I like Shirley Temple's version A LOT better

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!





I have to agree with Angel. Shirley Temple crying is something I didn't mind as a kid, but as an adult, I can't abide it. She DOES look as though she's waiting for her prune juice to work.

I loved the Shirley Temple version of "A Little Princess" when I was six. Then I read the book and discovered how much more glorious, rich and touching the Frances Hodgson Burnett story was. Sure, it was filled with coincidence, but it was, in every way, a superior story.

The story telling is SUCH an important part of the original book. Sara's ability to dream a world and inhabit it so that nothing evil could touch her was part of her character and it was what made her interesting. Shirley could dance of course, but that didn't make her interesting or sweet or kind or imaginative.

When I heard about the 1995 version I had high hopes they might stick to Hodgson Burnett's story and bring in Captain Crewe's friend (I think his name was John Randolph, no? So they kept that from the book, anyway.) But the producers obviously preferred the Shirley Temple ending, too, with Sara's father regaining his memory at just the right moment. At least they did keep the story telling. Loved the inserts of Rama and Sita's flight to save themselves from Ravanna the monster...and how it parallelled Sara's predicament.

I have to admit, though, I kind of liked Miss Amelia striking out on her own, even though she'd been kind of a jerk through the beginning scenes. (In the book, she gets a hysterical scene at the end where she tells her sister off and says it would serve them both right if they were ruined.) And there were laughs to be got from Miss Minchin having to work as a chimney sweep's apprentice. Still, that would never have happened in the time the story was set. She might have been patted on the back for making those "ungrateful little brats" work themselves to death.

It's also sweet, but hardly accurate, that Becky is going to be a "sister" to Sara. In the book Becky becomes her lady's maid. She is several years older than Sara. Sara is six when she comes to Miss Minchin's academy and Becky is closing in on eleven or twelve, but is stunted from poor health. Further there is an intimation that Becky is mentally challenged, making her seem as young as Sara. (Yeah, I have read the book a time too many.)

I would love to see a version that retains the original ending and maybe even includes the "Large Family" from the book. As much as I love the 1995 version for what it is, I would love more to see the scenes left out:

1) The birthday party with the doll at Sara's 12th or 13th birthday party.
2) The scenes where Sara keeps running into "the large family" (as she calls the family who helps Captain Crewe's friend search for her in London).
3) My FAVORITE scene of all: the bakery shop where Sara goes to spend a penny farthing she found in the street and she purchases six rolls...but ends up giving all but one to a starving beggar girl...who, in turn, is adopted by the bake shop owner and is transformed by having love, warmth and work to do. I cry over that every time.

Ah well. Maybe it will happen in another life time or two. I know the movie can't include everything the book has, but why must endings be changed and major characters deleted? I never understand that. Never.





They don't teach anything at University. I had to recognize ducksh*t for brains by myself.

The 1986 version I think was the best

Link here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090474/

It told the story almost exactly as it was told in the book with only minor variations.

The only big thing they did not do was that Sara was supposed to be like 6 when she came to the boarding school and like 12 when she left. That story takes place within a year or two.


But honestly I think that was the best version of all.
You should check it out if you can :)

The Shirley Temple one was ok.
But I do prefer the 1995 version more than that one.
And the 1986 TV movie best of all

I felt as if it was one of Shirley's more noble attempts to prove that she was a serious actress. For the most part, I think it paid off. Had I not read the novel beforehand, I probably would've said that from a purely technical standpoint she gave a good performance. However, nothing about her said "Sara Crewe." She was so cheery and quick to cry, when Burnett's Sara was dark and mature. I think Liesel Matthews had a better grip on the character because she let her face tell the story. She was fairly quiet and contemplative, and it lead me to believe that she was as intelligent as Sara Crewe should be. Sure, she didn't look the part. Sara's not described as a porcelain-skilled blond with full lips and big blue-green eyes, but her acting more than makes up for physical differences.

"All the world is made of faith, and trust, and pixie dust."