Anatomy Of A Movie: Little Women 1949 Part 1
Christina: 1949 which has almost the exact script as the 1933 one, but with some changes. It is kinda funny. I am curious to know why they felt the need to recycle the script. Quite a bit of it is pretty much the same but they obviously made some changes by rearranging a few scenes. I think I like the 1949 just a little bit better. I don’t know if is it because of the, switching around of the certain scenes that work or some added scenes but I feel like I like it a little bit better. How about you?
Niina: Yes. There are things that I really like about it. I recently watched three other films by Rossano Brazzi and I have to say this. The man can sing. Two of those were musicals so definitely. I was just thinking how in the book Jo and Friedrich, they do sing together when they meet a couple of times. It is actually quite nice that he is singing in this movie.
Christina: It is sort of funny. I haven’t seen the movie, but I have seen it, pop on my recommendations. He did a movie with Katherine Hepburn. So I was like it is Friedrich and Jo getting together. It is really fun.
Niina: You know I saw that film, the one with Katherine Hepburn. Yes. It did have Jo and Friedrich vibes to me, Katharine Hepburn’s character, she didn’t think that she was worthy of finding someone who loves her.
Christina: Something like summertime?
Niina: Yes, that is the name of it.
Christina: I think the script is very similar to the 1933 one but I do want to point out, a scene that you and I have at some point talked about and we both really love the interpretation. When Friedrich talks to her about her writing. We feel like the scene that is done in the 1949 one feels a lot closer to the book and personally, I think it is because they had Jo add the line “Oh I don’t think these are any good but they help pay a new coat for Beth and take her to the sea and Friedrich being like “Oh that is what I figured” and I think some versions forget that. I feel like that is probably one of the reasons why I really like the scene because, not only as we see in the 1933 one is he saying “I know you have talent” but having Jo say that line too, brings it closer to the book and it’s feeling.
Niina: I think it is the same as with some portrayals of Amy. If the script writer does not really like Friedrich’s character, they make him and Jo argue, which does not happen in the book but that is not the case in this movie because he gives her encouraging feedback. “You can do better. I think you are a great writer and you can do better than this stuff you are writing at the moment”. That is the way he is in the book.
Christina: This version had a little bit more of Jo and Friedrich than the 33 one. I think that is because again, they switched around a few scenes and added a little bit, but I think if I had to think about nuances in the adaptation that treat Friedrich fairly, this is one of those. How about the actors? how did you feel because this is a pretty star-stuffed film compared to the 33 one?
Niina: I think in the 1949 film a lot of the actors are more handsome or more beautiful than they are written to be in the book. I would say all the male characters, Laurie, Friedrich and John and even Jo’s father, are all very good-looking actors, these men. That is Hollywood for you.
Christina: I still think that there is that feeling of to the characters. Peter Lawford is not my personal favourite Laurie’s. I don’t hate him. I don’t know if is it because I think he is a little more subdued than I think compared to Douglas Montgomery or some of the later Laurie’s.
Niina: Maybe more masculine?
Christina: Yeah. I really do like June Allyson. She has often played this girl of the next-door type. Not as stunning beauty compared to some like Janet Leigh or Elizabeth Taylor but you still go “Oh! You are very pretty”. There is a point in the book where you wonder if is Jo a lot prettier than she says, because someone makes a comment and she is like “They are just lying. There is no way I am that pretty as they say”. She still manages to have that same talent that Katherine Hepburn has. Tomboyish, and childish manner but then slowly growing into the mature young lady. Still with some spirit but I think she did a pretty good job.
Niina: It also shows that Jo has this maternal nature. I think this is one of the rare adaptations where Jo interacts with children very actively.
Christina: Yeah, there is one of the added scenes in this one. We actually see her with Kitty and Minnie. Now I am just thinking of that moment with Bhaer after the opera. They get interrupted by one of the little girls and she is like “You need to be back in bed. No story time”. We have seen earlier that story time, where the girl is like “Oh read me a story”. It definitely showed a lot of her mature side and I think this version has switched Beth and Amy, where Beth is the youngest now. It definitely shows that she is definitely mature towards Beth as well and that is a change I didn’t mind. I rather that you have the switch of making Beth the youngest and Amy the older one, than if your actresses are not fitting age-wise. Elizabeth Taylor who was 15 or 16 at that time and Margaret O’Brien who was 12. There is no way you are going to convince me that Margaret O’Brien is older than her. I can at least appreciate that in terms of casting.
Niina: I read that June Allyson was good friends with Margaret O’Brien. They had nice chemistry together.
Christina: I have to share this because I think it is a funny story. June Allyson was well known in the business being one of the best cryiers and Margaret O’Brien was kind of up there. I can’t remember if it was this movie or another movie. There were a lot of awful rumours because there was a documentary about her and a few other child stars of that time, that they had sometimes worked together or been in the business together at some point and one of them was like “I heard some really nasty things about your mom. That she makes you like by hurting you” and she was like “No but there is one of the things that did get me to cry”. She was like “Oh honey I think you are doing a good job but they don’t think you are doing it as great. We can put on fake tears and that is fine but you know June Allyson is a great cryer” and Margaret O’Brien was like “I am not going to be out-cried by June Allyson” and that is how she began to cry because Margaret O’Brien thought I will be the best cryer on Hollywood. I thought that was funny because as you said, they became pretty close after Little Women.
Laughter
Niina: That is funny. One of the complaints that I have about this adaptation, is that it doesn’t have a single scene with Laurie and Amy together.
Christina: Yeah! the closest that we get to, their relationship is the scene where Amy says to Jo “Jo, how would you feel if Laurie had feelings for another person” and Jo essentially gives her her blessing that Laurie can go and be with another woman. Then we get right to the end where Laurie is like “Oh yeah. Amy and I are married”. “Oh” okay”. ‘
Niina: It is a shame because I have seen these promotional pictures with Elizabeth Taylor and Peter Lawford and they look so good together. Why I didn’t get a scene with them? It is sad.
Christina: I think I know which one you are talking about.
Niina: Yeah. There are quite a few of them. At least in 1933, we get one Amy is mourning Beth and then she is like “Laurie you came!” because he goes right to her. There is some of that at least. Not too many in 1949.
Niina: Sometimes I wonder if this was something that started another wave of people shipping Jo and Laurie, because in the end, right before Friedrich comes, there is this moment when Laurie is giving Jo this long-loving look. Amy is standing right next to him, but he is looking at Jo and then suddenly Friedrich comes and then it goes under the umbrella. That is really confusing. The same happens in the 2019 film, with Jo suddenly wanting Laurie back, which is not in the book. So we haven’t moved on anywhere.
Christina: It is such an awkward shot because we literally just come from the attic scene where he is like “Amy and I are so happy, can we be like we were? Can we still be friends?” then going into that loving look of longing. I don’t want to say total regret but I can see why some people would think “Oh poor Amy, what ending she got”. This version does not tell you everything about Amy and Laurie’s progression. That I think is a point taken away from the film.
Niina: I wonder if it is the editor’s fault or was it the script. I don’t know. Then there is the scene where Laurie proposes to Jo and he is pretty angry which is good because that is in the book. Right after he walks away, there is a scene that lasts for a second, where Amy is looking after him. You might miss it if you don’t pay attention to it. It is a confusing narrative.
Christina: Again, it is weird because, pretty much you can do almost a side-by-side comparison with the 33 film and it is almost exact. Certain scenes are added like their discussion with Laurie in the beginning. There is a little bit more “Oh he ran away and this and this” but I am surprised that certain scenes go out because it is not even long. That one scene in Europe with Amy and Laurie re-uniting. That is probably not more than 30 seconds. It’s under a minute. Why wasn’t that minute so important to them?
Niina: It is so confusing.
Christina: This one is not a good Amy and Laurie film. It is Jo and Friedrich friendly, but not Amy and Laurie friendly.
