A Little Princess

This move was extraordinarily faithful to the book. The characters were for the most part convincing (Amelia Shankley and Nigel Hawthorne especially) and the music and direction were great.

I do have a few problems with the film. The main one is that the second tape (it's on three separate cassettes) contains the last 10 minutes of the first tape, which is really horrible editing. Other complaints are that the commercials before each tape are too long, and some of the background noise could be better edited (the group of kids murmur too early or giggle too much, making it appear more low- budget).

I was particularly impressed with the loyalty the movie had to the book, and the sympathy you feel for the main character. The scenery was done well and the acting, even in the little parts (the cook's boyfriend, Captain Crew's Indian servant), was excellent.

Overall a wonderful film to "curl up" with on a rainy day.

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?

This is one of the best adaptations of a book ever done. Amelia Shankley captures the character of Sara with a marvelous performance. She maintains her dignity and her natural kindness in spite of the most difficult circumstances. Maureen Lipmann's performance as the selfish, conceited head mistress is also very good. In fact, all of the performances are really very good. And best of all, for once the writers of the screenplay did not feel compelled to significantly change any of the story. The scene with the starving little girl in front of the bun shop is very well done and true to the book. This is a wonderful movie and I am hoping that it will soon be available on DVD.

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 :)

This Little Princess is actually realistic to the book. The 1939 version is annoying and predictable, and Shirley Temple makes Sara seem mean and snotty instead of kind and solemn. And the 1995 version is too modernized. It's good that Liesel Matthews can sing, but what's that got to do with the story? New York? Mr. Randolph? All these details made it hard to concentrate. But this one was was the best out of the three. Amelia Shankely seemed just right for the part of Sara, even looking like her. This movie was sad, but that was the way it was supposed to be, A Little Princess isn't a comedy, although the other two versions though it was, making it too light, while this drama was smart and robust. Everyone did remarkable work.