As a result of the new adaptation of ‘Dune’ the following question began to arise: can taking a novel back to the cinema be considered a remake? Are they out of the definition for a capricious benefit of the doubt or because the intentions are really different? Where does the relationship between the different adaptations that are made of an original work begin and where does it end? Are readaptations an escape route to hide the lack of commitment to original content since they are less coarse than a remake?
I know many questions, and the best thing is that I don’t really have an answer to any of them. But readaptation is always interesting, because of how consciously or unconsciously tries to separate itself from other versions and how it tries to form a different relationship with the original material. And because of how it is finally modified by a new context and by the evolution of cinematographic language and/or pop culture. That’s why I find it interesting to see the different versions of ‘little women‘, including the one that has arrived today on Netflix.
the marked path
This version is the one released in 1994, directed by Gillian Armstrong -the first woman to make an adaptation of the novel by Louisa MayAlcott and it took more than 60 years, mind you- and with Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon, Trini Alvarado, Samantha Mathis, Kirsten Dunst and Claire Danes as the March women, Christian Bale as the young heartthrob Laurie and Gabriel Byrne as the scholar Friedrich Bhaer. little joke, maybe the most complete cast of all the versions that have been made.
Perhaps it is not necessary to present the history of Alcott’s novel -and if it does, how do you go through life without being aware of ‘Little Women’ in one of its different versions? -, but here it goes: during the Civil War a family of women stays in a modest village trying to survive during the period of economic poverty, without losing their ambitions. And not necessarily social, but also intellectual.
All the daughters of the March family have some distinctive trait. Jo (Ryder) is the intellectual who aspires to be a novelist, Meg (Alvarado) the most responsible, Beth (Danes) is very musical but also very fragile and Amy (Dunst when she is young and Mathis when she grows up) is the lovesick with class aspirations. . Also welcome to the group is Laurie, a gifted young man who connects well with the family. Together, through the years, share happy moments, but also painful ones. Everyone will mark their future path in one way or another.
‘Little Women’: a story that lives through generations
That aspect of the paths determined for these young and ambitious women is one of the things that Armstrong decides to delve into in his version, in contrast to the more classic and commercial melodramas of 1933 and 1949. That little more intellectual touch in his approach brings her closer to the most recent version of Greta Gerwig, although she does not reject certain conventions of the period drama of the nineties to make it accessible.
And the truth is that he manages to make good use of those conventions. ‘Little Women’ (1994) manages to appear balanced to make her ideas digestible while she respects the essence of the influential novel.His ambition does not clash with making a splendid film that anyone can enjoy., with a well-rounded structure and magnificent chemistry between its entire cast, managing to highlight a Ryder who has taken the role well and a very young Bale but with remarkable skills. Now that she is available there is no excuse not to rescue her.
In Espinof | The 21 best remakes in movie history