Little Women

Must admit I liked it. The blurb at the beginning did say it was based on the book(s) of LM Alcott. I thought the characters were very much as I'd imagined them when I reads the book, though that was more than 50 years ago. For me it brought the book to life and the cinematography, costumes and scenery were lovely.

As other OPs have mentioned, a heavily modernised and drastically cut version of Little Women. All the sisters looked the same age (about 18) when their ages ranged from 12-17, lots of very white teeth.

Also lots of loose hair, which for the older girls, was MOST inappropriate as at the period for a woman, which Meg and Jo are, from the last chapters of Little Women, to be seen with their hair loose in public was a sign of sexual immorality,

The only thing in its favour is that DGD watched it and then took the book off the bookshelf and immediately began reading it. After a few chapters she said the book was much better than the tv production.

When I went to see the Winona Ryder film DS came with me because he was a big fan. He was about 17 at the time and he enjoyed it so much he went out and bought the book and read it!

Aunt March accompanied Amy to Europe. Why produce another character. Also, Mrs March asked Jo to go to Aunt March to ask for the £25 dollars. Why would she ask Laurie? He would have given them the money if he realised what it was for! Jo had her hair cut off after Aunt March derided her father for joining the army. That is why Aunt March had to take the money herself. There was a whole bunch of alterations and omissions which did nothing for the story. Why mess with perfection?

MOnica, agree with everything you have said.

I watched the programmes, but it is so long since I read the books. I know there were differences, so wanted to read them again. But can't, as I now can't find them . I had lots of books that were from my childhood, where have I put them? Maybe a trip up into the loft is called for? But not today.

OMG just watched the third Little Women - why didn't anyone come on here and say how sad it was? I am in absolute bits!! I must say that the programme got better with every episode - I have it recorded and luckily I didn't do as usual and delete it as I watched it because I am definitely going to watch it again.

Caught up with Little Women yesterday, I'd never read the book, although my mother had and often recommended it to me. I therefore didn't have any preconceptions but really enjoyed it, again, like The Miniaturist thought it was beautifully shot. I presumed it had been filmed in New England and when I googled the location, found a lot of the filming took place in County Wicklow, I think, fancy that! Thought Maya Hawke was very good as Jo. Like others up thread have mentioned, remember loving "What Katy Did", small town America again, but without the Civil War backdrop different times possibly late 19th century, early 20th.

How come these drama writers always refuse to actually just dramatise the book and instead write their own version? Does anyone know of any TV dramas or movies that actually stick to the book they are based on?

Not in recent years. Not since Andrew Davis started doing his adaptations. Now all adapters feel a need to make books that have won new readers for generations, as written and without tailoring, need to be adapted for modern sensibilities with stories re written and rearranged, actors all looking and acting as if the story was being played out now and anomalies, like all the young women with flying loose hair in public, which, at the time would have signified that they were prostitutes

Not necessarily M0nica. Girls didn't 'put their hair up' until they were 18. Also this was in the country and they were at home. I'm not bothered about the script writer making a few changes to relatively tiny aspects of the story. I imagine it was almost impossible to cram every detail of all those books into about 4 hours. The other problem for the poor writer is that its equally impossible to make a film that exactly matches the one that we have all created for ourselves in our heads as we have read these much loved books.
I think this production was a good effort and nice to look at. Better than all these crime programmes with nasty murders and rapes that seem to be presented as entertainment these days.

Obviously no book can be completely reproduced on screen for all kinds of reasons and changes need to be made.

There have been many successful adaptations of books for tv over the last 70 years. But I thought this one was a particularly poor one. It galumphed through 2 books in three episodes, with characters that all looked the same age and indistinguishable, one from the other. The tone and precision of the books was ignored, the plot was changed, characters appeared where they shouldn't for no reason that developed or helped to condense the plot. My 10 year old GD, turned to the book after seeing a couple of episodes and within very few chapters had decided that the book was better.

Girls did not wear their hair loose until the day before their 18th birthday and up the next day. It was not so precise. Two girls like Jo and Meg, although under 18 were out and earning their living so would be wearing their hair up and dressed and treated as adults from the time they started work. Meg was engaged before she was 18 and if she had not been dressing and behaving like a fully adult women Mr Brooke would not have been courting her nor making an offer of marriage. Loose hair in an under 18 meant they were still children and they were dressed and treated as such.

Once a girl put her hair up and dressed as an adult, her hair would only be loose when indoors and getting up or going to bed or when washing and drying it. The deep significance of loose hair in the 19th century, especially in literature is high lighted in the first page of the article cited below.

arts.brighton.ac.uk/re/literature/brightonline/issue-number-two/the-fetishization-and-objectification-of-the-female-body-in-victorian-culture

I just Googled 19th century hairstyles and found plenty of illustrations of long hair!
Your article is very biased and looking for evidence of objectification which may not be relevant in every case.
The programme in question was an entertainment not a factual lecture!

Even when I was a child, girls did not in general go about with their hair hanging loose. Hair was either cut short or restrained in pleats or ponytails. Thinking of Little House on the Prairie, old family photos, etc. no long dangly hair on show and most girls/women wearing a hat or scarf to cover their hair.

The big change came in the 60's when long straight hair was 'in' for teenage girls of a hippy persuasion, or alternatively a very short crop (like Twiggy)

I agree with Granny23. I had long hair in plaits.

My mother used to say girls in the 60s looked as if they hadn’t yet done their hair.

Just Google it. It's inadvisable to base opinions solely on personal experience.

I only gave the reference because I was challenged. I started reading the book again last night. I will not give chapter and para graph, but, even though Jo is only 15, Meg tells her off for not having her hair properly up.

We all have different views. I only saw LW because my DGD wanted me to watch it with. Personally, I have stopped watching any historical adaptations on tv about 20 years ago.Not because they adapt and make changes to the books, that is inevitable if they are adapted for other media, but because so much of the production, scripts, costume, behaviour are changed to meet modern manners and standards as if people today are incapable of understanding that, to quote a hackneyed phrase the past is another country. They do things differently

If my 10 year old GD can understand that I would imagine that 90% of the population are capable of understanding that as well.

I have just finished watching all the episodes back to back. I hated the fake snow but thought everything else lovely and very true to the original. As usual I cried buckets. Really enjoyed all of it.

Surely that's what it's all about BB - I enjoyed it too and had read all 4 books when younger. I didn't mind that there were inaccuracies in the portrayal, just sat back and enjoyed it. (I cried aswell)

I think that 100% of people understand that the past is a different country!!

re long hair -
As I remember it the main reason for girls having their hair tied back, plaited or cut short was to avoid catching nits.
I had them twice even so.
I often wonder nowadays, when long hair seems to be the fashion, how they avoid catching nits.

My mother made me have my hair cut when I was 10 because she couldn't be bothered plaiting it every morning, (she was appalled years later when I told her I had never forgotten it because my long hair was who I was) Wearing it loose would never have been an option because you just didn't. Even a pony tail wasn't really acceptable, hair had to be out of the way , not hanging round your face.

I didn't have to go into the loft, as Radio Times were printing tokens for the first two books. Success, I picked them up today. Thanks RT.

These comprised some of my favourite books in my pre-teen time. So much so, that I started to call my own Mother- Marmee, and continued with this throughout her life. I recorded these and watched them one a day and thoroughly enjoyed them. Okay, not exactly as the books, but a good representation and they were easy and fun to watch. Little violence (except the war scenes), no swearing, not even any sex -what is there not to like???

We all watched it together. Me (60's) DD's (30's and 40's) and DGD's aged 8. We all loved it. Myself and DD1 read all the books as children( don't think DD2 did ) and I am encouraging the grandchildren to read the books, I kept my childhood versions. However they had kindles for Christmas and are both deep into Harry Potter lol.