What is the most accurate movie adaptation of ‘Little Women’?

Posted On February 1, 2025February 1, 2025

In 1868, the first volume of Louisa May Alcott’s coming-of-age novel Little Women was published, introducing the world to a timeless story of sisterhood that paved the way for subsequent tales about the mighty transition from adolescence into young adulthood. The second volume, otherwise known as Good Wives, was released the following year, continuing to explore the lives of the March sisters through thick and thin. From parties to tragedy, Alcott captures the ups and downs of growing up effortlessly, and the story has comforted and guided many young women through life for decades.

As a result of its popularity, it was adapted into a film in 1917, but this silent version has since been lost. While we’ll never know what this version, directed by Alexander Butler, was like, other filmmakers have since taken turns to bring Alcott’s beloved book to life, with the most recent being a South Korean television adaptation, released in 2022.

The book clearly possesses a universality that has long attracted readers from all across the globe despite the fact that the novel is set during the American Civil War. Its wide appeal can be found in its vivid and relatable exploration of girlhood, with each sister possessing unique traits that readers can identify with. If you’re a bookworm with plenty of dedication and ambition, you likely align yourself with Jo, while those with more melodramatic tendencies are typically drawn to Amy.

But which adaptation is most faithful to Alcott’s story? The black-and-white version from 1933, directed by George Cukor, is rather highly regarded, standing as the first sound adaptation of the book. Yet, it doesn’t quite capture the cosiness and warmth at the heart of the book in the same way the most recent two film versions – released in 1994 and 2019, respectively – do.

How many movie adaptations of Little Women are there?

Out of the seven movie adaptations of Little Women, the most recent versions just tap into the heart of Alcott’s story a lot more effectively. Cukor’s version omits many important moments, predominantly allowing Jo, played by Katharine Hepburn, to shine more than the other sisters.

Meanwhile, Gillian Armstrong’s version, starring Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, Christian Bale, and Kirsten Dunst, gives a much more well-rounded picture of the characters, imbuing the movie with equal amounts of girlish playfulness and charm alongside more tender and moving moments. It feels faithful to what Alcott was trying to portray in her novel, and you can’t help but strongly root for all of the characters.

Many would argue that Greta Gerwig’s 2019 version is the best, and while it is an entertaining film, it just isn’t as faithful to Alcott’s book. Not only do the sisters seem miscast – it feels as though Gerwig simply plucked some of Hollywood’s most coveted young stars and placed them in the film – much of the costume decisions do not accurately reflect the time period, which is most obvious in the clothes worn by Jo. From the historically inaccurate hairstyles to Emma Watson’s bad performance as Meg, Gerwig’s version just doesn’t do the book as much justice as the 1990s version.

So, while there is also Harley Knoles’ 1918 version, Mervyn LeRoy’s 1949 take, and Clare Niederpruem’s modernised 2018 adaptation to consider, none of these come close to bringing Alcott’s story to the screen as vividly and beautifully as Armstrong did.

Related Topics