The Little Women Face-Off, Part 3

Hi friends! It has been quite a while since I have updated this blog post series. If you are new, I've been comparing and contrasting the 1994 and 2019 film adaptations of Little Women. If you haven't read my previous posts yet, or need a refresher, click here for part 1 and here for part 2.

This week, we're getting right back into it and discussing characters!

Characters, characters, characters. This is definitely the part I have been most excited for!

Of course the story matters, of course the book and historical actuaries matter, but what makes any story stick with us is the characters.

​I am going to compare and contrast each main character from Little Women as portrayed in the two films. I will be picking which I like better and giving points based on that. Let’s get into it (ahh I’m so excited!)

​Meg March

Meg is  the eldest and most romantic March sister. She loves domestic life and therefore is the sister who’s ambitions and dreams are primarily about getting a husband.

1994:

​ Meg was played by Trini Alvarado (mainly known for her role in this movie). Her portrayal of Meg was good, but not very impressive. She plays the soft older sister well.

In this movie she seems to exist primarily as a foil for Jo, she is simply the opposite. I do like how her relationship with Amy was portrayed, but her relationship with John Brooke wasn’t all that convincing (I also don’t really like him, but we’ll get to that soon.)

Also, after her marriage we don’t see much of her.

​Her best scene was definitely the scene at the Moffatts with Laurie, it’s one of the few scenes we see without Jo or Amy in the mix, and therefore we really get to see her shine. All in all, Trini carries herself with the confidence of an eldest sister.

​2019:

This film presents us a much more star studded cast. Meg was originally going to be played by Emma Stone (La La Land), but ended up being played by Emma Watson (Harry Potter).
Random aside, I just learned that Watson was supposed to play Mia in La La Land. Seems like these two Emma's keep trading places.

Anyways, Emma’s portrayal of Meg is really well done, she acts as the mediator between Jo and Amy, but she also has her own disagreements with each of them. She isn’t as much of a leader as I think Meg should be, but she plays the romantic side of Meg really well. 

Her romance with John is really well done, and I love how the film portrays the motherhood side of Meg as well as the sisterhood side. Her best scene is probably the scene between her and Jo right before her wedding when she says that just because they have different dreams, doesn't mean that her dreams of being a wife and mother are bad. Though it is a little preachy, the dynamic is great, and I love her delivery.

The color palette they have Emma in really does not look very good on her, lime green is just not her color, but her wedding dress and flower crown make her look like the dream bride.​

The Meg point in my opinion has to go to 2019. Emma Watson plays Meg so well, showing her as a girl and a woman with more traditional dreams, but not disqualifying them.

​Jo March

The main character according to most people, free spirited, tomboyish, writerly and passionate. Jo is pretty much everyone’s favorite character.

​1994:

The condition for Columbia pictures making the film was that Winona Ryder (Edward Scissorhands) would play the role of Jo. I think Winona did a really good job in her role. She portrays an ambitious, spunky, and fiery Jo. Everything about her portrayal is almost perfect, the only thing I don’t like is she’s just too pretty. Jo is supposed to be awkward and tall, Ryder is gorgeous and short. 

I love how she delivers her lines, there is so much emotion there. Her chemistry with Christain Bale (Laurie) is really good as is her connection with Clare Dane (Beth), though I think there could be a deeper connection with Meg and Amy. 

This movie stars her, she is the highlight. 
  
She doesn't have the best scene, they’re all her best.

2019:

When Saiorse Ronan (Lady Bird) heard that Greta Gerwig was working on Little Women, she walked up to Gerwig at an awards show and said “I know you’re doing Little Women. And I know Jo is going to be in it. And I think I should be Jo.” Ronan thought right, she also did a fantastic job as Jo. She portrays the boyish, passionate, fiercely loyal side of Jo really well. I love the conviction she speaks and acts with.

Like Ryder I think Ronan is simply too pretty to be Jo, and she is a blonde. Her relationships with her “sisters” are all really good. I love how she defends her sisters. She also had really good chemistry with Laurie (Timothee Chalamet) probably since they have played opposite before, but her chemistry with Professor Bhaer (Louis Garrel) wasn’t as strong.

I want to own and wear all of her costumes even though she doesn’t wear a corset, they just speak to me.
    
​Again, she doesn't have a best scene, she always fantastic.

I love both of these portrayals of Jo, but ultimately the point has to go to 1994, you just can’t beat Winona Ryder as Jo.

​Beth March

Beth is the quiet, angel-like sister who has the most tragic story. She is the character who I shed my first literary tears for.

​1994:

Claire Danes (Romeo + Juliet) made her film debut as Beth March. Her Beth does a very good job of portraying the sweet and meditating side of this character. Her death scene is really weird and unsettling though, I always cringe a little when I watch it. But yet, it always makes me cry. She also seems too tall to be Beth, but overall, she does a pretty good job. 

​2019:

 For 2019, we got a redheaded Beth - Eliza Scanlen (Sharp Objects).

​Eliza’s Beth leans really into the shy side of the character and we get a lot less of the sweet side of her. Many times when she speaks it feels very awkward. I feel like for this adaptation they interpreted Beth as socially awkward instead of quiet.

​Her death scene is more tasteful, and I really love the scene with her and Jo on the beach, though some of the emotional depth is lost due to the non-linear timeline. But that’s not Eliza’s fault.

Honestly, Beth is such a hard character, how do you portray a shy character without making them silent and awkward? My personal favorite Beth is actually the one from the 2017 BBC mini-series. I feel like that’s the only adaptation that makes her the way she should be.

​This is a really hard decision for me, I think I’m going to have to leave it as a draw, let me know in the comments which you prefer, the one that gets the most votes will be the one who gets the point.

Amy March​

Amy is often interpreted as a girly crybaby. But she is also an artist with grand ambitions. 

​1994:

 This is the only film adaptation to employ two actresses to play Amy, Kirsten Dunst (Spiderman) as young Amy, and Samantha Mathis as grown Amy. This works… kind of. I really love Kirsten’s portrayal of a young Amy, she’s annoying and yet endearing because at the end of the day she’s a blonde little girl. But the transition between actresses makes it hard to keep connecting with Amy.

​I feel like you have to re-get to know Amy in the second half of the movie. Her personality changes so much, we have young Amy who is silly, ambitious, annoying, and really a great character. Then we have grown Amy who feels proper, remote, and talented. Mathis’s chemistry with Chrisitan Bale was unsatisfying as well. 

​2019:

In 2019, they went the one actress route. Florence Pugh (Lady Macbeth) took on the challenge of playing Amy. Her playing both young and old Amy gave us another problem, she seems just too old to play the silly, annoying child Amy. She’s tall, and has a womanly figure and deep voice. 

But she carries the movie in her grown up role. We see that same young Amy reflected in this more mature, womanly person. This movie gave Amy her own mind, it made her be more of a character to respect.

​ Her chemistry with Timothee Chalamet is really good too. This is possibly the only adaptation that has fans cheering for Amy and Laurie. This movie turned Amy from a one-dimensional younger sister, to a girl we can all aspire to be.

​I haven’t found a perfect Amy yet, I’m still looking. But for the sake of this debate, I am giving the points to 2019. Florence Pugh did a spectacular job with the role, the only weak point was that she had to play a child.

​Marmee

The wise and understanding mother of the girls. Marmee is the most comforting character in the world.

​1994:

In this movie Susan Sarandon (Enchanted) played Marmee. She was the perfect age to play the mother of a bunch of teenage girls and I love the way you can see her relationship with each of her daughters. The delivery of all of her lines were so good. She feels very wise, but yet we can understand that she’s a human too.

Laura Dern (Jurassic World) tried her hand at Marmee in this adaptation. She felt too young to be Marmee, and I didn’t sense a deep connection with the girls. Her lines were very well written, but her delivery felt far too contemporary. She also lost a lot of her wisdom in this portrayal. She has this really awkward line when Mr. March returns from the war where she says “Now I can be mad at you in person,” which feels like the most un-Marmee thing to say.

I think it’s pretty easy to guess where these points are going - 1994!

Theodore Lawrence (Laurie)

​The ultimate boy next door. Laurie is the March’s closest friend, Jo’s partner in crime, and the brother they never had. Let the mudslinging begin

​1994:

(this image is very random but it made me smile.)

To round out the very 1990’s cast, the choice was made to have Christian Bale (The Dark Knight) play Laurie. His portrayal of Laurie is very fun and casual, he has great chemistry with Winona Ryder and Trini Alvarado, but his chemistry with Claire Dane and Kirsten/Samantha is lacking.

Also, as I previously mentioned, his promise to kiss Amy before she dies feels very un-Laurie like. Bale’s Laurie isn’t as lazy as Laurie is portrayed in the book either.

At many points he seems too old as well, he’s supposed to be 15, but he seems much older. He also doesn't have the Laurie look with his long light brown hair in my third least favorite haircut of all time, the pageboy.
    
I think he plays the character well, but he doesn’t embody Laurie for me (though when I was younger I had a copy of the Little Women movie novelization and thought he was so very handsome.) 
    
​A lot of his lines sound almost rude such as “I have loved you ever since I clapped eyes on you”, and he delivers them with a lot of breath if that makes sense? I don’t think it does, but there is just something off about his delivery.

This Laurie definitely feels younger, teenage heartthrob might be another good word to describe him (if you know, you know). 2019’s Laurie was portrayed by Timothee Chalamet (Dune). His Laurie really fits in with the March crowd and his chemistry with Saiorse Ronan is really good. You definitely see him pursuing her romantically, and her being completely oblivious. He has good chemistry with Meg and Amy as well, but hardly any with Beth. 
    
Looks wise, he almost perfectly fits my interpretation of Laurie, handsome, yet a bit awkward, and he feels the right age for the character. In this movie, we also see a nice connection between him and Marmee, his relationship with John Brooke also feels very realistic.
    
All of his lines are delivered well, complete with voice breaks that for some reason really make his emotion filled character work. I also love how it portrays his downward spiral after being turned down by Jo. 
    
​I only wish we had a little more time with him and Jo as children.

Everyone has very fierce opinions on this, but I have to go with my gut (and with which character is most like Lauire in the book), so the point goes to 2019. Christian Bale plays Laurie, Timothee Chalamet is Laurie. I am now going to duck to avoid the rotten vegetables being thrown at my head.

John Brooke

John is Laurie’s tutor, and Meg’s future husband. He’s quiet, strong, and dependable. 

1994:

(look at Laurie in the background XD)

In this adaptation John was played by Eric Stoltz (Back To The Future). Script wise John wasn’t in the movie very much, and honestly there is more that I dislike about him than like.

For one, he is a redhead with a pageboy haircut (the same cut Christian Bale sports in this movie), he is very quiet, not silent and stoic like John should be, but just soft. He feels very awkward and not the chivalrous type you would expect Meg to marry.

​ Also, he doesn't have great chemistry with Laurie or Meg which sort of defeats the purpose of him being in the movie.

James Norton played opposite Emma Watson in the 2019 film. Looks wise his John was much more like what I envisioned. He also plays the character really well, he is a mentor to Laurie though Laurie drives him crazy, he shows his devotion to the March family, and he plays the role of a loving husband very well. His line delivery and the way he carries himself are also great.

Obviously, the point goes to 2019.

Mr. March

 Gone for the first half of the story, Mr. March is a war chaplain who cares deeply for his wife and four daughters.

1994:

Matthew Walker played Mr. March in this adaptation, he looked the part, with his gray beard and kind old face. The few lines he had were well delivered and we definitely see his connection with his daughters.

In 2019 Bob Odenkirk played Mr. March. His portrayal (like Laura Dern’s) seemed to forget that this film is a period piece. He seemed so very modern, and all of his lines felt like lines, if you know what I mean.

This is quite easy, the point goes to 1994.

​Aunt March

​She’s the girl’s widowed great-aunt who is grumpy, old, and irritated at the world. Despite her crusty exterior, she grows to love Amy, eventually taking her to Europe.

​1994

 Mary Wicket (White Christmas) was quite old when she took on the role of Aunt March. Her age lent very well to the role of Aunt March, though many things she did just seemed old, not mean. She played the role well, but didn’t stand out very much to me.

2019

This Aunt March on the other hand practically carried the film. That’s what happens when you hire Meryl Streep. She was everything you could want in an Aunt March, persnickety, judgy, refined, and also just an old Aunt. She had great chemistry with Florence Pugh which also just elevated her performance to an elite level. (Can you tell I like Meryl Streep?)

I think you can guess where this one goes...

​Professor Bhaer

An immigrant professor Jo meets at a boarding house in New York whom she later falls in love with. ​

​1994:

Professor Bhaer is played by Gabrliel Byrne in this adaptation. He plays a professor who seems to be in his late 30’s. He’s kind and handsome as well. His chemistry with Ryder is good, btu he doesn’t add much to the movie.

​2019:

Louis Garrel, a famous french actor was cast as the professor. He plays the character well as a new immigrant, confessing that he does not know English well. He is a bit young in my opinion to be the professor, but he plays a kind man and does a good job in the role. Though he may be a touch too awkward.

I think for this, the point goes to 1994.

​The other two prominent figures that I could discuss are Mr. Lawrence and Hannah, but I think both films did a good job with these characters, so I’m not going to waste time discussing them.

That's all for this edition of The Little Women Face-Off. Let me know what you think, which characters do you prefer, and do you agree with my choices? Do you have a dream casting outside of these adaptations?

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.