Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women book has received several movie adaptations over the years, but determining which one is the best is a bit difficult. It’s one of the most iconic American novels ever written and it continues to be a source of inspiration to this day. Ever since film broke out, there have been seven full movie adaptations - not including the many TV miniseries, plays, radio dramas, musicals, and so forth that the book has inspired - the latest of which is Greta Gerwig’s 2019 Little Women movie.
In Alcott’s landmark 1868 Little Women novel, four sisters - Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy March - grow up against the backdrop of poverty and the American Civil War. Each girl has different talents and perspectives, all of which are encouraged by their loving mother, Marmee. As they grow up, they face conflicts and misfortunes that shape the young women they become. Ultimately, each girl finds her place in the world, and some even fall in love along the way. It’s a beautiful story, and at its heart lie themes of women’s self-determination, the centrality of family, the importance of sacrifice, and of staying true to one’s authentic self.
5. Clare Niederpruem’s 2018 Little Women
Little Women (2018) is the most recent adaptation that will no doubt be compared to Gerwig’s version. Directed by Clare Niederpruem and staring Sarah Davenport as Jo, Lucas Grabeel of High School Musical fame as Laurie, and Lea Thompson as Marmee, this modern retelling is the most unconventional adaptation on this list, but also one of the worst. Niederpruem’s choice to bring the March girls into a modern setting is a charming concept, but it fails in its execution.
Characters are changed to the point of being near unrecognizable. Professor Bhaer - a nerdy, older, and unattractive German intellectual in the original novel - is transformed by actor Ian Bohen into a slick, almost cocky leading man, while Grabeel’s Laurie seems a clear second choice from the beginning. This kind of character restructuring alters the meaning of the book, and will be baffling to anyone familiar with the source material. Additionally, the dialogue often feels stilted by its over-insistence of being modern and relatable. Fresh dialogue would be fine, but stuffy Aunt March cracking one-liners about millennials is maybe a bridge too far. It’s a poor substitute for Alcott’s language which many of the other films higher on this list use to great effect, including iconic lines that are sorely missed in this adaptation.
Niederpruem’s Little Women movie is not entirely without charm, however, particularly in the girlhood scenes between the sisters and Marmee. For viewers who can’t stand period pieces, it is a serviceable dose of warm, holiday sentiment, but it’s not really Little Women.
4. Mervyn LeRoy’s 1949 Little Women
The 1949 technicolor adaptation, directed by Mervyn LeRoy and starring June Allyson as Jo and Elizabeth Taylor as Amy, followed the same script as the 1933 version starring Katharine Hepburn. Sadly, it’s not nearly as good. It feels at once lethargic and over-acted, with stilted dialogue and forced relationships. While it is quaint and faithful enough to the book to be comforting for fans, it doesn’t have the inherent warmth of the other adaptation higher on this list.
Part of this is in the casting; the sisters just don’t feel like sisters, but instead competing star-powers with little connection to each other. June Allyson is a particular disappointment. Jo’s brash anger and tomboyish gaffs feel flattened into something more ladylike, and ultimately dull. Additionally, Allyson was thirty-three at the time she played fifteen-year-old Jo March. At more than twice the age of the character she portrays, Allyson strains all credulity as a coming-of-age heroine. These stale choices - from the casting to the direction - make the girls’ growth feel arbitrary and artificial, much like the painted backdrops of this bland movie.
3. George Cukor’s 1933 Little Women
The 1933 version, directed by George Cukor and starring Katharine Hepburn as Jo, is the best of the older adaptations by far. The dialogue is lively and snappy, carried by Hepburn’s distinctive sharpness and expressive delivery. In fact, she’s so good that her Jo could be considered the definitive version, and it has absolutely been the most influential to later actresses. Her Jo feels like the smart, adventurous, tomboy trouble-maker that she is. She and her sisters talk over and past each other in a way that feels authentic and surprisingly funny. For all its fun, Cukor’s adaptation is also moral and sincere, but not hokey. A depression era film, it offers a convincing call to self-sacrifice and patriotism that was as central to Alcott’s 1868 novel as it was to Americans struggling in 1933. With humor and heart, Cukor’s adaptation is a classic that captures what Little Women fans loved in the original.
2. Gillian Armstrong’s 1994 Little Women
Directed by Gillian Armstrong, the first female director to take on a full film adaptation, the 1994 version of Little Women is often the one fans hold most dear, and with good reason. Starring Winona Ryder as Jo and Christian Bale as Luarie, it’s a delight and a comfort. Ryder’s interpretation brought a warmth to soften Jo’s sharpness, and Armstrong does much of the same with the film, inviting viewers into the March family with open arms. For fans of the book, this adaptation is like an old friend. Armstrong manages to imbue every scene with intimacy and familiarity using a variety of directorial tricks - from the close shots and warm lighting, to the relaxed pace. Meticulously crafted, but never effortful, the 1994 Little Women movie captures Armstrong’s love and respect for her source material, and viewers can’t help but come along with her.
1. Greta Gerwig’s 2019 Little Women
If Amstrong’s Little Women is like re-reading your favorite book, Gerwig’s is like experiencing it for the first time. It is breathless, exuberant, and so very alive. From the opening scenes, Little Women barrels forward with such energy that it risks feeling rushed, but like any great director, Gerwig deftly avoids this by meticulously crafting each moment. She dismantles and reassembles the timeline of the novel so that the movie flows seamlessly along emotional beats instead of just narrative ones. This gives each of the little women space to grow, and viewers the chance to join them on their journey.
This 2019 Little Women movie is something new. It feels surprising. The performances are all stellar, with Saoirse Ronan’s starring turn as Jo being some of her very best work. However, all of the characters are given room for complexity, from the often ridiculous Aunt March, here played with shrewdness and subtle care by Meryl Streep, to the sugar-sweet Beth, given new life and by Eliza Scanlen. Florence Pugh is a stand-out as Amy - at once confident and vulnerable - and Timothee Chalamet’s Laurie is one of the first interpretations of the heart-throb that gets to the book character’s infuriating mix of petulance, awkwardness, and sweetness.
Ultimately, this is a Little Women about little women - all of them. Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy, but also the girls Marmee, Hannah, and Aunt March once were, and the adults the students at Jo’s school will one day become. Gerwig’s Little Women movie adaptation is not only one of the best but also one of the most daring film interpretations of Alcott’s novel. But it will feel familiar to anyone who remembers what it was like to be grow up with adventure, hardship, and love.
Next: Little Women: The 1994 Movie’s Biggest Differences From The Book
