A Little Princess

Take heart, fans of this very true-to-the-novel movie version, the new American channel Pax TV shows this movie sometimes, but unfortunately has cut about 50 minutes from it, making it about an hour and 45 minutes long. Still, it is heartening that this detailed version is faithful to the novel's setting of 1880s London, and the premise that Sarah's father has truly died, altho his "dear friend" finally finds the long-lost Sarah in the end. I would have liked more exterior scenes, but good acting by all.

An interesting note - the novel started as a short story called "Sarah Crewe, or What Happened at Miss Minchin's" in the 1880s, serialized for a magazine. Response was so positive, that after the author Frances Burnett had adapted it for the stage at the turn of the century and called it "A Little Princess," she re-wrote the book version, adding length and detail, and calling it "Little Princess" as well. The latter is what most know about and what you will find in the bookstores, but both versions are available on the internet to compare texts.

I first encountered this version of A Little Princess, by far the best, on a PBS station in the Pacific Northwest. It must have been new then.

It was shown during a holiday season station fund-raiser and promoted by ghastly comments by an attractive — physically — woman who made the sorts of comments I would expect a rather silly grandmother to make to someone else's grandchild.

I was somewhat insulted, but when the film began settled for enchantment which was sufficiently strong to keep me around when the second installment (I think there were only two, but this was 20-odd years ago) came along next night, when I also learned that the picture would be replayed throughout the promo which allowed me to make a tape of it.

Although the script does not slavishly repeat every bit of the Burnett novel, it completely mirrors it, changing some situations and condensing in some areas. Most of the minor deviations from the plot I assumed — still do — were because Sara had to be shown growing up and the story had to fit within length restrictions. Amelia Shankley was superb as was her nemesis, played by Maureen Lippman. Seldom mentioned is her companion, scullery maid Becky, or many other fine characterizations.

Parts of the film are sad and, because we (viewers) have become fond of Sara, a little frightening at times. We wish, sometimes, that Sara in her times of trial would be more defiant but realize, too, that she must submit to survive and also to protect her friends.

As intended, Sara comes across — this mood is set even before the situations are defined — as a true heroine, when adversity befalls her. She remains compassionate toward and grateful to those who are her friends, including Melchizedek (you have to know the story) toward whom she is also a benefactor.

Shankley, the costumers and makeup artists, surmount the challenges of a growing and changing girl who eventually displays some signs of illness (scurvy perhaps?).

Sara and her story remain compelling and attractive after a lapse of more than 100 years and this filmed version remains so after 20 years, but can we not find so compelling a version of what is perhaps Francs Hodgson Burnett's finest tale childhood?

I know it is dated but thought I would share why I think it is so faithful to the book unwittingly.

I have just found out through ancestry that my gg grand parents died in 1866 from cholera on the banks of the river Thames. I had no idea when I played Becky in 1987 that 100 years previously my family had been put into service. One of my gg aunts was only 11 when she went to work in a huge house in Kensington as she was an orphan. She didn't make 23 and the others didn't make 28. I just thought t was interesting and maybe why a low budget series was so close to the story(as people have said) rather than the brilliant Hollywood adaption in 1995. Just a thought :)

I have to admit it: I watched this over and over when I was a little girl. It's not often that a story with such a clear moral message is this entertaining. Anyone out there who has kids, especially girls, should find this series and get it for them, they'll love it. The Shirley Temple version can't hold a candle to this one, if you were wondering. The realism is striking, especially in scenes which depict illness or poverty, and the tenderness in the relationships between the characters (or the harshness in some cases) is a feat not often achieved in family television drama. I'd recommend this series to anyone who likes Harry Potter, Pollyanna, Annie, Heidi, Anne of Green Gables, The Secret Garden, Labyrinth, Gilliam's Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen or pretty much anything by Hayao Miyazaki. The protagonist of "The Little Princess" is a heroine in the tradition of the girls in all of these stories -- imaginative, patient, courageous and self-sacrificing. You'll love her, and your daughters will too.

If you read the comments for the '95 version, many people seem to say (in more or less words) that THAT version has been sadly overlooked. But even sadder, here's a version ('86) that is far better, and few people know it exists. (Just read some professional reviews on the internet, and they'll only mention two ones--the '39 and '95). Perhaps that's because quite a few haven't read the novel, or just because it's a classic, dismiss it as "boring" and "irrelevant" to today's society. But for those of us who have read the novel and loved it, this is by far the best movie of "The Little Princess" made. It doesn't rely on special effect interludes, like the '95 one, or cute little song and dance sessions like movie of '39. Here we just get the story as it is with all the characters presented in exactly the way the novel depicts them. Amelia Shankley did a wonderful job as Sara Crewe. She looked dark, thin and solemn, just as described in the novel, and acted quiet and wise as well. In fact, all the actors and actresses did a good job. Even if Lottie didn't look quite the way as described, she acted it out so well that it didn't matter at all. And that goes for everybody else who's in this. I watched this with my mother and she agreed that it was very well done, and that all the children were quite appealing. As well, the sets and costumes were not too bold, like in the '95 version (can you tell I didn't like that one?). Sara's surroundings are SUPPOSED to look drab and grey. If you've never seen a version of "The Little Princess" or read the book--obviously read the novel first, then see this one. But if the thought of Frances Hodgson Burnett's lovely story doesn't appeal to you, then by all means, see the others. In general, I love BBC productions of novels, because of their faithfulness to the original stories, and because of their length. (My favourite BBC miniseries of a novel would have to be the 1978 "Wuthering Heights"--exactly like the novel, to the T. Make every possible effort to see that if you've read the book).