Jo March across time
Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 9:05PM 
1919
2019
Since its original publication, Louisa May Alcott's Little Women has been one of the most beloved works of American Literature. Even beyond the US, Alcott's semiautobiographical novel has had a great impact, becoming many a young girl's beloved book for over a century. Considering such success, it's no wonder that the story of the four March sisters was quick to jump from the page to the big screen. The first cinematic adaptations way back in the silent era in 1917 and 1918.
Unfortunately, those two features have been lost, though we still have four widely available talkies based on the novel. Let's look at those four features after the jump...
As with most frequently adapted titles or long-running franchises, the iterations of Little Women have as much to do with the source material as they have with the time of their making. George Cukor's 1933 film, for instance, was a Little Women for the economic misery of the Great Depression while Mervin LeRoy's 1949 movie was made in an America looking for prosperity after the war. When Gillian Armstrong directed her take on the story, it was a film infused with the girl-power spirit of the 1990s as well as a historically accurate aesthetic born out of the past decade's worth of Merchant/Ivory prestige hits.
As for the 2019 Greta Gerwig film, it's a Little Women for the 21st century, a metatextual exploration of the narrative that willfully breaks the chronology of the novel and extends empathy to all four sisters. That last bit is especially interesting when comparing this adaptation to the ones that came before. The three previous Little Women focus on Jo March at an almost obsessive extent, making her such an attention-pulling protagonist that is near impossible to explore the lives of her sisters. In part because of that, the way each film and their actresses represent the character of Jo is a good barometer for its overall approach to the material.
Gerwig's Little Women is newly streaming on Amazon Prime, making this a good time to look back at the history of this famous character on the big screen. For brevity's sake, we'll leave off the TV versions and the anime adaptation, looking only at the four major Hollywood productions, starting with Cukor's movie in which Katharine Hepburn is Jo March.
1933 Version
Little Women came at an interesting time in Katharine Hepburn's career. After strong notices for her work in 1932's A Bill for Divorcement, RKO was hellbent in making her their next big star. 1933's Morning Glory may have been the movie that earned the actress her first Oscar, but it was Little Women that cemented her stardom. The Cukor flick was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar and features one of the actress's best early works, making great use of her idiosyncrasies to create a solid characterization of Jo.
In this movie, she's a modern woman stuck in the mid 19th century, a girl that loves her sisters but whose person is spectacularly unsuited for the present societal conventions of girlhood. Hepburn's lanky physicality, her angular visage, and forceful voice were perfect for this Jo march of the 1930s. The film may not pay a lot of attention to the other March sisters, but Hepburn's performance suggests lifelong bonds of fraternal love. This take on the character is so influential that, many decades later, Disney animators looked at Hepburn's Jo March as inspiration for their conception of Beauty and the Beast's Belle.
1949 Version
The second talkie version of Little Women is a very different affair. Instead of sober black and white emotional realism, Alcott's novel is transformed into a sugary sweet confection with dazzling Technicolor and lush costumes. The movie has its charms, including Mary Astor's noble Marmee and the delicious vanity of Elizabeth Taylor's Amy, but overall, it's the weakest of Hollywood's quartet of adaptations. It's no wonder, then, that it also features the most lackluster Jo March.
June Allyson's take on the character is as much an extension of her screen persona as Katharine Hepburn's portrayal was. The problem is that while the particularities of Hepburn were perfect for Jo, such is not the case for Allyson. The boyish enthusiasm of Jo is there, but her abrasiveness towards societal expectations seems more pointed than necessary. It also comes off as more artificial. The worst, though, is her total lack of chemistry with Peter Lawford's Laurie and how her sisterly interactions often come across as mean.
Apologies for the negativity, but it's difficult to appreciate Mervin LeRoy's movie when compared to the other adaptations.
1994
Case in point, we have the Gillian Armstrong 1994 flick which is sheer perfection. This gorgeous version of the novel may be a Little Women for the 90s, but its narrative is always anchored in a sense of material realism. That said, the character of Jo still comes off as a necessarily anachronistic presence.
Like all the actresses that have played the character on the silver screen, Winona Ryder does little to suggest a 19th-century person, preferring to perform the famous literary heroine similarly to her other contemporaneous roles. Strangely enough, this works wonderfully, playing against the historical setting in a way that feels organic rather than forced upon the narrative. (Out of the 1994 Best Actress nominees, Ryder gets my vote for her work in Little Women.)
2019
A quarter of a century later, it was Greta Gerwig's turn to reinvent the material and she cast Saoirse Ronan as her Jo March. Unlike the 1994 Little Women where Jo was at odds with the period exactitude of her surroundings, Gerwig's protagonist exists in a cinematic world befitting her temperament, where every detail seems to sprout from the characters' emotional reality. For her part, Ronan follows her director's lead, moving as a 21st-century woman and portraying Jo as a mercurial artist above all else. Her chemistry with the rest of the cast is also particularly good, making for a Little Women where Jo may be the protagonist, but no single character steals the others' spotlight.
You can stream the new Little Women on Amazon Prime. The 1994 version is available on IMDB TV and the Amazon Showtime channel. The 1949 movie is on DirecTV. Finally, Cukor's adaptation with Katherine Hepburn is on FlixFling and also DirecTV. Out of these four, who was your favorite Jo March?
Reader Comments (17)
Ryder gets my vote for the 1994 Oscar too, and Ronan would get my vote for 2019. Both very different takes on the character, but Ronan in particular elicits such emotion from me. That final shot of her watching her book's production being completed is so moving. She really is one of our most gifted actresses today.
Didn't know Hepburn was an inspiration for Belle! Very cool. Wish she'd won that Oscar for Little Women.
Ronan and Ryder would also have my votes in their line ups. Obviously I love Jo March!
For people who love this topic, I also highly recommend checking out Be Kind Rewind's YouTube video breaking down the films. All of her videos are fantastic.
Hepburn's Jo March is my personal fave.
The George Cukor version of Little Women was nominated for Best Picture. It placed third in the balloting (in that brief span of time when AMPAS released the results of voting).
Katharine Hepburn won Best Actress that year but for the melodrama Morning Glory where she played aspiring actress Eva Lovelace..
Katharine Hepburn is a definitive Jo March and her film is above the other films.
Winona as Jo doesn't move me, I need to say that, sorry. For me she is very sweet and cute throughout the film.
My favorite version is the Metro's one, being a huge fan of June Allyson. It contains my favorite Laurie (Peter Lawford, Christian Bale in second) and Amy (blonde Elizabeth Taylor). June and Peter also starred in the precursor of High School Musical, the amusing Good News (1947).
LW is a story that never really touches me in any version,it's just too chocolate boxy.
I always found the 32 year old June Allyson a bit hard to take as Jo, along with the excessive MGM gloss, in the '49 version.
I tink K Hepburn's Jo is soooo definitive to many LW's fans, it'll alws be an uphill battle for any other actress to play.
That said, Ronan's tomboyish n refreshing new take is one for the ages. Gerwig's version did sumtink so different w a beloved story everyone so familiar w is a huge gamble!! And it pays off handsomely!! Her version o LW, Jo, Amy n Laurie will alws be a brilliant companion pc to Cukor's. version.
Winona >
Never have been a Hepburn fan. But she is the best No of the four.
Ronan is a close second. This last version left me quite unemotional.
I haven't seen the latest but I have some affection for all three of the others...and some problems with each portrayal of Jo.
The Kate Hepburn version feels truest to the novel owing to it being made closest to the novel's time period and Joan Bennett is fun as Amy. I adore Spring Byington but I thought she was somewhat miscast as Marmee having to subsume her natural effervescence into the stoic demands of the role. She does well by the material but it doesn't play to her strengths. Kate's performance as Jo is strong though if I had to hear her brayingly exclaim "Christopher Columbus!" on more time I think I would have put my foot through the TV.
I'm a sucker for lush peak MGM films and they poured the sheen into the June Allyson version but despite the fact that I'm a fan of hers June at 32 is just too old to be believable as the teenage Jo she's supposed to be for the bulk of the story. She's much more comfortable by the end but her hopping and over emphasis before that is wearing. However Elizabeth Taylor is my favorite Amy, at least so far, outside of the unfortunate blonde wig (Liz was never meant to be a blonde) she's perfect casting. Vain, self involved but also sweet, kind and good-hearted much like the lady herself. Mary Astor is far closer to the Marmee of the book radiating resoluteness and warmth naturally.
The '94 version is beautiful looking, Winona makes a terrific heroine and I liked her take on Jo but as with the whole film it feels a trifle contemporary to the period it was made rather than the time of the novel. It's still a solid version and Susan Sarandon is a terrific Marmee but all of Jo's sisters are rather pallid despite being played by good actresses.
I will say that I love Aunt March in all three versions each played by a brilliant character actress, Edna May Oliver, Lucile Watson and Mary Wickes respectively, with just the right touch of vinegar and consternation. That is one reservation I have about the new version before I even see it, as fond as I am of Meryl Streep I just don't see her a fit in the role but I'll see.
What I would have LOVED to have seen was the proposed musical version that Metro was contemplating with Judy Garland as Jo and Deanna Durbin as Meg. When Universal wouldn't agree to a loan out for Deanna the idea was shelved but it would have been a fascinating thing had it worked out. Though for a star of Deanna's magnitude some major reworking would have had to happen to make Meg of equal or near equal importance to Judy's Jo which was probably the major stumbling block to MGM being able to acquire her services to begin with.
I hadn't heard about the musical version at MGM. I can understand the reasons you mention about Deanna Durbin's status That would have been incredible!
Ronan is my favourite. I love Ryder in general but I prefer her in modern pieces. Her sensibilities don’t suit all those costume dramas they put her in. The other two do nothing for me. Hepburn’s “Christopher Columbus“ goes into the hall of fame for all time worst/most grating line readings.
I'm not a big fan of Ryder, but her work in "Little Women" is... well... hands down! She's the Jo March that will forever come to my mind when I think about the novel
Hepburn was the best casting, Winona the worst...and yet, Winona's the one I love the most because she makes the character at once her own and utterly faithful to the spirit of Jo March.
And as I've said before and will keep on saying, the 1994 adaptation is still the best one, the one that packs the most emotional punch, and that will always occupy a special place in my heart.
The version of 94 is beautiful, beautiful, beautiful ...
So Considering this It is essential to steer a middle course As an editor from cipd Bahrain you can count this one which serves on screen success put her with name already got slated for couple of academy awards nominations for best supporting actress for Midnight Cowboy” and “Farewell, My Lovely,
Fantastic movie it is. Jo, the protagonist of Little Women, is a tomboyish girl who loves to write and is quite vocal. Louisa May Alcott is a major inspiration for her character. I remember a couple of years ago I watched that movie when was during my MBA Assignment Writing Help in Dubai preparation class, and wanted to watch so I Watched this movie.