VF has a first look at Greta Gerwig’s ‘Little Women’ adaptation and… OMG?!?!

When Greta Gerwig announced that she would adapt and direct a new version of Little Women, I was partly intrigued and partly aghast. Obviously, a classic piece of American literature will be adapted many times over, especially a story as film-friendly as Little Women. And it’s not like every film version has been perfect or even good – I despise the Katherine Hepburn version, where she plays Jo March. I also despise the Winona Ryder-Susan Sarandon version completely, because it was utterly miscast from top to bottom. The only excellent version is the 1949 film with June Allyson (as Jo), Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and Kim Novak as Meg. It really is the best version.

But still, I’m intrigued with Greta’s version. Vanity Fair got the exclusive first look of the film, which will be out later this year. You can some of VF’s exclusive photos above, and the rest of the photos here at VF. I wasn’t into the image of the four sisters together, but the shot of Saoirse Ronan’s Jo standing in front of Timothee Chalamet’s Laurie… it took my breath away. Even if the rest of the film is garbage, they got THAT right. I feel strongly that Saoirse will be a fantastic tomboy Jo and that Timothee will bring that Pale Rich Boy Realness to Laurie.

In case you’re wondering about the rest of the cast, here we go: Florence Pugh is Amy, Eliza Scanlen as Beth and Emma Watson is Meg. Laura Dern is Marmee and Meryl Streep is… Aunt March. I’m not a fan of Laura Dern (I know, I know, I’m alone with that) so I couldn’t really care less. And Aunt March is more of a cameo role anyway. I’m intrigued most of all with Florence Pugh as Amy. That could be very interesting. Casting Emma Watson as Meg though… seems like an odd choice.

The Vanity Fair piece includes a nice interview with Gerwig and some interesting details about the production and Gerwig’s research into Louisa May Alcott and her family. Go here to read.

This photo, my lord.

Photos courtesy of Vanity Fair.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

138 Responses to “VF has a first look at Greta Gerwig’s ‘Little Women’ adaptation and… OMG?!?!”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    Amy is the WORST. Ugh.

    I know I’m in the minority here, but I don’t like Little Women. I actually re-read it last year as part of a book club and realized how much I don’t like it. An Old Fashioned Girl was so much better.

    • Smalltowngirl says:

      It’s funny, Amy was always my favorite 😂

    • KarenG says:

      I so agree! An Old Fashioned Girl is a special book from my childhood. I read Little Women around the same time and much preferred Polly’s story.

    • Scal says:

      @becks you are not alone! I read little women in 5th grade and never liked any of it. Jo was such a complainer to me. I reread it as a adult to see if it was just because I was a kid, and nope.

      Wuthering Heights is another one that all my friends love and I’ve never enjoyed.

      • The Hench says:

        Me three. I also didn’t like Little Women or Wuthering Heights. I studied the latter for A-level and found all the characters deeply annoying! Jane Eyre was so much better to me.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Jane Eyre fan here too; Wuthering Heights was a disturbing novel about twisted people. My husband recently read Little Women and saw where it was disjointed – apparently Alcott wrote one book and it became so popular she was asked to write another, and the two were joined into the current version. The latter half is awfully preachy.

        Alcott’s “Eight Cousins” is another light, delightful book.

      • Suz says:

        I read Wuthering Heights soooo many times as a teenager and young adult. I loved Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff in the 1939 film. As a grown ass adult I can’t stand it now. Everyone in that book is a truly horrible person except for Hareton.

      • himmiefan says:

        Wuthering Heights is awful! Heathcliff is a horrible character.

      • Carmen says:

        I could never get into Little Women or Wuthering Heights. I read Jane Eyre when I was 12 and fell madly in love with Mr. Rochester. It wasn’t until I grew up and read it again that I realized he was a world class jerk.

      • LAR says:

        I loved Little Women as a child. But, yes, Wuthering Heights is terrible. I luv Jane Eyre.

      • Justine says:

        In college, I wrote a scathing essay about how all the characters in Wuthering Heights needed therapy and were completely dysfunctional. My English professor, who loved the book, wrote “Did you find nothing redeemable about the main characters?” as her comment, but still gave me an A, bless her. I hated that book.

      • detta says:

        Wuthering Heights is not supposed to be a charming, romantic read. It is many things, but not a novel to enjoy in the sense that it gives you good feels. It is, of course, okay not to like it. But repeatedly I have come across people who look at it from the dramatic romance angle only, which reduces the things it touches upon and yes, it is twisted and dark and gothic.

    • line says:

      I also hate Little Woman because for a book considered as a great classic, the story awfully poorly looks through the years.Then I think that theme of book is tooo American, not universal, so it’s difficult to cling to the novel when your not American.

    • Rhys says:

      Apparently, Louisa herself didn’t like “Little Women” and was practically forced to finish it by her publisher 🙂

    • TyrantDestroyed says:

      I’m with you. I read it as a child and re read it as a young adult and never got the appeal. I don’t know if I will watch the new adaptation because except by Ronan and Chalamet the cast is meh.

      • SKF says:

        Florence Pugh is an amazing actress! Emma Watson is the weak link (I know nothing about the actress playing Beth). If I were Emma I would be extremely nervous playing alongside these other actors. Laura is capable of exceptional work, we’ll see. Meryl… well I happen to think Meryl is the most over-rated actress out there. She is capable of superb performances but often overacts horribly. I thought her Margaret Thatcher was an impersonation and nothing else and I’m still annoyed she won an Oscar for it. I consider Jessica Lange and Annette Bening – amongst others – to be far superior actresses. She may prove me wrong, but I tend to assume that she will be a big ham as Aunt May.

    • minx says:

      I loved Rose in Bloom. I just don’t think we need yet another version of this book.

    • FHMom says:

      Yes, but Elizabeth Taylor as Amy is perfection.

  2. minx says:

    That bottom photo, wow.

    • tempest prognosticator says:

      It’s breathtaking.

    • Kk2 says:

      Yes. I’m all in on their chemistry based on that photo alone. Before that, i was thinking I’m good on Little Women, it’s been done. But that photo…. Yea ok maybe I’ll watch it.

    • Hey hey says:

      Weird, that bottom photo looks more like Florence Pugh than Saoirse.

    • Hey hey says:

      Weird that bottom pic looks more like Florence Pugh than Saoirse

      • TK says:

        I was not recognising Saoirse at all there, still can’t believe it’s her. She doesn’t look like herlsef in any of the photos, she looks like a completely different person!

      • maisie says:

        It *is* Florence (ptui) Pugh. Remember who Laurie ends up with. And yeah, Elizabeth Taylor (with her great beauty AND humor) is the only one who made the annoying Amy palatable. Pugh (feh) will do the character in the usual way.

        Oh, and Watson became Meg when Emma Stone had to drop out.

  3. Lulu says:

    Ngl, it looks like Emma is struggling to keep up with the rest of the cast even in pictures.
    Supposedly Greta was pressured by the studios to get a household name cast after Emma Stone dropped out.
    The preview screenings seem to indicate that that was a Bad Idea.

    • Steff says:

      She sticks out like a sore thumb. I think Emma Stone would have been miscast as well but at least she’s a decent actress…

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I struggle to understand why Emma Watson still get roles, she is a terrible actress and made the B&B live action movie unbearable for me as her ‘singing’ made my ears bleed

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        She has name recognition. I agree she is a terrible actress, but that doesn’t seem to matter. Also, in Hollywood it’s “who you know.” The year of the last Harry Potter movie, Watson was seen partying with Harvey Weinstein — I am NOT saying or implying she did anything inappropriate, my only point is that if an actor has connections (whether they are friends, relatives, neighbors, or even just use the same supplier) they get roles whether they deserve it or not.

      • duchesschicana says:

        its kind of like how is steven spielberg still makiing movies if they are flops? Like the person above me said name recognization .

    • Bella Bella says:

      Cary Mulligan would have been great, if they were going for that look.

      • Granger says:

        I was going to say that at 34, Mulligan is way too old to play Meg. But Emma Watson is 29 so… clearly they’re not going for realism here.

    • serena says:

      Mmm I don’t think Emma Stone would have fit at all, so for that at least I’m glad.

  4. Julie says:

    I’m so disappointed they replaced Emma Stone with Emma Watson. With Stone it would have been one of the best young casts assembled in recent times. Watson on the other hand struggles to rise above serviceable. Surrounded by this cast I think she’s going to stick out like a sore thumb.

    • minx says:

      Watson has her one wry expression and that’s about it.

      • Lulu says:

        Yeah, it’s either wry, smug or melodramatic sadness. Apparently they cut scenes with Laura Dern because Emma was so bad in them and I’m so bummed about that

      • Bella Bella says:

        Maybe Greta Gerwig will coax a good performance out of Emma. A great director can make a big difference.

    • Tater tot says:

      Weird, I don’t find Emma Stone a better actress than Watson.

      • Grant says:

        I definitely do, they’re in two totally different leagues IMO. Emma Watson almost ruined Beauty and the Beast for me.

      • Eliza says:

        Stone is a better actress than Watson. But Stone isn’t up to the other 3 lady’s talent either. Both are miscast in this role.

    • LouBear says:

      @LuLu where did you hear about Emma Watson’s scenes being cut? x

      • Lulu says:

        The awards watch forum, you need a login but it’s free to sign up. Early focus group testing did not reflect well on Emma which is disappointing

    • sommolierlady says:

      Neither Emma belongs in there. They are both mediocre at best.

  5. smcollins says:

    I’m intrigued and definitely will see it. The cast line-up sounds amazing, even though I haven’t heard of 2 of the actresses (Beth & Amy). On a side note, I really love the Winona Ryder version of LW and don’t consider it miscast at all (with the exception of Samantha Mathis as adult Amy). To each his own I guess. 🙂

    • Becks1 says:

      I think Florence Pugh (who plays Amy) is going to be a Big Deal over the next few years. She was in Outlaw King with Chris Pine, and when I saw that I looked her up on IMDB and was like, “huh, she’s really working with some big names” even though I had never heard of her before.

      • The Hench says:

        Continuing on my theme of not particularly liking things, I couldn’t really get into the Little Drummer Girl but I thought Florence Pugh was amazing in it. That was the first time I’d seen her in anything.

      • theothercleo says:

        Have you seen Lady Macbeth? It was her first big part. She’s extraodinary in it. I had never heard of her before and went out thinking I’ll probably see her A LOT in the years to come.

      • smcollins says:

        Thanks for the info, I’ll have to check those out and familiarize myself with her work!

      • maisiei says:

        Oh god no. Pugh singlehandedly ruined The Little Drummer Girl – her scenes with Skarsgard were laughable, especially as she looked like a stumpy fireplug next to his tall Nordic gorgeousness. She’s the female version of Kit Harington.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      I’m with you. I enjoyed everyone in Ryder’s version except Mathis. She just wasn’t believable at all.

      The June Allyson version is great. It’s my favourite of them with the Winona Ryder version second. I agree with Kaiser that the Katharine Hepburn version is terrible. As great as she was in other films, she was not good as Jo.

    • Dee Kay says:

      I *love* the Winona Ryder version and I think the cast is sublime excerpt for Older!Amy. I know it’s impossible but if only they could have paused filming for 5-7 years and shot scenes of Kirsten Dunst as Older!Amy with Christian Bale, that pairing would have made so much sense and the film would be perfect in my book. Casting Gabriel Byrne as Behr was a stroke of genius, he actually made that character as hot and tragic as I think Alcott wanted him to be. I don’t think Ryder is a good actress but she gave everything she had to her portrayal of Jo and it really worked for me.

    • ChillyWilly says:

      It’s really interesting to read the differing opinions on the film versions. To each their own, I’m indeed!
      Eliza Scanlen plays Beth was Amma in Sharp Objects! Two very different roles!

    • Granger says:

      June Allyson was perfection as Jo — the only actress to play Jo who ever got it right. Personally, I think Winona Ryder was terribly miscast. She’s far too pixie-ish and cutesy. Jo is described in the book as all angles and limbs and boyishness.

      • Kaiser says:

        THANK YOU. Winona was always dreadfully miscast as Jo. That whole movie was so bad because of the casting issues.

  6. Lightpurple says:

    I love Little Women so I am looking forward to this but I really wish filmmakers would move on to some of Alcott’s other books. She wrote sequels to Little Women. She also created several other great female characters. I particularly love Rose from Eight Cousins and Rose in Bloom, which would require a large cast but would provide some great opportunities to the middle-aged and older actresses who got to play the aunts (there’s 5 or 6 of them.)

    Also, if you’re visiting Boston, a trip out to Concord to visit the Alcott home is well worth it. It’s not far from all the Revolutionary War stuff. The house is charming, May (Amy) was allowed to draw on the walls. The sisters were expected to keep journals and read from those journals every night at dinner, where dinner guests often included the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Thoreau.

    And the last time I was out there, I got to see Chris Evans running with his dog.

    • tempest prognosticator says:

      I visited the Alcott home and you’re right, it’s quite charming. They had an idyllic childhood – not perfect – but, full of love and creative nurturing.

      • Emeraldeyes says:

        The Alcott family moved 22 times in Louisa’s life. She started working at 15 because her father was such a poor provider, and home life was reportedly tough because of his fecklessness.

        It was not idyllic by any stretch.

      • Cee says:

        It wasn’t, though. Gerwig realised that Alcott made the Marches much better off than her real family life.

    • Becks1 says:

      I would LOVE to see movie versions of Eight cousins and Rose in Bloom. Those books were so good.

    • manda says:

      I’m pretty sure there is a series that addresses the other stories. …. ok, I googled it. It’s a canadian show called little men and it was in the 90s and only had two seasons. It used to be on Prime but I don’t think it’s free anymore

    • Esmom says:

      Oh wow, I don’t know how we missed the Alcott home. We had an amazing vacation in Boston a few years ago and my kids still think Lexington and Concord were one of the highlights. So much history, never enough time to see everything.

    • Marianne says:

      I think its just because Little Women is most well known one. And if your’e a producer you want a well known IP because it will be easier (in theory) to sell tickets to.

    • Amelie says:

      I visited the Louisa May Alcott house as a kid! I would love to revisit it. My mom’s childhood friend lives in the Boston area so we used to regularly go up there and visit. I remember the tour guide there was excellent and seemed to know everything about the house and the Alcott family!

    • Hannah says:

      They can’t make Rose in Bloom because she married her first cousin lolol

    • North of Boston says:

      The Alcott home is worth seeing, and it’s also worth a trip a town or two over to Fruitlands in Harvard, the site of a of LMA’s father’s attempt to establish a utopian community. She did not enjoy the experience:

      http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/louisa-may-alcott-10-child-laborer-fruitlands-commune/

      It’s a beautiful site to just roam around at, and it has some interesting exhibits on Native American culture, the Harvard Shaker Community, art exhibits as well as the Alcott/Lane commune experiment.

  7. Bluebird says:

    There was also the 2017 BBC three episode version with Emily Watson as Marmee and Maya Hawke (Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke’s daughter) as Jo. It was pretty good!

    • Cee says:

      ooohhh I need to watch it.

    • serena says:

      I don’t know about that, I tried watching it but some of the performances (I’m looking at Maya Hawke) were so poor I felt embarrassed for them.

  8. TeamAwesome says:

    And James “Hot Vicar” Norton as John Brook! He has chemistry with brick walls, so hopefully Emma Watson’s Meg won’t have a problem in those scenes.

    I loved the most recent Masterpiece Theatre version!
    And no matter the version, Amy remains the absolute worst.

    • theothercleo says:

      I had no idea James Norton was in it! Another good reason to watch this movie!

  9. Lizzie says:

    i CAN’T wait

    • Bella Bella says:

      Timothee Chalamet is perfectly cast. The part was made for him. I don’t think of Saoirse as androgynous by any means. I think she’s stunning. And I also think her acting is effortless and her face is luminous on screen. She’s going to be wonderful.

  10. Erinn says:

    Alright. This is the first time I’ve ever really paid attention to the Timothée kid – and breath = taken. He is a beautiful beautiful guy. And I love Saoirse Ronan – she’s so stunning and it always seems like it’s effortless.

    I’ll be honest – I’ve never read or watched Little Women. I know there’s a sad death, and I just can’t do sad stuff. I miss out on a ton of movies and literature because I just can’t deal with weepy kinds of situations. I’ll get too engrossed in it, and feel awful afterwards. It’s rare for me to find a cry cathartic, and I generally will trigger a migraine if I get too upset watching or reading something ahha.

    Also in the trend of honesty – I really am not much of a fan of Emma Watson. I liked her well enough as Hermoine but I just can’t see her as much of anything else. She’s always just kind of a wistful, slightly huffy version of herself in the things I’ve seen.

    • megs283 says:

      @Erinn, I get deeply involved in fictional characters’ lives as well. I definitely need to avoid some topics for my own mental health, and I feel betrayed if an author slips something in that I wasn’t expecting (particularly the death of a child).

    • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

      I agree with everything you say here Erinn. Although I’ve read Little Women and watched adaptations when I was younger, which of course helped me better know myself along the way. I can’t handle tear-jerkers, rom-coms and musicals. I truly can’t. If someone breaks out in song I evaporate in a puff of smoke. I can handle Dickensian pieces probably because they’re so bleak lol.

      Emma has zero range. She was palatable as Hermione, but in the first movie, she was difficult to swallow the first half.

    • lobstah says:

      @Erinn – watch him in Beautiful Boy. Your mind will be blown, again.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Yes, there’s a sad death but it happens, hard to describe this for a book so I’ll use movie language, off screen. There’s no death scene. We learn about it after the fact, after the funeral even, as a character is mourning. There’s an earlier very sad sick bed scene, which always makes me weepy despite the fact I rarely cry, but the sick character pulls through that. The sick scene actually gets far more coverage than the death.

      • Erinn says:

        Perfect vague description, LP! I might have to give it a shot – that sounds like something I can at least PREPARE for.

  11. Case says:

    Emma Watson has a VERY hard time acting naturally on camera. You can tell even in photos. Saoirse is gonna act circles around her. She’d really be better off focusing on her causes full time. I think she seems smart and lovely, just a bad actress.

    • perplexed says:

      Watson always seems slightly anxious to me. She does this quivering thing with her voice which happens to me when I’m nervous.

      • Valerie says:

        She was an okay child actress when she was really young, but came out as one of the weaker HP actors over time.

    • Cindy says:

      I think Emma needs to find better roles for herself. I imagine acting in dramas like this goes better with her “smart” persona (I’m not doubting her smarts, just pointing out this is her image), but she doesn’t have the acting chops. She always ends up being the weak link in casts like this.

      Emma’s not bad at campier movies like Harry Potter, Beauty and the Beast or The Bling Ring. Angelina actually had a similar case earlier in her career – she often looked out of place in dramas and shined more in sillier action films. Let’s be real, not everyone is talented in Hollywood, but some actors are smarter about how they compensate their lack of talent (The Rock is an excellent example of this).

      • North of Boston says:

        Emma was pretty good in This Is The End, playing off her public image.
        It was a ridiculous movie, but pretty funny.

  12. Uppenyrcraut says:

    I am all for the Winona Ryder version, I love that film, Christian Bale as Laurie was great and Claire Danes as Beth too. I know the super lefties on here hate alternative medicine, but I grew up on homeopathy and I enjoyed watching Marmee get our her kit like my mum used to do, it felt familiar.

    • Kath says:

      I cannot believe anyone hates the Winona version!! I’m aghast. I LOVE IT SO MUCH.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Christian Bale is how I envisioned Laurie.

    • Jerusha says:

      “I know the super lefties on here hate alternative medicine”. Where do you get that
      opinion? I’m a super lefty and I never, ever get sick, so I take no medicine whatsoever except for Similasen homeopathic eyedrops for dry eyes. That’s right, my one and only medicine is homeopathic, so that negates your statement right there. My lefty daughter uses homeopathic as sleep aids and for back aches.

    • Valerie says:

      And Gabriel Byrne… Don’t forget him.

  13. Jerusha says:

    I love the work of Gerwig, Ronan and Chalamet, so I will be there, most definitely.

  14. manda says:

    I LOOOOOOVE the winona ryder version, but I also enjoy the story. The first version of Little Women I ever saw was an anime version on nickelodian in the 80s. I did not like the BBC (or whatever channel it was on) version from the last few years. I will check this out, but something tells me that the winona ryder version is locked in. I thought that all the actors did well in their roles in that film, and I just love it.

    I recently learned that LMA really hated those books but people bought them so she kept writing them. Fascinating!

  15. perplexed says:

    They really managed to de-glamourize Emma Watson for this. Good job on that.

    I guess this proves that it would have been impossible to make Winona Ryder to look less good-looking.

    • Lightpurple says:

      A friend describes Winona as “distractingly beautiful” and believes that the failure to cut Kirsten Dunst’s “Oh, Jo, your only beauty” line ruined the film for her.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        I agree with your friend about Ryder’s beauty, but disagree about that line. The way Kirsten said it felt to me like just a way to dig at Jo rather than state a fact. Amy at that point was happy to annoy Jo in general and wouldn’t miss an opportunity to get under her skin.

      • perplexed says:

        Even if it was a dig, it’s still funny because all through that movie you’re looking at Winona and thinking, “Wow, she’s pretty. I don’t know if she can act, but she’s pretty.”

        I guess the line could work ironically, but it doesn’t really work as a dig, I don’t think, unless it’s a dig that Jo for failing to understand she is actually pretty. Then, yeah, it works.

      • Valerie says:

        That line always bugs my mom! lol. That and the fact that she was Jo and Clare Danes played sickly Beth. Winona was the cool girl of the 90s, so it makes sense for her to play the part, and she does it well, but I agree with her on CD. She doesn’t look fragile enough. I just see Angela Chase.

      • Lightpurple says:

        The line is directly from the book in which Jo is repeatedly described as the “plain” one of the group except for her beautiful red hair, which she cuts off to sell for the money for Marmee’s travel expenses to see their sick father.

      • perplexed says:

        Yeah, the line is from the book, which explains why Winona Ryder was miscast to some degree. Maybe they shoudl have stuck fake acne or a fake nose on her or something, although she still probably would have had a glow.

        I remember thinking Emma Watson might be miscast, but in photos (where you don’t have to see her act) she does look plain enough for the role.

      • Julie says:

        A lot of what counted as beauty back then was the way you presented yourself. Being technically beautiful wasn’t nearly enough for most of society if you dressed and moved and spoke like Jo. Amy wasn’t saying Jo had an ugly face or anything, just that she’d given up the one thing that defied her tomboyishness and did conform to the beauty standards of the time, her long beautiful hair.

  16. Lala11_7 says:

    I recently watched the 1949 version…twice in a weekend…because it was SO GOOD…fresh…and provocative as HEYLL…considering when it was made….so this adaptation has some HUGE shoes to fill…

    However, I absolutely ADORE Timothee…so for THAT alone…I will see

    • MrsBanjo says:

      Yes! The 1949 version is my favourite. The cast was just wonderful.

      • Mumbles says:

        I agree that the 1949 is the best! June Allyson captured Jo well. And dreamy Peter Lawford. It was a little weird that Beth (Margaret O’Brien) seemed younger than Elizabeth Taylor’s Amy, but okay. Oh that scene between old Mr. Lawrence and Beth about the piano….I’m farklempt thinking of it.

        For years I didn’t understand the love of the 1994 version (Ryder just seemed like a 1990s valley girl in it, and I’m ordinarily a fan).

        I also liked the PBS/BBC miniseries last year, although it was a bit long. Maya Hawke was lovely.

        And agree with y’all, Florence Pugh should be the Next Big Thing. Lady Macbeth was chilling.

    • Valerie says:

      Was that the one with Rossano Brazzi? He made a hot Bhaer, lol, but Gabriel Byrne is the best for me. Those eyes!

  17. J ferber says:

    Read the book at ten and am very fond of it. Poor Louisa had to support her family since Dad was a feckless (transcendental?) Minister. I believe her hard hustling led to her early death. Vaguely remember Kate Hepburn film, but loved Winona version. I’ve never seen the June allyson and Kim novak version(i believe them both to be second rate actresses).i love Greta and am always willing to support a woman director. I also loved her quotation about the two characters. Will see it.

  18. Cee says:

    I love this novel and I actually own DVDs for each film adaptation made. I guess we all wanted to be Jo.

    I read the VF article and was impressed with how much research Gerwig did – they actually filmed many scenes in houses/places where Alcott lived! That just adds a whole new layer to this story and something else she said “they weren’t in a period piece, they were living their lives”. I look forward to this adaptation.

  19. Veronica says:

    Janet Leigh played Meg in the 1949 version. I detest all the films but especially that one because they made Amy older than Beth. I get they wanted to cast both Elizabeth Taylor and Margaret O’Brien but that change irritated me so much it was hard to finish.

  20. aleja_mx says:

    I’ve never liked Watson’s acting. She was awful in The Bling Ring and totally miscast as Bella in Beauty ans the beast. Oddly enough I believe she’s given a pass because of The Harry Potter Saga, but other than that, I don’t consider her a good actress.

    • Steff says:

      You hit the nail on the head. Her HP fame is why she still gets acting jobs over more talented actresses. I suspect that some of the movies she does would not be green-lit without her. Hollywood is a viscous cycle.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      She gets roles as the studios bank on her HP name recognition getting the HP generation bums on cinema seats – sadly that is not true but the studios don’t seem to realise this just yet.

  21. Valerie says:

    I don’t want to dismiss this sight unseen, but I’m not optimistic about it. The 1994 version was perfect. Even more incredibly, it took 12 years to get off the ground! I can imagine how different it would’ve been if it had been made in the 80s. The timing ended up being perfect, and I don’t think anyone can top the performances in that one.

    EDIT: If I have a shred of optimism about it, it’s because of Saoirse. She’s so talented.

  22. Lila says:

    I read it as a child and I’m inclined to reread it again before watching the movie. My childhood self didn’t approve of Jo or Laurie’s choices in partner. I’m curious if it’ll read any differently as an adult.

    • Ladiabla says:

      My adult self didn’t approve of Jo or Laurie’s choice of a partner. C’mon girl, your childhood best friend is in love with you, he’s gorgeous AND rich, and you still can’t say yes. You had to sell your HAIR at one point!!! You needed to secure that future!!! 😉

  23. ChillyWilly says:

    I hate the June Allyson movie and love the Kate Hepburn version! To me Kate nailed Jo! June Allyson is annoying in everything. I didn’t mind the Wimona Ryder version but I didn’t love It either. This new one looks good to me. Saoirse will be a great Jo!

  24. Div says:

    Alright, now I’m interested. When I first heard Great was doing a remake, I was sure this would be…not great…even though Greta is talented.

  25. DP says:

    “the shot of Saoirse Ronan’s Jo standing in front of Timothee Chalamet’s Laurie… it took my breath away. Even if the rest of the film is garbage, they got THAT right. I feel strongly that Saoirse will be a fantastic tomboy Jo and that Timothee will bring that Pale Rich Boy Realness to Laurie.”
    Yes! I can’t wait to see this chemistry!!!!

  26. Suz says:

    I like the Winona Ryder version. *shrugs*
    Emma Watson seems like a lovely person but she is not a good actress. Sorry not sorry.

  27. Penguin says:

    I’ve always struggled with this book, mainly because I think I really identified with Beth as I first read it, and woah wasn’t expecting what happened to her.

    Then I get why Jo didn’t end up with Laurie, but I hate that he ended up with Amy.

    Emma Watson is so wooden, you could see her try and ‘act’ on screen as Hermione, she was the weakest link. Which was a real waste as Steve Kloves loved her and stole Ron’s best lines for her

  28. Marjorie says:

    Looks like Greta and Saoirse have butched up Jo. Jo (Lou, as Louisa was called by friends and family) would probably like that, given the 150 years of having been dressed in ruffles and flounces.

    I am an unabashed diehard Louisa May Alcott fan and I can recite parts of Little Women and Little Men, I ate up the books in my childhood and have reread them once in a while. Also agree about Rose in Bloom.

    LMA’s fun father was a transcendentalist who kinda sorta never worked, just thought alot and hung around Thoreau and Emerson. The family stayed together through abject poverty, supported occasionally by Aunt May (and Thoreau).

    LMA wrote Little Women to pay the bills, and it paid the bills until her early death from mercury poisoning (from medicine she had to take for an illness she got as a Civil War nurse I think). I wonder what her unwritten future work would have been like.

    • Jenn says:

      I like teasing friends “you’re such a Jo!” because do I mean Jo March or do I mean Facts of Life Jo??

  29. Liz says:

    Janet Leigh played Meg, not Kim Novack.

  30. Adam says:

    Pics look beautiful…it just looks SO white. LOL.

  31. Sassbr says:

    Considering that apparently the movie is supposed to be about their adulthood flashing back to their younger selves, does anyone think the cast looks like a weird mix of ages? Like I know they’re all around the same age, early to mid-twenties, but they all LOOK vastly different. Chalamet looks like a child compared to Ronan and Pugh is the same age as they but she is supposed to be how much younger? And yes, like everyone else, Emma Watson playing Meg, the eldest who is beautiful and to be comfortable and married, I don’t get that.

  32. Marianne says:

    I am like 85% excited for Timmy alone.

  33. Amelie says:

    I loved the 1994 version but it’s also the only version I’ve ever seen. I liked the entire cast in that movie. Maybe if you grew up with a different version you may not like but as I am a 90s child that is the version I watched growing up. We had it on VHS in my house. I thought Wynona Ryder was perfect as Jo, even the insufferable Susan Sarandon. It’s entirely a matter of opinion. I also visited the Louisa May Alcott house as a kid. I remember when I first realized Christian Bale played Laurie, I had noooo idea until I was an adult that was him. Or that Claire Danes played Beth.

    I am intrigued by this version. I also don’t think Emma Watson is a terrible actress like everyone says but Saoirse Ronan is definitely a stronger performer. Never seen Timothee Chalamet in anything so I can’t judge him. But the pictures make me want to see it.

    I read the book as a kid a long time ago but really don’t have much memory of it and would have to reread it.

    • Div says:

      @Amelie,
      Yeah, I agree that Watson isn’t terrible. She’s decent enough. However, I do worry that when sharing scenes with much stronger performers like Ronan and Dern that she’s going to struggle.

  34. Mowie says:

    I grew up in Concord and worked at the Orchard House as a tour guide when I was younger. (If you’re a Little Women fan and have met yet been, it’s a Must Do!) I still remember looking through stored boxes in a back room and finding one with locks of the Alcott sisters’ hair— a bit macabre but thrilling too! Katherine Hepburn was an Alcott fan and actually came back to visit— I had the honor of meeting her in the 80’s when she came to the Orchard House to see a play being performed in the barn next door by her niece. Talk about a thrill! Can’t wait to see the newest movie— they filmed locally and a dear friend of mine got to be an extra in the beach scene…

  35. The Recluse says:

    I haven’t read any of Alcott’s books, interestingly enough. I didn’t read Wuthering Heights until I was grown up. It isn’t a favorite, but as I had read biographies on the Brontes I had a notion of what Emily intended: a non traditional sort of tale, with decidedly non-traditional characters, ones without an ounce of sentimentality and basically cruel. One wonders what sort of novels Emily might have written later, if she hadn’t died so young.

  36. anon says:

    they got Laurie SO right. Timothee is going to kill this.

  37. Deering24 says:

    “The only excellent version is the 1949 film with June Allyson (as Jo), Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and Kim Novak as Meg. It really is the best version.”

    No—that would be the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn. 😉

  38. Marta says:

    Kim Novak was NOT in the 1949 version. Janet Leigh played Meg. As far as I know, Kim Novak wasn’t in any version of Little Women.

  39. clairej says:

    I love the 1994 version. I think that’s why I despise Jo so much. How could she turn down Christian Bale’s Laurie. No but truthfully even in the book I couldn’t bear Jo. I feel like I have had my dose after seeing the Maya Hawke version (she missed out on her spunky Laurie too). Enjoyed that version as well. I have to add l love Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre (although my favourite Bronte is The Tenant of Wildfell Hall). The book that disappointed me the most on rereading as an adult was ‘Rebecca’.

  40. Catherine says:

    The 1949 version is the best, even with Elizabeth’s distracting blonde wig, but I have to pipe up and say it was the sublime Janet Leigh, not Kim Novak, as Meg in this version.