Little Women adaptations: 2019 vs 1994

Note: this blog post will compare 2 adaptations of Little Women—2019 (dir. Greta Gerwig) and 1994 (dir. Gillian Armstrong), without comparing them to Louisa May Alcott’s novel, which I have not read. 

  
For years, the 1994 film was called the definitive version of Little Women. The release of the 2019 film sparked a debate, as many people thought it surpassed the 1994 film. 
I’ve just seen both of them recently. 
Which one is better? It is hard to say.  
In quite a few ways, I think the 2019 film is better. Whilst the 1994 film focuses mostly on Jo (Winona Ryder), the 2019 version gives more space to the other March sisters; depicts more of the friendship between Beth and Laurie’s grandfather; shows Meg’s struggle in her marriage, which contrasts her choice with Amy’s ambitions; and most interestingly, makes Amy a deeper, more sympathetic figure, worthy to be Jo’s rival. The 2019 film gives Amy many good lines, devotes more to exploring the dynamics between her and Jo, and expands on her relationship with Laurie, which makes it understandable that Laurie chooses her in the end. 
It also depicts more of Jo’s (Saoirse Ronan) writing career in New York and her fights with the editor. 
Both films make a point, over and over again, about gender inequality and women’s limited options, but if in the 1994 film, most of the lines are spoken by Jo, in the 2019 film, the lines are spread between Jo, Amy, and Aunt March.   
However, the main weakness of the 2019 adaptation is Professor Bhaer and his relationship with Jo. Professor Bhaer only appears a few times, his friendship with Jo is barely seen, and their love story is not just a contrivance but looks like an act of perversity. Even though it could be argued that that and the character’s insignificant presence in the film fit in with the 2 endings, the scene of him commenting on Jo’s stories is still very weak. Professor Bhaer says the stories are not very good, without explaining that Jo has talent to write something better, and should write something more serious (actually, the film doesn’t make it very clear what kind of stories Jo writes before writing Little Women). Their quarrel is never resolved when Jo returns home, and he offers neither explanation nor apology when he turns up at the house later. It seems random when she goes after him afterwards and asks him to stay. 
The 1994 film devotes more time to depicting and developing Professor Bhaer’s relationship with Jo. When I saw the 2019 film, without having read the book nor seen any other adaptations, I was very dissatisfied with Professor Bhaer and already thought one particular scene was very weak. Now, having something for comparison, I’m more dissatisfied with this part of the new film. 
In the 1994 version, it makes sense that Jo falls in love with Professor Bhaer, after years of renouncing marriage (which is something I can personally relate to). It also explains why Jo rejects Laurie earlier—Jo and Laurie may be close friends and have lots of fun together, but it is with Professor Bhaer that Jo is truly compatible, in the mind, and he encourages her to do something better, to write from the soul.  
Regarding cast, let’s compare one by one: 
- Marmee, the mother: I prefer Susan Sarandon’s face (1994), but Laura Dern has fewer sermons. 
- Mr March, the father: too insignificant in the story to be compared. 
- Aunt March: Mary Wickes (1994) is all right, but Meryl Streep is Meryl Streep. 
- Mr Laurence, or Laurie’s grandfather: Chris Cooper (2019) is the obvious choice, because John Neville has barely anything to work with. 
- Theodore Laurence, aka Laurie, aka Teddy: Christian Bale (1994) is not bad in the role, but I can only see him as Christian Bale, whereas Timothee Chalamet is perfect for the role and has all the fun, charm, and frivolousness of the character. Timothee Chalamet also has more chemistry with Saoirse Rohan as Jo, than Christian Bale with Winona Ryder. 
- John Brooke: James Norton (2019) looks less boring and more likeable, but I don’t know the book, Eric Stoltz might be more suitable for the role. 
- Professor Bhaer: Gabriel Byrne (2019) is much better, but comparison is unfair to Louis Garrel because in the 2019 film, Professor Bhaer is barely a character. 
- Beth: this might be a personal preference, I can’t explain why I prefer Eliza Scanlen (2019) to Claire Danes, other than that I don’t really like Claire Danes’s facial expressions in the film. 
- Meg: Emma Watson (2019) may have more to work with, but she doesn’t have the right face or the right qualities—I can’t imagine her marrying someone poor like John Brooke. Trini Alvarado has a delicate look and a gentle face that make her perfect for Meg. 
- Amy: I understand the issue with age, but I think it is a right decision in the 2019 film to have only 1 Amy. Florence Pugh (2019) is striking and memorable in the role—at the beginning of the story, Amy is spoilt and thoughtless, but she grows up to be clear-headed and realistic, and she knows what she wants. In the 1994 version, Kirsten Dunst is very good as young Amy, but Samantha Mathis pales in comparison, whether you place her next to Kirsten Dunst or Florence Pugh. 
- Jo—the most important role and therefore saved to last: this is very hard to compare, because I like both Winona Ryder (1994) and Saoirse Ronan as actresses, and I like both of their performances. It’s also difficult because they approach the role differently and bring different qualities to Jo. For now, I slightly lean towards Winona Ryder, but I like them both, so let’s see if there are any changes over time. 
In terms of style, both films look good, the 2019 one has faster pace. In a way, the 2019 film is bolder, switching between timelines and having 2 endings. However, I see the 2 adaptations as having different approaches to the same material. The 1994 film tells the story chronologically and shows how the characters, especially Jo, grow up and develop over time. The 2019 film focuses more on “the present”, framing the earlier years as memories or inspiration for the book, and in this way, also creates more balance between Jo and Amy, contrasting their personalities and choices. It also focuses more on Jo’s writing career, and the metafiction aspect (the 2 endings) is a brilliant way to have the ending in the book and the ending Louisa May Alcott thought she should have written.
So what’s the verdict? 
Well, what shall I say. My answer is a boring one, but it is what I think: the 2 adaptations have different strengths and weaknesses, but both are very good, and worth watching.   
I’d like to add though, I’m now very interested in Greta Gerwig as a director, after Lady Bird and now Little Women. I’m expecting good films from her in the future.