I don’t know what it is about Little Women adaptations that make them feel so dated. Isn’t it possible to make a film based on a (somewhat) timeless novel that doesn’t have every possible mark of its time? We’ve discussed the technological limitations of the ’30s and ’40s, and I understand them. But what is the explanation for classic, timeless films from the same era that feel as though they were just created? Citizen Kane was released 8 years earlier than the 1949 Little Women. I understand and respect the differences in the two films, as well as the differing motives. But there is no reason for a film in a post Citizen Kane and Casablanca world to seem so frustratingly dated today. 1933 is understandable, as talking films were a relatively new technology. But the 1949 film should have been better. There are many truly GREAT movies from the same era, and while I understand that not every movie can be great, they don’t have to be so woefully dated when viewed today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I don’t know what it is about Little Women adaptations that make them feel so dated. Isn’t it possible to make a film based on a (somewhat) timeless novel that doesn’t have every possible mark of its time? We’ve discussed … Continue reading