Before the release of the eighth film adaptation of Little Women, Valyntina and I watched two of the most popular versions adapted for the screen. The first was the 1933 film starring Katharine Hepburn and Joan Bennett, and the other being the 1994 film starring Winona Ryder and Christian Bale. After watching, we found interesting differences and similarities between the two:
Kayla: Let’s first compare the two – which did you like better?
Valyntina: Although I enjoyed both films, something about the older one really stood out to me. I thought that this film really showcased the themes of Little Women like independence, family and marriage, and societal expectations. Also, I loved how this film explored each of the March sisters’ different personalities.
Kayla: I liked the older one better as well. I haven’t read the book so I can’t really compare the two movies against it, but something about this version made me feel like I had a deeper understanding of the March sisters individually as well as their relationships.
Valyntina: I agree. I will say that the 1994 version did a better job in portraying the relationship between Jo and Laurie. In the 1994 film version, Laurie’s character is fleshed out more and we get to learn more about his personality and goals. The 1933 Laurie to me just felt like a filler character. Also, who doesn’t love a young Christian Bale?
Kayla: 1933 Laurie felt super weird to me. Maybe it was just because of the era the film was made in, but the way he talked and carried himself was very villain-y. Also like you said, he reminded me of an oil tycoon. There was nothing cute or boy-ish about that! Christian Bale and his hair wins.
Valyntina: Hell yeah! In the books, Jo is described as being a tomboyish and candid woman who doesn’t conform to society’s expectations. Did you feel like either of the film’s actresses did a good job at portraying her?
Kayla: I think both Katharine Hepburn and Winona Ryder did a great job at playing her. However, I think I prefer 1994 Jo better, just because it was more grounded in reality and is more relevant to today at least. Maybe the reason for that is because they acted just like actors would in their respective time periods, even though the book and films are set in the 1860s. What did you think about the March sisters in general? Were they better in 1933 or 1994?
Valyntina: I would say that the 1933 March sisters were better. Although the book itself focused mainly on Jo, this film did a great job at portraying each of the different sisters’ storylines. The 1994 version I felt was heavily Jo centered with the other sisters’ storylines told in a very fast-paced manner. Since you never read the book before, what film did you feel gave you a better understanding of the March girls?
Kayla: We’re on the same page with everything, LOL. The 1933 version definitely gave me a better understanding of the girls. I agree with the 1994 version being heavily centered around Jo and her aspirations as a writer and playwright. I also thought the pacing and character development overall was superior in the older film.
Valyntina: Definitely. Also, I loved the acting in the 1933 film. You know how I love the dramatics!
Kayla: You do! Let’s sum up our thoughts:
Kayla
Best Jo: Winona Ryder
Best Laurie: Christian Bale
Best March sisters: 1933 cast
Best Acting: 1994
Best Costumes: 1933
Best film version: 1933
Valyntina
Best Jo: Katharine Hepburn
Best Laurie: Christian Bale
Best March sisters: 1933 cast
Best Acting: 1933
Best Costumes: 1994
Best film version: 1933