Dr. Cumin Reviews

Studio One: Little Women: Jo's Story (1950) Season 3, Episode 18

Dated beyond belief but with some worthwhile performances

[7/10 · 26 December 2009]

Even though I'm a huge Little Women fanatic, the negative reviews I've come upon for this production had me put off seeing this for years. Well I finally got around to watching part 2--Jo's Story (Meg's story is the first half of this two-part Westinghouse TV production from the early 1950s). Having low expectations really helped a lot. The story starts after Meg is already married and with Aunt March looking for a traveling companion to accompany her friend to Europe, so if you want a complete retelling of the story, look elsewhere. The sets and sound quality are just what you would expect from the era---pretty lousy and even depressing, but this is early TV so cut it some slack. But Nancy Marchand is really a very fine Jo March. She actually looks the part more than any later versions. Laurie is virtually an afterthought since the story focuses on the two romances of Meg and Jo, so that's a disappointment that is born of time constraints. The startling thing to me is that the scenes between Professor Bhaer (Kent Smith) and Jo work so very well here. So stick with the opening 10 or 15 minutes, because once Smith comes into the story, it really picks up steam. These two actors did a great job with newly constructed dialogue that didn't upset the purist in me. Kent Smith is a terrific Professor Bhaer---very convincing and moving in his portrayal. Having said that, go in with really low expectations because with the exception of these two performances, this is definitely just for the most fanatical Little Women fan.

Little Women: Part I (1978) Season 1, Episode 1

Unabridged delight

[8/10 · 15 March 2005]

This was a very nice production from the late seventies that deserves to be seen. A tad dated, but in a charming way. It is the only version of Little Women that I've viewed that really plays up Jo March's temper, which is this huge issue in the novel. Wynona Ryder was charming in the latest version, but she wasn't Jo. She probably would have been a better Meg. Katharine Hepburn and June Allyson were appropriately tomboyish but they were victimized by time constraints although I love both those versions (save the hideous casting of Margaret O'Brien as Beth)

I once read somewhere that this was Susan Dey's favorite role and she really is very fine although of course too pretty, but I guess no one wants to see a Jo March who is really and truly plain. I believe Edith Head did the costumes and Elmer Bernstein the music and it's plain that a lot of care was taken with this production. I was particularly moved by the scene with Jo and Beth at the seashore. All of the actresses were well cast, Amy was bratty, yet you completely buy into her transformation as an adult, and the romance between Meg and John Brooke was nicely handled. In some of the other versions, again due to time constraints, their romance is underdeveloped to the extreme! The exception is the pretty good BBC adaptation that was also a miniseries. That version had a terrific John Brooke, if you care.

Slow Dancing in the Big City (1978)

A Guilty pleasure

[8/10 · 20 October 2002]

When you read about this film you wanna cringe. I have seen it countless times and yet I cringe myself! So what is the attraction here? I think that for me, it's the offbeatness of the romance. I find it super refreshing to have an oddball coupling between this NYC Jimmy-Breslin-like columnist and a down-on-her-luck (health-wise) ballerina. You feel embarrassed for Paul Sorvino at his unsubtle approach to wooing this woman. Like the guy in the bar who can't take a hint. He's a bit overweight (at least as a would-be suitor for a ballerina. Hope that doesn't sound unkind) and possibly a tad too old for her. Nice change of pace from Greek God wooing Super-model. The Bill Conti score has stuck in my head all these years later, which is a pretty good sign. However some of the acting is just dreadful. A subplot involving a young Puerto-Rican boy befriended by Sorvino's character is just hilariously bad. But the opening scene where Ditchburn is warming up to Carole King draws you right into this story. Good luck finding it. You'd think that Lifetime would be re-airing this or even WE, but I haven't seen it on in quite a few years.

Little Women (1933)

Great version for the performances of Hepburn and Lukas

[10/10 · 17 December 2000]

See this version of course, for the definitive Jo March in Kate Hepburn. She is all angles, awkwardness and tom-boyishness, while gradually becoming this graceful young woman. It's my favorite performance of hers, and that's saying something. The screenplay is first-rate, winning the Oscar that year, and most of the actors are just fine, with Spring Byington a notable exception as Marmee. (Director George Cukor did not want her in the film, and he knew what he was talking about.) But the wistful, gentle Beth of Jean Parker and Edna May Oliver's crotchety Aunt March are awfully good . I've always been especially taken by the performance of Professor Bhaer in this version. Portrayed by an utterly charming Paul Lukas, he embodies the professor with a three-dimensionality that Louisa May Alcott didn't seem to want to bother with. His scene where he is criticizing the writings of Hepburn's Jo is extraordinary in how subtly it changes tone--from critic , to would-be suitor. It ends with a look of longing from Lukas, that only a director like Cukor would hold so long. Not like the 1994 version with a far too handsome Gabriel Byrne showing none of the uncertainty that an older poor scholar should show while falling in love with a young woman. Great stuff. Great director. Just a shame that the sound quality isn't up to the rest of the film.