osprey_archer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
osprey_archer) wrote2022-06-09 03:16 pm
osprey_archer) wrote2022-06-09 03:16 pm
Entry tags:
Little Women (1994)
Back on my bullshit watching all the Hollywood adaptations of Little Women! Distressed to inform you that I apparently never reviewed the 1933 Katherine Hepburn Little Women, which is unfortunate, as that is the main point of reference to which I intended to compare the 1994 Winona Ryder version.
In particular, it’s interesting that the 1933 version leans way harder on the Jo the tomboy characterization than 1994. Possibly this says something about the complicated development of gender roles over the twentieth century, but it’s also possible that it just comes down to the different energy the actresses brought to the part. Hepburn was BORN to play rowdy tomboy Jo, whereas Ryder comes across as more of a gamine.
This version also HELLA ships Jo/Laurie. Christian Bale plays Laurie with an adorable goofy energy that is an amazing foil for Jo’s silly sense of humor; the screen lights up whenever they’re together. However, for all that the movie ships Jo/Laurie, they are clearly doing their best by Professor Bhaer. He is old enough to be her father, but if you follow the book, that’s inevitable (not everyone has heard the gospel of Hot Young Professor Bhaer); and he’s kind-hearted and thoughtful, and criticizes her writing mainly because he feels that she’s capable of work better than the derivative stories she’s currently writing.
There’s an interesting parallel here between Jo & Laurie & Amy: Laurie comments that both he and Amy are making second-rate copies of others’ work, similar to Jo’s derivative stories at this point. The difference is that Jo keeps writing and finds her own voice, whereas Laurie and Amy both quit when the going gets tough.
(On the art theme, there’s also an interesting moment where Laurie complains that Jo can scribble all day if she wants, where he’s supposed to chuck his music in favor of business, and Jo points out that society is not all that thrilled about women writers… It’s interesting to reflect that in 19th century America, art isn’t really an appropriately gendered activity for either men or women; hence the recurring image of artists as “long-haired men and short-haired women.”)
Given the Jo/Laurie angle, you might imagine the film would have a down on Amy, but actually its portrayal is sympathetic (particularly young Amy, played by Kirsten Dunst; you don’t cast Kirsten Dunst if you want audiences to dislike a character). The 1933 and 1949 films are both basically Jo’s story; the 1994 version is more interested in the sisters as a group. In particular, it’s the first film to include the scene where Amy burns Jo’s book, nearly prompting a lasting rift until Amy falls through the ice and Jo saves her.
However, the fiery passion with which the filmmakers ship Jo/Laurie does mean that they don’t really sell Amy/Laurie. The actress cast for grown-up Amy is very mannered, and in the scenes where he interacts with her, Laurie seems stiff, too. This has to be intentional - he’s essentially playing the part of a fop, trying to bury his broken heart beneath silly flirtations - but the stiffness doesn’t sell them as a happy couple.
Not least because it’s coupled with a speech by Laurie about how he’s always known he’s meant to be part of the March family, suggesting that he would marry any available March girl if he can’t have Jo! He walks this back later - at least, he SAYS that he’s interested in Amy, not her family - but is he? Is he REALLY. Are we 100% convinced he wouldn’t kill off John Brooke and marry Meg if no other March girl were available?
(Speaking of John Brooke, this movie just takes the poor man apart. He’s so dippy! Walking home with Meg all “I don’t approve of women in the theater!” He comes across as extraordinarily priggish and it’s impossible to see what Meg sees in him.)
Whenlittlerhymes and I were reading Little Women, littlerhymes suggested that what Jo and Laurie REALLY needed was a twenty-first century style courtship: they both go off to college and spend their twenties meeting other people and doing other things, and when they are about thirty they meet again and realize that they have grown up enough that they actually could make it work at this point.
This, at any rate, is absolutely the energy that Winona Ryder and Christian Bale bring to these parts. In fact, they may not have needed to wait till they're thirty: Jo’s heart is already changing by the end of the movie. After Beth dies, Jo writes to Laurie, saying (in voiceover) “Come home to us”; but, significantly, that’s not what the letter on the screen says. It says, “Come home to me.”
You wonder if they changed the voiceover after realizing it would be Just Too Tragic to have Laurie come home married to Amy after Jo sends him a letter asking him to come back to her. The film puts enough effort into establishing Jo and Professor Bhaer’s compatibility that you feel they may be happy even if he was her second choice; but you have to wonder if Laurie and Amy won’t be kicking themselves in a year.
In particular, it’s interesting that the 1933 version leans way harder on the Jo the tomboy characterization than 1994. Possibly this says something about the complicated development of gender roles over the twentieth century, but it’s also possible that it just comes down to the different energy the actresses brought to the part. Hepburn was BORN to play rowdy tomboy Jo, whereas Ryder comes across as more of a gamine.
This version also HELLA ships Jo/Laurie. Christian Bale plays Laurie with an adorable goofy energy that is an amazing foil for Jo’s silly sense of humor; the screen lights up whenever they’re together. However, for all that the movie ships Jo/Laurie, they are clearly doing their best by Professor Bhaer. He is old enough to be her father, but if you follow the book, that’s inevitable (not everyone has heard the gospel of Hot Young Professor Bhaer); and he’s kind-hearted and thoughtful, and criticizes her writing mainly because he feels that she’s capable of work better than the derivative stories she’s currently writing.
There’s an interesting parallel here between Jo & Laurie & Amy: Laurie comments that both he and Amy are making second-rate copies of others’ work, similar to Jo’s derivative stories at this point. The difference is that Jo keeps writing and finds her own voice, whereas Laurie and Amy both quit when the going gets tough.
(On the art theme, there’s also an interesting moment where Laurie complains that Jo can scribble all day if she wants, where he’s supposed to chuck his music in favor of business, and Jo points out that society is not all that thrilled about women writers… It’s interesting to reflect that in 19th century America, art isn’t really an appropriately gendered activity for either men or women; hence the recurring image of artists as “long-haired men and short-haired women.”)
Given the Jo/Laurie angle, you might imagine the film would have a down on Amy, but actually its portrayal is sympathetic (particularly young Amy, played by Kirsten Dunst; you don’t cast Kirsten Dunst if you want audiences to dislike a character). The 1933 and 1949 films are both basically Jo’s story; the 1994 version is more interested in the sisters as a group. In particular, it’s the first film to include the scene where Amy burns Jo’s book, nearly prompting a lasting rift until Amy falls through the ice and Jo saves her.
However, the fiery passion with which the filmmakers ship Jo/Laurie does mean that they don’t really sell Amy/Laurie. The actress cast for grown-up Amy is very mannered, and in the scenes where he interacts with her, Laurie seems stiff, too. This has to be intentional - he’s essentially playing the part of a fop, trying to bury his broken heart beneath silly flirtations - but the stiffness doesn’t sell them as a happy couple.
Not least because it’s coupled with a speech by Laurie about how he’s always known he’s meant to be part of the March family, suggesting that he would marry any available March girl if he can’t have Jo! He walks this back later - at least, he SAYS that he’s interested in Amy, not her family - but is he? Is he REALLY. Are we 100% convinced he wouldn’t kill off John Brooke and marry Meg if no other March girl were available?
(Speaking of John Brooke, this movie just takes the poor man apart. He’s so dippy! Walking home with Meg all “I don’t approve of women in the theater!” He comes across as extraordinarily priggish and it’s impossible to see what Meg sees in him.)
When
littlerhymes and I were reading Little Women, littlerhymes suggested that what Jo and Laurie REALLY needed was a twenty-first century style courtship: they both go off to college and spend their twenties meeting other people and doing other things, and when they are about thirty they meet again and realize that they have grown up enough that they actually could make it work at this point. This, at any rate, is absolutely the energy that Winona Ryder and Christian Bale bring to these parts. In fact, they may not have needed to wait till they're thirty: Jo’s heart is already changing by the end of the movie. After Beth dies, Jo writes to Laurie, saying (in voiceover) “Come home to us”; but, significantly, that’s not what the letter on the screen says. It says, “Come home to me.”
You wonder if they changed the voiceover after realizing it would be Just Too Tragic to have Laurie come home married to Amy after Jo sends him a letter asking him to come back to her. The film puts enough effort into establishing Jo and Professor Bhaer’s compatibility that you feel they may be happy even if he was her second choice; but you have to wonder if Laurie and Amy won’t be kicking themselves in a year.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I am incredibly fond of Gabriel Byrne's Professor Bhaer and also of the fact that Byrne desperately wanted to be part of the production because Little Women was one of his favorite childhood novels.
no subject
This is the only version that has ever sold me on Professor Bhaer being sexy. Truly inspired casting.
no subject
Courtesy of this very handy fansite:
"Casting for the male characters proved to be a serious challenge, because few American actors were interested in the sentimental, woman-centered film. However, one actor, Irish-born Gabriel Byrne, kept calling Armstrong to be considered. Although Armstrong could not picture him as either the young Laurie or the German professor Friedrich Bhaer, she agreed to see him because he was so persistent. Armstrong recalls: 'Gabriel said, "My mother read Little Women to me and my siblings. It was like the Beatles – we all fought over who was our favorite March girl."' His enthusiasm won him the part of Professor Bhaer."
This is the only version that has ever sold me on Professor Bhaer being sexy. Truly inspired casting.
The opera and the politics don't hurt, but neither does, you know—
no subject
no subject
no subject
This role was my introduction to Byrne; it wasn't just you.
no subject
That IS a super cute reason for him to be part of the movie. Clearly it's a good thing Armstrong eventually gave him the part!
no subject
no subject
I am not the world's best person at ages, but I hadn't, either. I suppose the actors don't look it.
(This conversation is slightly funny because I was literally just thinking that over the last two years maybe I have developed enough grey hair that people will stop assuming I am a grad student, which was occurring as late as 2019 and not actually flattering; it made me feel like Schmendrick the Magician.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Winona and Christian, do a movie together...
no subject
Winona Ryder and Christian Bale should consider Little Women II, a sequel where Professor Bhaer has died after a happy life, and Amy has run off to Paris to be a scandalous artist and have fifteen lovers, and Jo and Laurie have a second chance romance.
no subject