography.
The winter scenes in Concord are picture-perfect, and the changing seasons are shown in the changing colours of the trees and flowers, highlighting the freshness of living so close to the natural world.
By contrast, New York is muddy and crowded, shown in the detail of the muddied hem of Jo’s dress when she’s walking outside.
Which brings us to the costumes.
They visually anchor us in the 1860s.
From the colours to the costume design to the hair, there is not even a hint of anything ‘modern’ that might jolt you out of the film – a proper period piece.
Speaking of hairstyles, seemingly small details mean a lot – every woman’s hair is centre-parted and almost always done up in a bun. Because that’s how women dressed their hair in those days. And the women all wear bonnets!
The younger ladies and girls have their hair down, always in a braid or secured with a ribbon, seldom left loose, which is never done in company.
I can’t finish without mentioning the umbrella scene at the end of the film. This, for me, is one of, if not the most romantic scene I’ve ever seen in a film.
Friedrich mistakenly believes Jo has married Laurie and she corrects him, saying she’s not married.
He asks if she’ll have him and she says, “With all of my heart.”
“But I have nothing to give you, my hands are empty.”
Jo puts her hand in his. “Not empty now.”