Little Women Adaptations and American Feminism

Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women has been massively successful since its publication in the late 1860s. The book follows the four March sisters (Amy, Beth, Jo, and Meg) from childhood to adulthood. The semi-autobiographical story has been viewed as both a landmark work of feminist literature and has also been criticized for its feminist failures. While its two sequels are not nearly as successful or well-known as the original text, the books have been beloved, especially by women, for decades. 

Little Women captivated me from the moment I turned to the first page. The book was the first “classic” written by a female author that I’d ever read and provided a nice break from the sexist overtones of books like George Orwell’s 1984. Observing how much I loved the book, my friend suggested I watch the movie adaptation. Of course, I did not know which one she was talking about, so I watched two film adaptations in direct succession and marveled at how different they were. Just like that, I fell into the multi-layered world of Little Women and its myriad adaptations. 

Over 20 different adaptations of Alcott’s novel exist across a wide array of mediums. Most are films, but there have even been multiple anime shows, an opera, and a ballet adapted from the famous text. Each adaptation makes different artistic choices, creating nuances unique to each adaptation. Comparing them tells the story of how feminism in the United States has evolved since the 1870s. 

The most famous and widely accessible adaptations include the 1933 film directed by George Cukor, the 1994 film directed by Gillian Armstrong, and my personal favorite, the 2019 film directed by Greta Gerwig. These adaptations also adhere more closely to the text than many others. 

The 1933 adaptation starred Katherine Hepburn as Jo March. As an actress who frequently played women like Jo, Hepburn fit the role well and strayed outside the bounds of stereotypical femininity. Considering the release date, the film seems relatively progressive. It paints Jo’s difficulty with her status as a woman as a sympathetic cause. However, it also lacks some of the more explicit feminism of many later adaptations. This adaptation was a major success, partially because of its simultaneously honest and romanticized depiction of wealth and poverty during the peak of the Great Depression. Although the cinematography of the movie is staunchly limited by the technology of the period, it utilizes Jo’s “tomboyish” and childish motion and a homely set to feed into the subtle feminist and class commentaries.

The 1994 version was the first major adaptation directed by a woman, emerging after a period of significant feminist progress. Winona Ryder’s Jo shifts away from the stereotypical tomboy to the more intellectual and work-focused version that we see in most modern adaptations. Jo becomes a writer above all else, which aligns with the recent introduction of women to the workplace. Marmie also becomes much more spunky and feminist. Small adjustments in her lines make the adaptation more female-centric than even the original text. Subtle shifts in hair and costume allow women to break away from the polished way women had been historically depicted in the film: the March family can be seen in pajamas and simple outfits in this movie, even with visible frizz in their hair. 

Greta Gerwig’s 2019 adaptation does something revolutionary: It adjusts the timeline of the story. While Gerwig did not allow the actors to stray from the words of the text, the order in which the scene appears is completely different than in the novel or any other adaptations. The movie intersperses scenes from the March sisters’ adulthood with their childhood. This method makes the film more dynamic, juxtaposing the two timelines to emphasize the coming-of-age aspect of the story. The movie’s use of warm lighting and frantic motion in the childhood scenes provides a stark contrast to the cooler and more still moments of adulthood. It exemplifies explicit feminism, concluding with Jo’s novel being printed rather than her romantic kiss in the rain. However, the film does fail to acknowledge the March family’s economic situation and the historical setting of the Civil War to the same extent as previous adaptations.

 

Picking out the details and key differences in adaptations helps provide an entirely new appreciation of different works of art and also serves as excellent practice for analysis in a more academic setting. Having an eye for detail is an invaluable skill. I would encourage every Lawrentian to dive into the world of Little Women adaptations to develop their analytical skills, to learn just what made the story beloved to so many women for generations, and to explore the cinematic depictions of feminism.