Little Women

[Frith1975]

I’ve had to switch over - so disappointed.

The girls are supposed to be 12, 14, 16 and 18. The actors are nearly my age and similar in age to the actor playing Marmee. And they have all got different accents.

And the books were v preachy.

I didn't keep watching it, but that was mainly because I suddenly couldn't face going through all Jo's trials and tribulations and the fact that she was supposed to benefit from them all. So in that sense I think they captured the spirit of the book.

Extremely weird to show Marmee giving them the Bibles but then not to actually talk about them? I can't remember whether the Sarandon/Ryder adaption managed to include more religion - I don't really see the point of doing nineteenth century adaptations and leaving the religion out - the only one you can do it with is Dickens IMO hence why so popular in the heathen UK.

In the first scene I thought I'd switched on Picnic at Hanging Rock by mistake. If they're going to spend large parts of a New England winter in their undercrackers, no wonder Beth dies of consumption. It was written by a woman though.

I went to uni with the director of this adaptation - was hoping it would be good, will have to check it out

The winona ryder film version had virtually no religion, even less than this series.

Interesting bit where Marmee told Jo she was still often angry but had learned to manage it and that in time she would too. When Jo’s rage was primarily caused by inequality - she can’t get a decent education or paid work because of her sex.

Does anyone remember the 1970s version? It has good reviews. Angela Down is in it, as Jo.

Interesting deckoff.

Ashley was a tosser!

Was disconcerted by Mr March being Colin Sweeney, creepy murderer-who-got-away from The Good Wife!

Just watching the second episode now.

The bit with the baby broke my heart. The poor Hummels.

I watched the last episode tonight. My conclusion is that there's just too much in the books to dramatise satisfactorily in three hours. I kept lamenting bits I particularly liked that were left out.

One of my favourite scenes in the novel was when Professor Bhaer first arrived at the March house, 'beaming like a midnight sun' and Jo makes an unladylike clutch at him and exclaims how glad she is to see him - their meeting in this adaptation was far too cool.

As a whole, it was a fair effort, but I'd probably have made a different selection of which parts to include - although I recognise probably every reader would have a differing view on that.

... I am firmly in the 'preferring Professor Bhaer to Laurie' camp, in case you hadn't guessed. I found him really attractive in the books.

The Professor Bhaer actor was bugging me as i had seen him in something really recently - it is James/Jamie from Love Lies & Records!

Well I LOVED it. Thought the acting was very good indeed and the adaptation was faithful to the books. I would have liked 6 episodes but I don't think there would be an audience for that. It was adapted by the Call the Midwife lady who I think is very talented.
I remember ( fondly, if vaguely) the 1970s version but have never seen the Winona one.

Enjoyed episode 3. "Not perfect marmee but just right" just about summed it up.

Well I felt cheated.

I could have done 12 6 episodes very happily.

Ursula It would indeed need 12 to do it properly! I'd welcome that!

Enjoyed it but agree the sound was terrible! I thought Michael Gambon had died so that was a bonus!

Well I really enjoyed it for what it was. I haven't read the book but I do have a vague recollection of a 1970's adaptation - one of those Sunday early evening dramas - I haven't seen the Winona Ryder film version either. I can tell from earlier comments that there were obviously many parts omitted and I don't envy Heidi Thomas trying to decide what to include or discard.

On the Laurie Vs Professor Bhaer question I can only say that from 'this version' I really found it difficult to understand why Jo would have chosen the Professor. Apart from Jo constantly telling us she and Laurie were unsuited it was difficult to see why (I'm a soft-hearted numpty and a pushover for a handsome face mind you!). I imagine it's a lot clearer from the novel and maybe that's how a longer version would have fleshed out the characters and allowed the less well versed to appreciate her choice. That's TV for you these days, I suppose.

Rhubarb01 Yes, Jo's attraction to Professor Bhaer is much more elaborately justified in the novels. Laurie is shown clearly to have a liking for fashionable society (although tempered by respect for the moral values demonstrated by the Marches) which Jo would have hated. Laurie is intelligent, but not an intellectual, whereas both Jo and the Professor are intellectuals.

There's also a suggestion that Jo's headstrong spirit needs the wisdom of an older man to guide it - in the novel, Jo never actually admits to P.B. that she's the author of sensation stories; she simply takes his view to heart and stops writing them - there's a line about her 'putting on the Professor's moral spectacles' when she reads her own work.

Thanks for that ScreamingValenta. It definitely felt as if the Professor had been shoehorned into the last half hour and consequently there wasn't time to appreciate his attraction from Jo's perspective. I can see that Laurie is supposed to be more comfortable in and have a liking for fashionable society but in this version he appeared to spend more time lolling around in the Marche's house than anywhere else hence the reason he and Jo seemed so comfortable with each other and a casual viewer would probably scratch their head a little at the outcome.

I do really recommend the novels if you haven't read them, Rhubarb01. There are actually four - Little Women and Good Wives (included in the adaptation); Little Men and Jo's Boys, which follow the fortunes of the boys at Jo's school, and the offspring of the March girls. The last two aren't a patch on the first novels, but are a decent enough read and tie up some loose ends.

4 episodes would’ve been better.

Enjoyed it.

Laurie was hot.

That is all.

That’s not all.

Meg, Jo, Beth well cast, and I enjoyed the development of Beth and the fact Meg looked so gentle and responsible.

But Amy! Amy has the sweetest character arc in the books. She goes a young vain flippant child, veering on the edge of unlikeable, to a teenager who takes the worst chicken pieces uncomplainingly and with sisterly honesty rips Laurie a new one when he turns up all disappointingly flirty and shallow in europe. She was never a flirt. None of them were.

Amy in the tv series was awful, petulant and coquettish (ridiculous scene where she drops a ring for Laurie to pick up). Where were her good and brave qualities and Laurie fell in love with? We see none of her bravery and vulnerability when she is so far from home when beth dies. She doesn’t even wear black.

Rant over.