Lia Della Porta Prompt #3

 
    It is unusual for two film adaptations of the same story to be told so close in years. Little Women (1994, dir. Gillian Armstrong) and Little Women (2019, dir. Greta Gerwig) are the exceptions. Although only 20 years apart, I would argue these adaptations of the Lousia May Alcott classic are vastly different if only in subtle, complex ways. I could have chosen to discuss the other adaptations, such as the 1933 adaptation with Katharine Hepburn in the leading role of Jo, but believe it is rather interesting to examine remakes created so close together (relatively) and yet have subtle but notable differences that reflect the evolution of ideals and values in our society.
    Both filmmakers approached the content in a way that I believe is reflective of the time in which the films were produced and released. Little Women (1994) is presented as a linear model, creating a comfortable space of love, family, heartbreak, and hope. Told out of chronological order, Little Women (2019) creates beautifully unexpected emotional beats that are paired with a deeper dive into the vulnerability of both men and women, something that Gerwig had the courage to explore as our society has progressed. One notable difference is the amount of screen time given to the relationships between the March sisters compared to the heterosexual relationships, most notably Jo and Laurie. I would argue that the female connection is more profoundly embraced in the 2019 adaptation, whereas Little Women (1994) highlights the romantic relationships in Jo’s life. While rewatching the 1994 version, I observed that women tend to apologize for their behavior much more as well, such as Meg when she has a perfectly understandable desire to fit with the ladies of society. This could be a product of the time, as the apologetic nature of women has been more prominently addressed in recent years.
    Another aspect that differs between the two films is that the responsibility of initiating the conversations about feminism and gender inequality is mostly delegated to Jo in the 1994 version, but the 2019 adaptation distributes those lines of dialogue to all of the sisters and even some of the male characters. In Andi Ziesler’s work “Feminism and Pop Culture”, she discusses the idea of the “female gaze” as an opposition to the “male gaze”, which “informs how women see images of both themselves and of men and affects the images they themselves create” (2008 p. 9). In my opinion, Little Women (2019) reclaims this idea of the female gaze, as Greta Gerwig’s identity as a woman in 2019 clearly influenced the way both women and men are portrayed in the film. Although both films were directed by women, I would argue the historical context of both films’ shaped Armstrong and Gerwig’s approach in slight yet noticeable ways. In the United States, 1994 could be argued as a detrimental year for the female image, with the O.J. Simpson Trial and Tonya Harding case, and thus I believe Armstrong had to create a more palatable portrayal of feminism. However, the way feminism and female empowerment has become much more mainstream with the #MeToo Movement in 2018 and others developments allowed Gerwig to tap into the vulnerability and layers of feminist ideology, exposing its weaknesses with Jo’s expression of loneliness in a final scene toward the end of the film, which resulted in exceptional reception.
    Focusing specifically on the character of Jo, both films utilized the star power of the actors portraying her but also position her differently as a mode of presenting the feminist ideal. Both Winona Ryder and Saoirse Ronan were (and still remain) huge Hollywood stars at the time of their casting for this film. It was also revealed that Columbia Pictures mainly went ahead with production for Little Women (1994) only after Ryder had signed on to play Jo (Spencer 2019). This use of stardom to propel a film ties into Walter Benjamin’s concept of the “cult of personality”, characterized by the “cult of the movie star, fostered by the money of the film industry, preserves… ‘the spell of the personality’, the phony spell of a commodity” (1935 p. 57). Although Benjamin clearly has a cynical view of the celebrity and sees their purpose as only a vessel for monetary value, I would argue that it is advantageous in this case due to the historical and pop cultural context of when both films were distributed. Ryder’s monetary value as a “star” was a major proponent for the film getting made, in a time where films about female love and connection were tossed to the bottom of the pile. Regarding the 2019 version, I would argue there is a relevant reason why the relationship between Laurie and Jo feels so much more developed and complex, and there is a more intense level of heartbreak when Jo refuses his proposal. Many are aware that Saoirse Ronan and Timothee Chalamet, both extremely beloved by fans individually, have a close friendship offscreen, which I argue elevates their chemistry onscreen and also positively affected the film’s reception.
    At first glance of the two films, they appear to have similar qualities: wonderful performances by well-renowned actors, important issues about women addressed, all within the solemn setting of Concord, Massachusetts. However, after rewatching both adaptations, the slight differences were overpowering to a 2021 female viewer such as myself, while both clearly showing the power of the female voice, and in turn giving me hope for the future of female storytelling.


Works Cited

Benjamin, W. (1936). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.

​​Zeisler, A. (2008). Feminism and Pop Culture. New York, NY: Seal Press. Pp. 1-21.

Spencer, A. (2019). ‘Little Women’: An Oral History of the 1994 Adaptation. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/movies/little-women.html