27 Little Women: A Tale as Old as Time…and One that Transcends It – Amanda Brown

Little Women: A Tale as Old as Time…and One that Transcends It

What is it about certain novels that make people reach for them time and time again? Is it a great storyline? Is it the loveable and relatable characters? Is it the theme or message? Perhaps it is all three. Whatever the reason, there is no denying that some novels outperform others in the fight for relevance and longevity. They transcend time, they span generations, and if they are popular enough, they get adapted into a film. So, what does it say about the novel that is adapted for the screen multiple times. Is it a testament to the author’s work or is Hollywood merely running out of ideas? Little Women is a beloved novel that has been adapted for the screen repeatedly. With themes of family, goodness, and feminism at its foundation, Little Women is a novel that will continue to be adapted for generations because each generation can see themselves in the characters and their struggles, and still bring their modern-day issues and concerns to Louisa May Alcott’s characters in their adaptations while keeping the original spirit of the novel.

There are many shared elements between novel and film. Margaret Mackey in the article “Little Women Go to Market” argues that “Nearly all those who encounter a story like Little Women know that there are alternative versions readily available, and many will look for different tellings on purpose” (155). This furthers the idea that with each adaptation of the film, and sometimes adaptation of the novel, a new perspective is born, giving more audience members something to identify with. The same shared elements mentioned above contribute to the success of each and are the very thing that draws readers and viewers alike. In Timothy Corrigan’s article “Themes, Narratives, and Elements of Style,” Corrigan gives introduction to a broad scope of terms, used in the literary and film adaptations that are used to help us better understand what the author or auteur’s intentions are with their works of art. It is these elements that make up the work and give us the foundation for dissecting and digesting adaptations and their predecessors, whether they be novel or previous screen adaptations.

Something that the novel and all adaptations have in common is a theme. As it was stated in Corrigan’s article, “Whether in film or literature, a theme or motif identifies the main idea or ideas developed in that work. This is not necessarily the same as a moral or message, although often themes and motifs are a way of focusing what the work is ‘about'” (Corrigan 80). The novel touches on quite a few themes, some of which are duty to one’s family vs. duty to oneself, conforming to the expectations of the typical 19th century woman vs. Defining one’s own womanhood/being independent, transcendence and morality, and gender stereotypes. Each film adaptation addresses themes as well and though many are shared with the novel, each auteur picks and chooses exactly which ones to focus on and to what extent. The 1949 adaptation only “lightly” touches on the feminist themes through protagonist Jo voicing her disappoint at being born female and declaring she will never marry and wants to be a famous writer so she can make money and live independently and then that is it. For example, in the opening scenes while the girls are discussing their “burdens” brought on by their more recent foray with poverty and they are discussing their hopes and wishes, Jo can be heard declaring that she wants to be a famous writer one day, but this adaptation has less of a serious focus on her writing. Another example is a scene where Jo can be seen in the attic, crying, and reading her own story, when Beth comes up to let her know Laurie is there to see her. Jo responds by saying I told him to leave me alone. I am writing and do not have time for him and proceeds to go out the window and shimmy down the side of the house to avoid Laurie. However, Laurie manages to follow her into town and is waiting for her when she finishes her errand around her writing. But there is no mention of Jo’s precious manuscript as a constant and evolving work of art and therefore no room for the dramatic scene where it is burned, a pivotal moment for Jo and Amy’s character development. Director Mervyn Leroy chooses to instead focus on the romance and domestic realism, a nod to the “post World War II antifeminist ideology that sought to remove women from the workforce and reinstate them in the home” (McCallum 84). A move fitting for this time, as women were no longer “needed” to keep the workforce going and the jobs they once held during the war were now “needed” for the men returning home.

 In her paper “The Present Reshaping the Past Reshaping the Present: Film Versions of Little Women”, Robyn McCallum addresses what each new adaptation brings to the table saying, “Each successive film version has reshaped Alcott’s story of female maturation according to changing ideological forces that shape women’s lives” and the 1994 adaptation follows suit with more of a focus on the feminist issues that readers so often identify with. Something that sometimes presents a challenge for modern day filmmakers as McCallum mentions because Alcott’s feminism is in the context of the mid nineteenth century and shaped by that society in terms of their content and articulation (84). For example, the scene where Laurie and the girls are outside playing around and Marmee and Meg walk up carrying firewood. Mr. Brooke makes a comment to Marmee about how spirited her girls are, and she later responds with a comment about women not wearing corsets, a nod to nonconformity of the ideals of the 19th century women. However, In the 1994 adaptation unlike the 1949 adaptation, there is more of a focus on the transcendental values like in the novel. One of the scenes where this is displayed is when Jo and Professor Bhaer are getting to know each other at the boarding house and he discovers Jo is familiar with one his German sayings and brings up the movement and she tells him that she comes from a family of transcendentalist, mirroring Alcott’s real life. With the 1949 adaptation continuing to steer away from anything that did not further the message of women staying in the home and the possible budding romances between the March girls and the young gentleman of the novel, we lose the focus on morality and the inherent goodness of the transcendentalist. The focus on gender stereotypes in the 1994 adaptation is seen not only through the eyes of Josephine March who longs to be a writer, something typically reserved for men but also through the eyes of Theodore Laurence who longs play music, something that was typically attributed to women. One can argue the difference in the “focus” of each film could be attributed to the time in which they were made. In contrast to this Amy relished her femininity and gender identity. Stephanie Foote addresses this in her article “Resentful Little Women: Gender and Class Feeling in Louisa May Alcott” saying, “In her investment in her own gender—her love of clothes and her own beauty—Amy is Jo’s antithesis. Jo’s divestment in her gender role is perhaps her most pronounced personal characteristic, and it is certainly the characteristic that has most persuaded her fans that she, rather than any of her sisters, is the most compelling site of readerly identification” (9). As times change, so do the things that people value and think are most important. An adaptation done in 1994 would be more inclined to highlight gender stereotypes in an equal way acknowledging the fact that men and women both are subjected to gender stereotypes, as well as a focus on feminism, while spending less time something like transcendentalism in an era where morals and religion are just as touchy a subject as politics.

A second element of the novel and film that has had readers and viewers captivated for so long are the characters created by Alcott, based on Alcott herself and her sisters. Corrigan describes characters as those individuals that populate and propel stories, plays, movies, and even poems (81) and the March sisters have propelled this body of work right into the 21st century. Fans of both works often see themselves in at least one of the characters, something that has added to the population’s attachment to each. Much like themes and motifs each adaptation has taken the characters themselves and modified them to fit the ideals important to women in the time the film was made. Corrigan makes an important observation in that “When a film adapts a literary character, much is at stake. A character’s appearance which is originally grounded in words or in a reader’s imagination, is made visible in a movie, and this is a frequent source of confusion or dissatisfaction in measuring a film against its literary source” (81). Josephine March, beloved heroine of the novel, has seen quite a few portrayals in her day. In the 1949 adaptation, McCallum points out that June Allyson’s Jo is “made to look silly and clumsy”, “frequently falling flat on her face when she tries jump fences, becoming the object of humor, and her efforts at financial independence are belittled. Thus, her boyishness is depicted as a childish affectation that she will grow out of” (p.86). The very first scene in the movie Jo can be seen arriving home, jumping over the fence, and falling flat on her face while her sisters watch on from the window full of glee at Jo’s mishap. Jo can be heard lamenting her fate of being born a woman throughout the film and another example of this and her “boyishness” can be seen right after she enters the home in the first scene where her sister Meg tells her she should not continue behaving the way she does now that she “pins her hair up.” To which Jo responds she hates pinning her hair up and would wear her hair in two pigtails forever if she could to keep from growing up, followed by her plopping down on a chair and proclaiming she should have been born a boy. In contrast to Jo’s tomboy persona in the 1949 adaptation, McCallum points out that in Gillian Armstrong’s adaptation “Jo’s tomboyishness is played down” and “she is characterized instead with a girlish wildness and lack of ladylike manners”. Gone are the hopping fences and literal ripping and running of earlier adaptations.

A third and crucial element contributing to the longevity of the art is the story or plot. Corrigan tells us that “film borrows most heavily from the forms and practices of short stories, novels, and plays, all of which tend to tell stories. Stories are commonly what literature and movies might share, as they provide basic materials, from fact or fiction, about events, lives, characters, and their motivations” (83). This element is not exempt from filmmakers taking it and making it its own for the time in which it was made. Leroy’s adaptation goes in chronological order like its predecessor and successor but does not stick to the bildungsroman. We do not get the character development seen in the novel or in Armstrong’s version. The former’s main storyline being the romance or lack thereof between the two main characters Jo and Laurie, pushing most other important storylines from the novel to the wayside to make room for it. Because this is a movie made after World War II, it can be argued that people just wanted to be entertained, not preached to, or lectured, which would account for a focus on the “shiny parts” of the story. But in his attempt to make a movie that would resonate with a post-World War II audience, Mervyn Leroy’s adaptation lost many of the scenes that were pivotal to our characters development like Amy burning Jo’s manuscript or Amy falling through the ice shortly after and Jo being so blind with rage that she could hardly save her, making the throw away of bildungsroman inevitable. In including these scenes, Armstrong adaptation allows us to see each of the growth and development of each of the girls through her storyline. In keeping more in line with novel, this adaptation shows both scenes mentioned above, including the scene after both events have happened and Jo has a talk with Marmee about her anger and it scares her the things she might do while “in a passion,” with Marmee letting her know that she too is angry daily but has learned to control it allowing Jo to see that they are more alike than different. Corrigan noting that “where film and literature often part ways is in the narrative construction of those stories through a plot, which presents those events in a certain order (either chronological or not), and a narration that shapes and colors that plot with a certain point of view (p.83). Reinforcing the fact that the way the directors choose to present the plot to the audience frames the way they view the story and depending on which medium they experienced first, sometimes the novel as well.

So why is it so important that we take a closer look at these film adaptations in the first place? With four feature film adaptations and more if you count mini-series, is it necessary to look at each one? In short, the answer is yes for the exact reasons talked about in the previous paragraphs. With every new adaptation, filmmakers bring something new to the forefront, specifically something that encompasses the attitudes and ideals of the society at the time the film was made. In John C. Tibbets & James M. Welsh’s introduction article “Why study film adaptations of novels?” they touch on the humble beginnings of literature turned film saying they were “at best, simplifications, and substitutes for a viewing public that was, in many quarters, at least semi-literate; but a trend had begun to this day. The movies could bring literary properties to a public that otherwise would not bother to read them” (14). Not only do these new adaptations bring different perspectives but they bring these perspectives to people who otherwise would not have been reached through novel alone. A point that can be emphasized by something Margaret Mackey mentioned in her article “Little Women Go to Market” when mentioning changes made to the novel over the years but could also be applied to film adaptations as well which was, “Over the twentieth century, however, this text has undergone many adaptations. An exploration of some of these changes provides a perspective on some of the conditions in which young people now encounter their stories and offers an opportunity to explore some questions that attend the reworking of texts” (155).

With all the emphasis placed on the fresh point of view that each adaptation brings it is important not to lose sight of the author’s original intent and message. Although many adaptations struggle with clash between Alcott’s original themes and motifs and the themes that would be more relevant to today’s audience it is still possible to honor both while doing so. One example of this would be the portrayal of Marmee. In Armstrong’s adaptation like the adaptations before it, Marmee is portrayed as a positive role model and the grounding force in the girls’ lives. Marchalonis argues in their article that “The great strength of the film is its successful portrayal of family love and closeness among the five women-love that reaches out to include others” (10). But what is left out in this adaptation, that was a constant in Alcott’s novel, was her use of Mrs. March to push the “sometimes painful lessons of self-sacrifice, self-discipline, and moral strength that the daughters must be taught” (Marchalonis, 10). For example, in the novel Marmee returns from visiting the Hummels on Christmas day and asks the girls to give up their breakfast as they have no food to eat, giving the girls a “nudge” in the right direction morally. In both the 1949 and 1994 adaptation, the girls give up their breakfast of their own accord without having to be asked and walk over to the Hummels by themselves. These were major themes throughout the novel, and it was these themes that helped the girls grow into the women they became. Another point that is argued in this article is that the element of sacrifice was emphasized much more in the earlier adaptations, alluding to the fact that “perhaps the 1930s and 1950s were better able to face such concepts without embarrassment” (10).

Another element that contributes to the ever-present morality in the novel that is missing in the film adaptations is the use of John Bunyan’s novel Pilgrim’s Progress, a gift given to the girls by their mother for Christmas. The novel serves as a sort of moral compass for the girls as the main character struggles with a burden, something that girls all discuss together and make a conscious decision to work on. In her article, Mackey gives several reasons why film adaptations would avoid this reference all together, saying, “Modern retellers, of course, face a number of problems in making use of this particular structural prop. First, and perhaps most importantly, contemporary readers and audiences know little about Bunyan’s book, and its message is not one which resonates in modern Western society. In a two-hour film there is probably not time to establish the references and then begin to make use of them. Furthermore, the unfamiliarity of the story makes it, in a peculiarly literal sense of the word, invisible. Contemporary viewers do not have a repertoire of instant visual cues that alert them to the psychological and moral significance of any set of images related to Pilgrim’s Progress” (164) .The moral angle was not unique just to Little Women. “Nearly all nineteenth-century fiction, and especially that written by women, is, at some level, ‘about’ religious belief, or perhaps it is better to say it takes place in a world where religious belief is understood, shared, and perfectly acceptable” (Marchalonis, 12). However modern adaptations continue to shy away from the topic of religion. Marchalonis argues that there could be several reasons why today’s writers and filmmakers would want to minimize the religious influence in their adaptation or get rid of it all together, citing that critics of the early part of our century rejected earlier writers and the beliefs on which their works rested, so discussing religion would appear to be unsophisticated (12). Another reason may be that a lot of people today are displeased with organized religion and, as Marchalonis put it, “intelligent people are rightly embarrassed or frightened by it” (12). In the same way that films add things to appeal to the audiences of their time, films can also leave out elements that may have been central to the novel to achieve the same effect.

Among all the themes already discussed gender and class are two other themes that are prevalent in the novel and adaptations. The March family were at one time fairly wealthy, something we learn early in the novel as well as in most of the film adaptations. In one of the very first scenes as the girls are talking about how this Christmas will not be the same without presents or their father around, oldest sister Meg can be heard saying that being poor was even worse for her because she remembers when they were rich. For the March sisters, because they live in this sort of poverty limbo where they still have rich relatives and run-in circles where they have rich friends as well, they are often made more aware of their poverty. Most of the life lessons they learn throughout the novel as well have something to do with wealth and their lack of. This can be seen in the scene where Meg gives Amy the rag money for the money so she can buy limes to trade with her classmates, something they are not supposed to be doing, and not feel excluded at school. Girls have been loaning her limes and she wants to “pay off her debts.” Amy gets caught and her teacher throws out all the limes but once at home Marmee blames Amy for her punishment just as much as the girls at school. Their gender is also tied into their social status. Because their father squandered their money, the only way for them to be well taken care of and to be able to save their family financially is to marry wealthy. Something they were constantly reminded of by their old Aunt March. This can be seen when Aunt March tells Amy that she must marry well and that it was now up to her to save her family. In the article “Resentful Little Women: Gender and Class Feeling in Louisa May Alcott” Stephanie Foote points out that for the March women “gender and class are inseparable as we look at the kinds of negative feelings that the novel discusses (3). For the March girls it is gender and class that add to burdens they already inherited just by being a 19th century woman.

Little Women is now on its fourth feature film adaptation and while it is not the first it most certainly will not be the last. When Louisa May Alcott authored the novel, she based it on her own life experiences and beliefs. Little did she know, or she did, that the things she valued and held dear would still resonate with audiences all these years later. It is the tried-and-true recipe of a great theme, beautifully written characters and a relatable plot that has helped the novel soar into the 21st century and it is that foundation along with a little flavor of their own on each director’s part that have made every subsequent film adaptation relevant and necessary. They have made the recipe their own bringing to each new generation the essence of what Little Women is all about while keeping its core. Her feminist views and inherent goodness stemming from her transcendentalist upbringing are part of the reason the novel has become so beloved and passed on from generation to generation, allowing the next generation to see themselves in the characters she so artfully created based on many of her loved ones in real life. As time passes on there will always be something fresh and new to be brought to Alcott’s work while still embodying the original spirit of her work.

Works Cited

Alcott, Louisa May Little Women. 1868. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Armstong, Gillian, director. Little Women. Performances by Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, Susan Sarandon, Claire Danes, & Trini Alvarado. Columbia Pictures. 1994

Corrigan, Timothy. “Themes, Narratives, and Elements of Style.” Film and Literature: An Introduction and Reader.1999.

Foote, Stephanie. “Resentful Little Women: Gender and Class Feeling in Louisa May Alcott.” College Literature: A Journal of Critical Literary Studies; 2005 Winter; 63-85.

Mackey, Margaret. “Little Women Go to Market: Shifting Texts and Changing Readers.” Children’s Literature in Education: An International Quarterly; 1998 September 1; 29(3) 153-73

Marchalonis, Shirley. “Filming the Nineteenth Century: The Secret Garden and Little Women.” American Transcendental Quarterly; 1996 Dec; 10(4) 273-92

Tibbetts, John C. & Welsh, James M. “Why Study Film Adaptations of Novels.” The Encyclopedia of Novels into Film. 1998.