“These little women — just how little are they? Are they, like, scary little?” — Joey from Friends
It has been announced that Sony is working on a new adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel Little Women. My first question is, of course, “Do we really need another adaptation of one of the most beloved novels of the last two centuries?”
Two silent films in 1917 and 1918; the 1933 film starring Katharine Hepburn; the 1949 version starring Elizabeth Taylor; and finally, the most recent 1994 film adaptation starring Susan Sarandon, Winona Ryder, and Claire Da — nope, can’t even think about that without crying — leave the material pretty well covered on the big screen.
My second questions is, “So what?” It’s a great story and if Winona Ryder and Christian Bale are now old enough to play the little women’s parents, perhaps it’s time for another rendition. So let’s just hope for a good script from newcomer Olivia Milch and an excellent cast.
Developing an adaptation can generally go two different routes: classic or risky (re: interesting). Maybe this adaptation could be in a different time period with a multi-ethnic adopted group of daughters. Maybe Jo could be a lesbian. But really, we can go ahead and assume that Sony will go the classic route, flushing my dreams of Michael B. Jordan as Laurie down the drain. Working with the 1868 source material, let’s do some dream casting with Hollywood’s brightest young things:
READ FULL STORY