grantss
Superb adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. Wonderful, moving, bitter-sweet, often funny story, beautifully told. The sense of family and sweet innocence is palpable. Makes you long for simpler times.Solid direction by Mervyn LeRoy. The film moves along at a brisk pace and is constantly engaging.Great performances all round. June Allyson is superb as Jo. Elizabeth Taylor, only 16/17 years old at the time, shows the talent that would make her one of the greatest actresses of all time. Janet Leigh, in one of her earliest roles, is great as Meg. 12-year old Margaret O'Brien almost steals the show as the sweet and precocious Beth. Solid support from Peter Lawford, Mary Astor and Rossano Brazzi.0A classic.
James Hitchcock
Louisa May Alcott's novel is not only a beloved American classic but is also well-known in Britain, so I need not repeat the plot here. Suffice it to say that it concerns the adventures of four sisters growing up in a small New England town during the Civil War, in which their father is fighting. The novel has been filmed a number of times but I have not seen any of the other films apart from the 1994 version starring Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder, and as that was many years ago I will not attempt a direct comparison. During the forties and early fifties, many films set in the Victorian period were made in black- and-white, "Dragonwyck" being an example. MGM, however, decided to make "Little Women" in Technicolor, and I think that this decision paid off. Like the British "An Ideal Husband", also from the late forties, the film can be seen as an early example of the "heritage cinema" style of film-making. Although it was filmed in a studio rather than on location, there are loving recreations of Victorian interiors and costumes, all shot in warm, rich colour. There is an emphasis on dark reds and greens, possibly because these colours were felt to be particularly appropriate to Christmas, the season during which much of the action in the first half takes place. My main complaint about the film would be its often eccentric casting. I never thought it would be possible to make the gorgeous teenage Elizabeth Taylor look unattractive, but here as Amy, in a blonde wig and too much make-up, she looks very odd indeed. As in some of her other early films the London-born Taylor struggles with an American accent, but at least she does make an effort, unlike the former England cricket captain Sir C. Aubrey Smith, who makes no effort at all and simply plays his character, old Mr. Laurence, as an upper-class British gentleman. (This was Smith's final film; he died before it was released. Professor Bhaer is played by the Italian actor Rossano Brazzi, which explains why this German professor speaks not only English but also his native language with an Italian accent and believes that his country's greatest poet had the surname "Getta". Lucile Watson makes Aunt March seem too unpleasant, and the kind heart which Aunt March is supposed to hide beneath her gruff exterior remains too well-hidden. The worst piece of miscasting, however, is that of June Allyson as Jo, probably the most important character in the story. Jo is supposed to be a teenager- her date of birth is given as 1846- so why was the 32-year- old Allyson cast in the role? Allyson was a decade older than Janet Leigh, who plays Jo's supposedly older sister Meg, and only eleven years younger than Mary Astor, who plays her mother. Jo, an independent and free-spirited girl, is often hot-tempered and impetuous, but we can forgive her because these are the sins of youth and because we admire her spirit. At least, we can forgive the Jo of the novel. Allyson's Jo is much less forgivable, if only because it is all too obvious that she is no longer in her first flush of youth, and she can come across as petulant and sharp-tongued, and also rather cruel in her treatment of her admirer Laurie. Allyson's harsh accent didn't help matters either. Taylor seemed rather weak as the vain, self-obsessed Amy, but I felt she might have made a better Jo.Leigh is better as Meg, but she is not given a very big role in this film; the best of the sisters is Margaret O'Brien who makes an endearing Beth, here played as a child although in the novel she is older than Amy. Astor is also good as "Marmee", as is Smith if one can overlook his accent. The film keeps reasonably close to Alcott's plot although there are a few minor changes. Although there are references to the Civil War, for example, the causes of that war are never mentioned. I suspect that this change would not have pleased Alcott, who held strongly anti-slavery opinions, but Hollywood producers, with an eye on the Southern box- office, were always wary of making films which might be seen as advocating the Northern cause too strongly. Overall, the film should please lovers of the novel, but I felt that it would have been improved by more appropriate casting. 6/10 An odd coincidence. When I read the book, many years ago, I was amused that Jo's first boyfriend (whose real name is Theodore Laurence) was called "Teddy" and her second "Bear", which is how Professor Bhaer's surname is pronounced, and what it means, in German. As the expression "Teddy Bear" did not exist in Alcott's lifetime this would not have struck her original readers as odd in any way, but I wonder if this was why Theodore is never referred to as "Teddy" in the film.
jarrodmcdonald-1
First, remaking the story in Technicolor seems to be a rather good idea. One does not exactly buy the March sisters being so poor and downtrodden in the Katharine Hepburn version from 1933. After all, they resided in a most affluent neighborhood and with the help of their begrudging aunt, they did not seem even remotely middle class. So if the June Allyson version seems a bit more opulent because it is in color, I can live with it, because I see them as industrious and prosperous regardless of their current circumstances. Next, the casting is almost better in this version. Margaret O'Brien is quite effective as a fragile, vulnerable and sickly sister. She should seem youngest and most helpless, even if that is not how Alcott wrote it. I found the Beth in the '33 version to be too mature and matronly. Her death was still sad but not as heartbreaking as watching little Margaret O'Brien die.
wes-connors
A miscast "Little Women", with a lot of expensive sets and photography; colorful and overproduced.Margaret O'Brien is the best of the bunch; she can actually play a "Little Woman" believably. "Christopher Columbus!" but, June Allyson looks and sounds ghastly in this role; the "older woman cast as young girl" thing worked much better in silents, with fuzzy B&W photography. Peter Lawford's tutor looks as young as his character. And, my grandmother said, "If I ever came to the breakfast table with the make-up Elizabeth Taylor has on, I'd have gotten a licking!" They age into their roles with varying success, if you keep watching.In my opinion, this movie will appeal mostly to followers of lavish period productions, or fans of a specific individual/filmmaker. I don't see how 1949's "Little Women" could be better than either the original book or another filmed version. And, why wasn't there room in the budget to dub in a decent "whistle" for Ms. Allyson? ***** Little Women (3/10/49) Mervyn LeRoy ~ June Allyson, Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter Lawford
