Dr. Cumin

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.

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.

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.