Little Women (1933/1949): Movies about Writing

You might be wondering why I’m combining these two films - If you are asking that then you probably haven’t seen both them. Little Women from 1949 is almost a shot for shot remake of Little Women from 1933. They updated the cast, added technicolor, and switched the ages of Beth and Amy, but other than that - same movie. In 1949, they just hired someone to tweak the exact same screenplay.

Quick note on the casts, just to get it out of the way. In the 1933 movie Jo is played by Katherine Hepburn, Meg is Frances Dee, Beth is Jean Parker, Amy is Joan Bennett, Marmee is Spring Byington, and Douglass Montgomery as Laurie. In the 1949 movie Jo is played by June Allyson, Meg is Janet Leigh, Beth is Margaret O’Brien, Amy is Elizabeth Taylor, Marmee is Mary Astor, and Peter Lawford as Laurie. Okay, we have that out of the way.

If for some reason you don’t know this story, here’s the short story: four sisters come of age in the mid-1800s under the watchful eye of their strong, charitable “Marmee” and while missing their idealistic father. Meg is a practical girl who remembers when the family was well-off. Jo is a “tom-boy” (not my favorite phrase, but that’s what they use in the movies) determined to someday be able to support herself as a writer. Beth is the shy home-body that is adored and protected by all. Amy is the self-absorbed little debutante and has all the earmarks of a spoiled baby sibling. The unofficial seventh March is their next door neighbor, upper class Theodore “Laurie” Laurence who crushes on Jo, but in the original book is close to all members of the family. One of my objections to the 33 and 49 versions is how Laurie really only hangs out of Jo so certain events seem to come out of left-field when they happen (but totally normal in the book). To be fair, the ‘33 one does throw in a little more of the Laurie and other sister scenes then the 49 film.

Both open with the tragedies of the Civil War, the sentimental letter from the March father, and the Christmas play that Jo wrote being rehearsed by the 4 sisters (and the fantastic line “Rodrigo! Rodrigo! Save me! Then faint.). Jo declares all of the lovely things they will have when she’s a famous author and how they can snub all of the people who look down on their family. This really isn’t so much a statement of reality for authors, but a great statement for a teenage girl to make. In the 1949 version, Beth declares that Jo is a “regular Shakespeare!”

In the 49 film, Jo tells Laurie how she wants to go to Europe because she wants to help her writing by traveling. When Jo has her first story published in a local paper, she keeps it a secret from all except Laurie (who sorta blackmails her into telling him) and hints at the fact to Beth. The 1933 film does include a scene where Jo reads the paper aloud to Amy and Meg, then revealing that she wrote it, earning a great deal of praise. In the 49 version, Laurie questions why she does all of this work for low pay and she says it’s not about the dollar, it’s about seeing her first story in print and knowing people might read it. Good answer Jo.

Despite his pride, all versions point out how Laurie is annoyed by Jo’s “scribbling” which is why the character of Professor Bhaer (Paul Lukas/Rossano Brazzi) is so important. He is about nurturing her talent and treating her as an intellectual equal. In the boarding house where Jo meets him, her landlady gives her a room with a table specifically so she can write. She takes his criticism of her writing in these movies with more of a grain of salt. More on that when I talk about the modern adaptations of the book. Instead of being upset about his words on her art, Jo just makes a lot of excuses about how her stories pay the bills.

Spoiler Alert: After Beth dies, Jo writes her greatest story, but in the 1933 film it’s a brief mention that she’s sent it off to Professor Bhaer for review and publication. The 1949 movie shows the finished novel being flipped through ready for editing.

I do love one scene where June Allyson as Jo is crying over her own story she’s written. You see her in the attic surrounded by her own scribbling and mock covers she has designed and repeating what she wrote out loud. Beth finds her and asks, “Isn’t it any good?”

“It’s wonderful,” Jo blubbers. Oh, the confidence of youth.

The 40s one really does focus more on Jo’s wish to be a writer, giving more little lines that remind the audience that she’s an ambitious artist.

Little Women: Movies about Writing

This month I’m going to cover the 1933, 1949, 1994, and 2019 Little Women adaptations. And I know people are going to be like, “But there are other versions of Little Women you could watch this week?” Well, I don’t wanna. Most other versions don’t focus very much on Jo’s wish to be writer (except for maybe that anime TV series, but that’s hard to find). So, here’s my suggestion if you are really annoyed - go watch the 70s versions of Little Women (or the silent version, that’s a trip as it’s lost) and you tell me what they include about Jo’s writing goals. I’m curious, but not enough to re-watch any of those versions :-)

The Bride Goes Wilds: Movies about Writing

Time for a movie about two big topics of the writing world: marketing and collaboration with an illustrator.

I don’t think I’d ever seen this one before catching it on TCM the other day which is odd since it stars Van Johnson, June Allyson, and Hume Cronyn. I just assumed that late night AMC and TNT in the 90s played every sappy movie starring those three that existed. Also, hey children of my generation! Remember when other channels used to play old movies on late night TV with lots of Campbell’s Soup ads? No. Just me?

Van Johnson plays alcoholic, womanizing children’s author Greg who uses the pen name Uncle Bumps (yes, you read that right) who is considered a genius in his field, but his suffering publisher John McGrath (Cronyn) can’t keep on top of deadlines. McGrath has hired Martha (June Allyson) as Greg’s new illustrator, having had children pick her pictures through a contest. What makes Martha a good children’s artist is that she is an elementary school teacher who understands how children think. I like that they establish that she loves and is good at her day job, but is still is so happy to have the opportunity to be a professional artist.

In case you haven’t figured this out, Greg tries to use the collaboration to seduce Martha. When getting her drunk doesn’t do the trick and has her ready to expose Uncle Bumps as morally reprehensible, McGrath plays on her sympathies by giving Greg a pretend son, (Jackie “Butch” Jenkins) Danny, who he borrows from an orphan’s home. And, as it turns out is true in many cases of famous children’s authors, Greg does not like kids.

By the way, my modern sensibilities got very defensive when Martha expresses that she has a genetic tendency towards alcoholism which is why she is a teetotaler AND HE STILL PLIES HER WITH BRANDY! When she figures it out, she storms out and cries! Cries because she knows she shouldn’t be drunk and because “he blew in her ear”. Date rape and kicking someone off the wagon - gee, wasn’t 1948 swell? Oy.

I was also horrified by Martha’s hometown boyfriend messing with Greg’s typewriter. He pulls out the ribbon and starts hammering at the internal parts with a golf club! It was manslaughter! You leave that beautiful typewriter alone, you comedic hack!

Little Danny is presented as a terror of a child, creating a backstory for Greg’s drinking. The plan backfires when Martha decides that she wants to help mend the relationship between Danny and Greg. In case you haven’t guessed, this is all leading to boy gets girl, boy loses girl, etc.

First off, I was super impressed with the amount of marketing that the publishers did. The movie opens with the lobby/bookstore of the company full of cartoon displays and people dressed up as storybook characters! The opening line is about how “Mother Goose” is getting a raise! Seriously, that is good advertising right there! Few kids can resist costumed characters . . . unless it’s 6 foot tall man dressed as Elmo. Even infants know there’s something just not right in that scenario.

Also, the way that Martha got her job is also a part of a good promotion. They advertised the new Uncle Bumps book by asking for artwork of the title character, The Bashful Bull. The artwork was then judged by children from the local foundling home who fit the age range/reading level. Then they had toy bulls all ready made to go with the unpublished work. Genius, I say! Hood the kids before the book is even written.

Collaboration comes in two forms. First there is the production of illustrations. Martha’s art is a very Disney’s early Silly Symphonies style. They do a good job portraying this with a presentation of rough sketches which the author then describes what he wants and she elaborates. They use good criticism and a balance of ideas. It’s quite a well done scene.

Then there is the inspiration drawn from hanging out with an actual kid. Danny provides Greg with the ideas and play kids enjoy, something more engaging than a lot of alteration and mindless moral tales.

One last thought about this film, but I’ll admit it has nothing to do with writing. The little boys in the movie have suction cup arrows that stick perfectly to everything they hit. THIS IS A MOVIE MAGIC LIE!!! I had plenty of suction cup toys as a kid and they never stuck to anything except the car window and that always got me in trouble.