Nearly fifty years passed after “Little Women” (1949) before Columbia Pictures stepped onto the scene in 1994 with a fresh, new take on the novel. They had a star-studded cast and a director who wasn’t a man — what could go wrong? Pretty much nothing, as it turns out. My own personal attachments to this movie aside, it’s an objectively quality film.
The Good
The easiest way to understand the heart of “Little Women” (1994) is by listening to the score. It has a gentleness that manages to feel both fresh and old-fashioned. When you listen to the film’s main title, it’s hard not to fall in love with the March sisters and their cozy little world. The score’s mix of newness and nostalgia is the perfect reflection of the film’s wider intentions it presents a distinctly feminist and fast-paced take on the novel with all the original story’s warmth.
Winona Ryder (“Heathers”) is a confident, bright-eyed Jo and Christian Bale (“The Dark Knight”) complements her fairly well as a handsome, gentlemanly Laurie. For the first time, all of the sisters feel like they’re given relative care and attention in the script. Meg (Trini Alvarado, “Stella”) is given time to flirt with and dream about John Brooke (Eric Stoltz, “Pulp Fiction”) and Beth (Claire Danes, “Romeo + Juliet”) has space to play her piano and try her hand at the wider world. In this adaptation, Amy is played by two actresses. Kirsten Dunst (“Marie Antoinette”) starts the film as an endearing 12-year-old Amy. Later, Samantha Mathis (“Broken Arrow”) takes over as a well-spoken, poised adult Amy. It’s a smart move that makes Amy’s early, petulant behavior more understandable — of course a little kid is going to be annoying sometimes. It also makes Amy and Laurie’s eventual romance more compelling. In other adaptations, it’s strange to see the same actress play both a child and Laurie’s viable romantic interest. This film’s ability to avoid that uncomfortable jump in logic boosts its watchability immensely.
Of all the brilliant actors, the best performance is undeniably Susan Sarandon (“Thelma and Louise”) as Marmee. Marmee’s role is tricky — she can easily become a generic mother character. Sarandon manages to be both nurturing and resolute, making her entirely believable as the boisterous March family’s fearless leader.
| Every Marmee Performance, Ranked | |
| 1 | Susan Sarandon (1994) |
| 2 | Laura Dern (2019) |
| 3 | Spring Byington (1933) |
| 4 | Mary Astor (1949) |
The Bad
The most heinous choice “Little Women” (1994) made was casting Stoltz as John Brooke He’s a perfectly fine actor, but he feels far too old and uncharismatic to be paired romantically with Meg.
The other unfortunate part of the film is the relationship between Laurie and Jo. Their relationship is far too romantic. When Laurie proposes to Jo, he actually kisses her — and she kisses back. It makes Jo’s rejection of the proposal less compelling and made Laurie feel sleazier than he should. His character becomes doubly uncomfortable when he proposes marriage to Amy — the two are in an argument when he goes in for the first kiss with her. Laurie’s evident desire to kiss every single March sister is strange and adds little to the film.
| Every Laurie Performance, Ranked | |
| 1 | Timothèe Chalamet (2019) |
| 2 | Douglass Montgomery (1933) |
| 3 | Christian Bale (1994) |
| 4 | Peter Lawford (1949) |
The Revolutionary
This version of “Little Women” is wildly different from its predecessors. It’s a product of modern Hollywood. It’s accessible and far more watchable than the previous two “Little Women” films, an easy entry point into the story for people unfamiliar with the novel. It’s also the first of the films not to be entirely shot in a studio, instead filmed on-location in restored 19th-century homes.
“Little Women” (1994) also features several iconic book scenes that hadn’t yet been shown on film. The Amy ice skating sequence, the pickled limes debacle and Meg’s foray into high society all get their first translation on screen. They’re fun subplots that make the movie feel more about all of the March sisters and less about Jo specifically. I also appreciated this film’s version of the Jo haircut scene. In other adaptations, she ends up with a horrifically shorn head, but “Little Women” (1994) gives Winona Ryder a normal bob instead. It feels more historically accurate — it’s hard to believe any woman in the 1860s would leave a hairdresser with an entirely botched haircut.
This was also the first “Little Women” adaptation to be directed by a woman. “Little Women” was a revolutionary novel because it centered around the lives of young women in a male-dominated literary world. It, therefore, feels appropriate for film adaptations to be handled and crafted by women — especially in the male-dominated film industry. Gillian Armstrong (“High Tide”) does a lovely job directing, and it feels good to watch a version of “Little Women” in line with the feminist spirit of the source material.
Daily Arts Writer Lola D’Onofrio can be reached at lolad@umich.edu.