Anatomy Of A Series: Little Women 1970
Christina: We leave the 1940s and we don’t get another adaptation until 1970s. Made by the BBC.
Niina: Interesting British production.
Christina: I can’t remember which company it was but I am pretty sure that the same company that did this…sometimes in the 70s, they were really big on doing adaptations of novels because the actors that plays Jo in this, I have seen her in an adaptation of war and peace where she plays Maria. I am going to give a safe bet that this is the same company. The actor that plays Mr March, I have seen in a production of Henry the Eight, episode that follows Henry the Eight’s wife, pretty much. He is the uncle to Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. The guy that pushes them to the king and he was really good in that.
Niina: You know your period dramas.
Christina: They are something I get into. I am going to give a good guess that this one is that same company, because I have noticed that the same actors are in the same productions.
Niina: I believe you.
Christina: That is without any research. I probably should have done some research. I said earlier about enjoyment. This one, as faithful as it is to the book, a lot of moments. It is sort of low on my feelings on how much I enjoyed it, in all honesty.
Niina: I think this adapation started this trope, that Jo and Friedrich argue in the adaptations, which is actually quite awful, because they don’t argue in the book. That is why this adaptation does not rank very high on my list. I think it is interesting that this version started that, and then other adaptations just followed it. I don’t know why. It is really a shame.
Christina: Yeah. This one has some good moments between Jo and Friedrich. We see them planning lessons together. Her confusing him to a butler but then realizing Oh he is a professor.
He is like “Ah don’t worry about it”
There are scenes when he comes to Concord, so there is quite a few scenes that are good but there are some moments are kind of like …interesting choise. Why would you do that? I know you felt the same way. It was very hit and mis at times with them.
Niina: I think the scriptwriter, didn’t really care about the final couples and they wanted Jo and Laurie together. That is the way it felt like to me.
Christina: Yes, it is very weird. There were times… I don’t know. This is just me with the feeling I got. Being a British company, I felt like there were times when they were almost making fun of this, because it is an American book. There were times when I felt that they were not taking it as seriously as some other adaptations have done. The one moment that really threw me. It is not in the book and I felt that it was very weird for his character. When Friedrich comes to Concord and Mr March is like “Oh are you related to the same professor Bhaer that wrote this?” and he takes him to his study and Mr March talks for hours. I know he is described like he can be little bit in his own head but not as much as that, where he would totally be ignoring everybody around him and fully missing the que of “hey. They like each other”. Maybe Friedrich is going to propose. Don’t just walk in during that moment. I don’t know. It felt very odd that that moment happened. I felt that Mr March was a little off in this version and not so good way.
Niina: Yeah. In the book Mr March is one of the biggest Jo and Friedrich shippers. He really wants them together.
Christina: Right. They really could have tried to make that moment together. I really like the idea of Friedrich trying to propose, but the proposal gets ruined. I probably would have liked it better if it was like, someone walking in. Somebody else. Like Aunt March being like “Oh I forgot my bag, what is going on here?
and Friedrich being like “I’m going to propose!”
Something like that, rather than Mr March being weird. Marmee says whispers to him “leave them alone” but unexplainably he comes back in and interrupts. It was very weird. There was another moment, I felt was very weird. That they did not take as seriously I think they should have. I think it had something to do with the girls, the episode, but this one..this one was one of the moments when i really did not like Amy, when she was being a little girl. She was annoying as all out. As an adult I think the actress did a pretty good job being adult Amy, When she plays younger Amy she is so shrill. So whiny. This is one of those adaptations where I can not like Amy. It was so bad.
Niina: The part where Amy burns Jo’s manuscript in this version was a massive cat fight and I am like this is supposed to be little women, not a soap opera. It is just terrible.
Christina: Yeah! That is one of those moments where you watch it and go …really? It felt like they were trying to add drama or quote and quote exitement, because they thought that “Oh this is boring”. American writer wrote a boring girl’s story. I want to compare that moment to the 94 version. It doesn’t work as well, because in 94 one Jo is clearly clashing out in anger. It doesn’t get as crazy, whereas this one is full on crazy. Almost like in highschool, girls pulling hair and fighting around on the floor.
Niina: In this one and then in the 2019 film, I found this scene very difficult to watch, first of all in the book, it is Jo who bullies Amy, and that is the reason why Amy burns the manuscript. She is a little girl and her big sister is bullying her and it’s not like small pickering. jo is emotionally very cruel towards her. But when in the adaptation, it is an adult woman who burns the book, it is more vicious.
Christina: I think that is what fuels a lot of the general public to dislike Amy. I can not know for certain, how many people have read the book, but I presume most people know Little Women, through the movies and the adaptations. So when most of these adaptations a 20 something year old woman acting the part of what should be a 12 year old girl, it really changes your point of view of how the character is perceived, because when a 20 something year old, burns the manuscript. It is very delibarate. It is very suspicious and very calculating versus when it is, let’s say Kirsten Dunst doing it, she is just mad in the moment and she is just a little girl and you can forgive her a little bit more because she is still learning. She is a little girl, who is still learning. Who needs to be taught that you don’t do things like that. Whereas a 20 something year old, should know not to do that.
Niina: I agree.
Christina: That is where I give credit for the first two adaptations. At least they adjusted it to where it is like, instead of these actresses who were clearly older, instead of trying to make them appear as children, they aged them up “okay you are more like a teen ager, growing into womanhood” whereas this one and few other ones that come after, really do push the, you know “be a little girl, squeeze your voice”.
Amy here was a hit and miss, another hit miss for me.
Niina: Somebody told me once, I think it was on Louisa May Alcott group told me that, the girl who plays JO in this version, she was casted because she looked like Louisa May Alcott and I though that was really interesting.
Christina: I liked her a lot. I think she was really good as Maria in War and Peace and that is another character that has been described as being, not as pretty compared to some of the other characters in the novel, but is still seen as very academic. Has great voice and maturity and what not. I think this actress did a pretty good job. Probably one of the few things I did like about this adaptation was her growth as a teen age Jo, a tomboy girl to a little bit more mature woman. I felt that she was one of the better actors in this production.
Niina: I read that the guy who played Laurie was praised for his acting. I think he was a pretty good Laurie, what it comes to Laurie’s personality because he clearly has a temper in this version and when he falls in love with Amy, he becomes more mature and more calm.
Christina: Even though I didn’t enjoy all the different elements in this version, this one is one of the more faithful ones, because it has certain scenes that are not in other versions. Amy meets Laurie in Europe and there is the proper placement of Laurie’s proposal to Jo, which comes after New York and I really like that scene, because the maturity levels of the characters at that point are right. Laurie is still quite immature and Jo is trying to be more mature. It is one of my favorite moments, just because I think it adds on to the Jo and Friedrich story. I did like that moment of Laurie being like “Oh that old man, you are in love with him?” That to me plants a seed, Jo being like
“Why are you calling him an old man? he is not!”’
………………………………
This line is not in the book. It is one of those things I feel like it stays in my mind. Laurie says after he is like “Oh, that old man from New York” and he goes “Jo! How could you!” I think the reason, why I really like that bit, as much as I am annoyed with Laurie, is because I feel like it is so Laurie. It tells a lot.
“How could you?” as if like “We are together!” “How could you cheat on me?” but she didnt. She didn’t cheat on you!
Niina: There never was you and me.
Christina: Yes! that just shows how entitled Laurie was with Jo. He thought that “because I love you, we should be together, regardless wheter you really do love me”. Just that line, even thought it is not in the book. “How could you?” it really tells a lot about his character at that point. How very posessive he is of Jo. How very aggressive he is, regards to her feelings which leads into “You will find somebody and you will live and die for him” and Jo is like “yes I will”. In this version, as much it is not my favorite version, I really did like that scene, because, I think it is very faithful to the novel and really wonderfully acted by both of those actors.
Niina: This version also has the cat-fishing scene, which is completely opposite in this version, compared to the book, which is always a reminder to myself that this is clearly a 70s version because it does that. I remember being angry when I saw this version for the first time. I was exited that they included the cat-fishing scene. I had not seen that in any other versions. So in the book, Laurie forges letters to Meg, in John Brooke’s name. Laurie sees it as a harmless prank but Meg, actually believes that the letters are from John and she replies to them. When Meg finds out, she is rightfully quite angry and feels violated by that.
In this adaptation, it is framed to look like, that it was all Meg’s fault, that Laurie would send her these letters. There is a scene that furiates me. John is like “Don’t take it so hard. It was just a joke”.
In the book, John never finds out about the letters. It is so completely opposite to the way John would behave with Meg. Had he found out, he would have been angry at Laurie.
Christina: That is a scene you don’t get to see often. I think it shows Laurie’s more michievious nature. I don’t want to say total disregard for people’s feelings, but he is very careless. Careless with people’s feelings. I think it helps, having those moments. because when you get to the end, get to Europe and all the moments after that, you go “Oh you really see how much he has matured”. I do want to point out, I did like the moment when Laurie and Friedrich meet. It is sort of like, here is that moment when we see how much Laurie has matured, because he had that earlier “Oh isn’t he that old man” him being angry at him, but now he is meeting quote and quote old man and he is like “Oh it is so nice to meet you” “I have heard so much about you and I would like you to meet my wife”. It is a nice contrast, I’ll say, to show how much Laurie has matured. That I can appreciate and I thought that was pretty well handled.
Niina: It is interesting after that cat-fishing moment, Jo goes to Laurie and she is like “What did you do?” but then, it’s like “my poor little Laurie”. That is also in the book. Jo doesn’t really question, why is he cat-fishing her sister. You get this feeling that Jo feels bad for Laurie, because he was lectured by Marmee, in the book, but you will miss the point in the adaptation, because we are supposed to be on Meg’s side, it is not okay that she was treated this way, book is pretty clear on that. Jo has lots of misogyny, but in the novels, Jo’s misogyny gets questioned by other characters.
Christina: I know with some of the adaptations, I have heard people go “it is a shame we never really got to know the inner monologues of the certain characters, and their lines that really would help. They really help to make sense what the scene is about and there are times, when I do feel like that about Little Women, but with some adaptations, inner dialogue feels like you are being hit to the head with a hammer, but settle gestures and movements that can make it very clear, that this is not suppose to be this. This is how it is supposed to be type of thing. Again a little hit and miss there.
Niina: I really like the scene with Amy and Laurie meeting in Europe, because the dialogue, is almost directly taken from the book.
Christina: I was going to say, this is one of those ones where there is a really good Amy and Laurie sequence. I did like the actress playing older Amy, because she did a much better job with that, than as a kid. She is very much like “but your act together” but very ladylike and civil.
Niina: I was thinking what you said, that this adapatation kind of makes fun of the book. I do feel that a little bit with Friedrich’s character. Sometimes it feels like they are making him to be a caricature of a silly professor. They don’t treat his character very seriously, and this whole adaptation really suffers from that.
Christina: This version I feel, is not only very mixed but also very bland. Character like Aunt March, they don’t stand out for me for better or worse. I just felt that they were there.
Niina: Yes. I feel the same. When I think about Beth in this series, I only remember her being ill. I don’t even remember how she became ill or how she died. I only remember that she was ill.
Christina: I only picture her during the parts when she was ill. I remember there is a moment when we see Laurie coming, to see that Jo is in New York and Amy is in Europe. He is like “Oh i will take you to Venice” he sits next to her and she is like “I will never get to Venice” but there is not a clear moment with this actress. I don’t think she was terrible. Maybe it was the lighting. Everybody felt quite washed out. That is how I feel in general about this adaptation. It felt very bland. As much as it had it’s good parts, it was bland.
Niina: The actress could be an excellent actress but they didn’t give her anything to do.
Christina: I am now thinking of Meg, as much as they had certain scenes of John and Meg, like the jam scene. I could be wrong, I don’t remember in the book, Jo and Laurie going to Meg’s house and messing around with her stuff.
Niina: I don’t remember that.
Christina: It happens in this adaptation. They go over there, to see how she is doing. They are messing around with her jam and she is like “Just get out of here”. She gets angry. I feel like she wasn’t suppose to get angry until John, brings his friend over, which he does, but I felt that that was very weird choise for Meg, she was very temperamental, when she shouldn’t have been. That was the other thing.
Niina: Yeah. I think there was something weird with Marmee as well. It had to do with the cat-fishing. In the book Marmee gets really angry when she hears what Laurie has done, but in this version it was like “Who cares?”
Christina: We know Marmee, she has said to her own admission that “I have a temper” “you get it from me Jo” “I have learned to how to control it”. I felt like she was pretty aggressive, with Amy, with the burning of the manuscript”
“She is like “Amy, what did you do?!
Amy is crying, she graps her shoulders and shakes her and I’m like, that is very…aggressive Marmee. That is not who I would imagine you would be. There is something very off about her. There are moments where she was calm when she shouldn’t have been, and aggressive when she should not have been.
Niina: You know, I read that Heidi Thomas who wrote the 2017 version, that she grew up watching this 1970 version, and I was thinking of her portrayal of Amy, which is something that a lot of people have criticised, myself included, also that she wrote Jo and Friedrich arguing, A lot of that comes from this adadpation, those things don’t come from the book.
Christina: Yes. THis one is not one of my favorites. On my ranking, it is number 7.
Niina: I was thinking the same number.
Christina: It gets a point for faithfullness to the book in many aspects, but it looses points in it’s portrayals. It is not the greatest.
