In the ’94 version, Jo actually refrains from calling him Laurie, and instead refers to him as “Teddy” just as affectionate but with a more masculine touch. He holds his tongue more often rather than just babbling (unlike ’33 Laurie). Furthermore, when Meg attends the ball and Laurie jokes with her, we see a dynamic very close to Meg/Jo with Laurie in Jo’s place. He is scolded for being too informal while Meg attempts to keep up a stately demeanor. We also see key scenes in  his relationship with Jo such as the ice skating and saving Amy. And when Jo cut’s her hair, she attains a physical resembelence with Laurie, who rarely has his locks cut above his ears. These changes put the character on a more equal playing field, making his attraction to Jo a much larger issue and adding more internal conflict to her character.

Sir, there is a technique in filmmaking known as elliptical editing, cutting out the unnecessary bits so you focus on the nutmeat of the story. Did we really need a five minute scene of the girls in the store, buying their presents only when we know that they will be returned later? Focus on the March Girls’ charitable efforts my good man. Despite this I am glad you finished the scene with the shopkeeper giving each girl her own personal peppermint phallus.

Secondly could you pander any more to our boys overseas with that not so subtle speech about fighting the good fight? No you could not. The acting here is so much more wooden, I feel like I’m about to get a splinter.

Beth cried, I liked that. If I recall there is a line in the book to the extent of “Beth was crying, which was perfectly normal.” 

Oh…and nice sadomasochism if I do say so myself.

Moving back to the 1933 Little Women, Cukor was obviously gah-gah over Hepburn/Jo and I have two examples of blocking that prove it. I hope to explain this sufficiently as I cannot find screenshots of the scenes, but I managed to find the film poster and it will give my observation some visual aid.

Both on the poster, and in the two early scenes, one when Mrs. March reads her children the letter, then when they sing as Beth plays the piano, there is always blocking which gives Jo an extremely prominent spot. Sort of a Number One ranking. Then Amy and Meg are usually of equal prominence, and Beth is always featured last. In the former scene, it is almost like Jo is the top of a pyramid. Amy Meg and Marmie are in the middle, and Beth, quite accurately is the base. The piano scene is an example of horizontal balance, with Meg, Amy, Marmie, and Beth all on the left side of the screen, and Jo on the right, with a considerable gap in between. If you were to imagine the screen as a scale, Cukor essentially is demonstrating through cinematic measures how Jo is equally as important as her three sisters and her mother COMBINED. It seems to me that there is no question that Cukor was going for was the “Jo March Story”

I liked how the characters, mainly Jo and Amy, were introduced in this George Cukor adaptation, since first impressions are always important and a film is no different. Having Jo at her aunt’s home, trying to sneak out of reading out loud, resulting in a shouting match and her pleading so she could work on a play. In less than 5 minutes we know the details of her job, her temper, her passion for creativity, and her skill for talking her way out of things. With Amy too we see both her lack of interest in school and how, when she is caught, she does not take punishment well. Always show rather than tell, and I think Cukor managed to show quite a bit to his audience.

Just as the film strongly establishes Jo and Amy, it also manages to give Laurie an awfully bad hand. From the first time he opens the window to say hi, we see Laurie as buffoonish. He may have his moments like at the party, but Laurie definitely conjured up the most laughter for his all-around hokey attitude. Though it may have been due to the culture/time difference between my generation and the 1930’s, it appeared to try and prove to the audience just how bad Laurie was for Jo. The portrayal of Bhaer offered a lot more humility and patience than the portrayal of Laurie.

While watching, this idea popped into my head that there may be a connection with this post-Civil War book, and how its film adaptations also always following major international conflicts. The 1933 one is a stretch, since WWI ended in 1918, but the other adaptations are all a few years after American military campaigns. WWII – 1949,
Vietnam – 1979, and Desert Storm – 1994. Little Women certainly does offer a lamentation for those who are away fighting, what with the March girl’s father away, but I don’t think this means that there is some deep underlying message due to that, instead maybe it’s just an example of how America loves both this novel and getting it’s war on simultaneously.

Finally I’d just like to point out my favorite exchange of dialogue:

“Christopher Columbus!”

“Oh Jo, don’t use such dreadful expressions!”

Robyn has a very good post on how many people identify with Jo, citing her charisma and spirit as the ideal features we wish to relate to. I think another important aspect is that we do have one very large connection with Jo. Even if one doesn’t like the book that much, it’s impossible to deny the fact that very much like Jo, we are all readers. Also, since we are enveloped in the medium that Jo dominates, thanks to her voracious literary appetite, she ends up coming across best for that particular medium. Now maybe if this narrative were translated into a “Peter And The Wolf”-like recording, Beth’s musical prowess would allow her to (heaven forbid) dominate. Or if it was some MTV reality show where the main character’s mission are to be a stuck up little bitch, well I think Amy would definitely succeed in that otherworldly realm.