The Little Women Face-Off : Part 2

Hello, hello, hello and welcome back to everybody's favorite nerdy blog post series, The Little Women Face-Off. 
In case you missed it, I love Little Women (both the book and all the films), and have been asked many times which film is superior, so I embarked on a journey to answer those questions.

Last time I talked about the what Little Women is, the history of Little Women movie adaptations, I gave you a rundown on how I'm ranking the 1994 and 2019 films (which are the focus of this series), shared some background on the two films, and outlined how each film told the story. 

If you haven't yet read that blog post, click here to read it and catch up!

This week, we're really getting into the nitty-gritty. We're going to be comparing each adaption to the book, and we are going to talk about the historical accuracy of each film!

Again, I am giving you a spoiler alert, because I will never be the type of person who can keep bookish secrets.

Which Film is Most True to The Novel (criteria #2)

When adapting a novel to film, writers and directors really need to consider the novel itself, understanding that it is the source text. Many people who watch book to film adaptations have a positive relationship with the book which is why I think book accuracy is so important. There are so many films that change really important things, so I am going to tell you a little about what each of these films did and didn’t do.
   
As I mentioned in my last post, obviously Little Women is such a long book. There are so many scenes and anecdotes that just can’t be fit in (though someday I would love to see a scene of Amy trying to conceal a lobster from Laurie’s college friend, that would be really funny.) For a writer it’s really a challenge of asking what scenes are important for the actual story they are trying to tell.
    
It’s actually easier for me to talk about the changes that were made instead of the things that were the same, so that’s how I’ll be addressing this. Of course, there are lots and lots of little details that I could address, but that would take forever, so I’m only going to talk about the ones that I care about, there are also some significant changes that affect both movies so I will address those too.

1994 - From the beginning, this film veered away from the book, there are so many things that bother me about this film, but there are also things that are true that I appreciate. Let's dig a little deeper into what 1994 did.

In my opinion one of the weirdest scenes (and there are a few) from this adaptation is when Amy is sent away to Aunt March's. Laurie accompanies her and she laments about how she might die before she is ever kissed. Laurie then promises to her that he will kiss her before she dies. I understand that this is supposed to be a kind of set-up for their romance later, but it really just flops. First of all, on an interpersonal level, that’s such a weird thing to say to someone, also from a Victorian perspective a young lady of twelve would absolutely not be lamenting about never being kissed. 
  
In this adaptation the lines between the Alcott family and the March family are very blurred. There is discussion of how their father ran a school and it got closed down because he admitted an African American girl. While this actually did happen to the Alcott family, nothing like it happened to the March family.
    
In a similar vein, Marmee goes on a rant in front of Mr. Lawrence about how her girls won't wear corsets and how no one should. Corsets are rarely, if ever mentioned in Little Women, and in the time period it would have been highly inappropriate for a woman like Mrs. March to talk about female undergarments with someone like Mr. Lawrence. This is really just a case of contemporary doctrine making it’s way into a period piece. And also, all of the actresses playing the sisters are wearing corsets so the whole purpose is defeated.
There is some speculation on whether or not the Alcott's approved of corsets, (generally the information leads towards no,) but this line from the movie is out of place regardless. 

The similarities between the 1994 March family and the real Alcott family aren't particularly bad, but, in my opinion, they aren't Little Women.
  
 In this film we also miss out on a scene that I think is very important. In chapter 11 Camp Laurence, Laurie’s friends the Vaughn's from England come to visit. This sets up the whole Amy/Fred romance. But in 1994 this doesn’t happen at all.
    
​The Laurie/Jo proposal scene in this film is very... what's a good word for it?... stagnant. The two are leaning up against a fence while Laurie proposes (quite badly). I felt like the reactions and the way it was formatted doesn't bring quite as much of an emotional punch. In the book, Jo and Laurie are walking along together, in high spirits, arguing and lamenting which adds a good dynamic and emotional depth.
    
Another thing that for some reason always sticks in my head is when Professor Bhaer takes Jo to the opera, of course this is a very sweet and romantic scene, but nothing like this ever happens in the book and is one of the biggest plot deviations. In the novel we don't know that Jo and the Professor love each other until after Jo leaves New York.
   
Towards the end of the movie, when Professor Bhaer comes to visit the Marches he seems to believe that Jo is now Mrs. Lawrence. This never happens in the book and just makes for an awkward scene (like so awkward, I can't stand it.)
    
In addition to these changes, I did some scene and book comparisons where I read the dialogue from the book while watching scene clips, and hardly any of the dialogue comes from the novel. It is very modernized, but to their credit, the delivery of lines seems old-fashioned.

2019 - 2019 also made some significant changes, the biggest being the portrayal of Jo as Louisa May Alcott. So many things she says and things that happen to her especially in relation to her writing happened to Louisa, not Jo in the book. While Jo is a reflection of Louisa, she isn’t actually Louisa. This is something that tends to frustrate me, though Jo was in many ways Louisa's alter ego, she is a different person than Louisa. Louisa wrote Jo in the way she intended to and I don't think that merging the two makes for a better Jo. 
    
There are two major monologues in the movie that don’t happen in the book and I think immediately modernization the film, Amy has a monologue about how love is an economic proposition, (and then Laurie responds with the most romantic line, but this isn't the time and place to talk about that heh.) While this was very much the case in this time period, a refined woman, especially one like Amy March wouldn’t discuss this, especially not with a man. A woman's place in society wasn't anything she could fight against, and though some did, someone like Amy March who desires to be refined, marry well, and be acceptable probably wouldn't be openly taking this stance.

Jo has a monologue about women being more than just wives, and while Louisa held this view, she didn’t write about it in Little Women. The Victorian era, still placed women in the home and it wasn’t considered good to be single. The belief was that a woman's place was in the home, taking care of children, and if you weren't married you obviously didn't have children, and in many ways a woman's value was dictated on how she raised up her sons. Louisa herself was a feminist who believed in woman's rights to vote and have independent lives, but she doesn’t talk about woman's rights in her book. This is probably because she knew her book was aimed at a wide, young, female audience.
    
Another change that I noticed, though minor, is that when Jo cuts her hair for money Amy is the one who goes and comforts her instead of Meg like what happens in the book. Like I said, this is a minor change and was probably an attempt to further humanize Amy. 
  
 The proposal scene is almost (to my surprise) exact to the book, the two are walking along together, and both Jo and Laurie’s lines are taken directly from the text. This is the first adaptation to really do this which I love (the 2017 BBC kind of did it, but I don’t like the scene as much).
    
Another difference that stands out to me is that after Jo turns down Laurie, she gets incredibly lonely and decides to write a letter to him for when he comes back, accepting him. I understand that this is here for added tension in the story, but it’s just an unnecessary layer. Though in the novel Jo does say that if he were to propose again she would accept him.

Also, at the end of the movie, the girls chase down Professor Bhaer so Jo can tell him how she feels. This isn’t true to the book, but it is very exciting.
   
On doing a scene and book comparison I was shocked to find that almost every line in the scenes I watched came directly out of the book. Some older and more archaic words were removed and the delivery feels quite modern, but what they are saying is very true to the book.

Changes Both Films Made

Before I give out the points on this topic I want to talk about things both adaptations did that aren’t true to the book. Both films had a strong sense of history. By this I mean, references to the Civil War. Yes, of course it’s mentioned in the book, but in both movies they talk about it a lot more.
    
The weirdest thing that happens in both adaptations is that Jo actually writes Little Women. While in Little Men Alcott does reference Jo having written a novel about her childhood, nowhere is it directly mentioned that she wrote Little Women. This is a classic case of merging the author and the character together and I think it’s highly unnecessary.
    
Another change that is almost always made, and always bothers me, is the lack of Laurie’s musical talent. In the book, his music means as much to him as Jo’s writing means to her. He even works on an opera! In the films there is mention that he plays piano, but never goes much farther than that.
    
Both of these films also makes Laurie and Amy’s romance a surprise for the family. In the book the family knows of their engagement but not of their marriage.

Yes, I know some of these things are minor discrepancies, but when we are talking about adapting a whole, beloved novel, these really are things we have to consider.

Okay, time for points, I'm giving 1994 - 3/5 and 2019 - 4/5

If you are interested in seeing the differences between some scenes in the movie, and seeing how accurate they are, I'd highly recommend watching the video below and following along in the book.

The Role Historical Accuracy Plays (criteria #3)

I'm not going to ramble on for too long about the historical accuracies and inaccuracies in the films. Both Little Women’s are period pieces so history does play an important role. But for the sake of time, word-count, and both of our brain cells, I’m only going to go into major inaccuracies.

1994 - Although this film fell short in book accurcies, it did surprisingly well with the actual history part. An inaccuracy I mentioned before, (but will forever bother me) is Marmee’s conversation about corsets. Many modern people believe that corsets were essentially torture devices, this is simply not true. Corsets were undergarments that all women wore, I think it definitely shows that this film is from the 90's based on this little comment. (If you are interested in learning the truth about corsets I would recommend this video.)
    
I also mentioned this earlier, but Laurie promising to kiss Amy is not historically accurate. It wouldn’t have happened like that okay? It goes against all propriety of the era, and at their age, and within their religion, it is even more inappropriate.
    
Other than that though, there aren’t many obvious inaccuracies. Though the tea nerd in me would like to point out that at this period in time people in America would be drinking green tea, not black tea, sorry not sorry, it had to be pointed out at some point in this series.

2019 -  Whereas 1994 gains credibility in historical accuracy, 2019 loses some. I've already talked about some of it, the feminist monologues for example.
​
But the biggest inaccuracy (the one that drives the people on the internet mad) pertains to fashion. None of the sisters wear bonnets, hemlines in many scenes are too high, and the loose hair wasn’t how it would be worn. I am going to be talking so much about this in a later post, so I won't get into it here, but the modern take on historical fashion makes you question if this movie really is a period piece. The above picture, though lovely, is a good example of some of the fashion errors.

Other than that though, everything else seems alright.

Now for the points, I think it will be no surprise to you that 1994 wins with 4/5 points, and  2019 only gets 2/5.

That's all for this installment, let me know in the comments what you think! Do you agree with my ratings? Are there any book or historical differences that I didn't mention? Do you also get annoyed by people drinking a kind of tea that would not be accessible to them in the 19th century?

resources -
​many general sources from years of Little Women knowledge, and a year or more of research, but specifically,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Women_(1994_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Women_(2019_film)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/movies/greta-gerwig-little-women.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
​https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/movies/little-women.html
Little Women: The Offical Movie Companion by Gina Mcintyre

Belle Thomas

​Belle is the writer and dreamer behind An Old Fashioned Girl. She is passionate about reminding girls of their identity in Christ, classic books, history, Louisa May Alcott, and earl grey tea.