Were New York Drama Critics Astonished by Little Women?

Audiences can't seem to get enough of the March sisters. Louisa May Alcott's novel about the four sisters has been on the big screen and in many theaters in straight play form. Now comes a new musical version of Little Women, headlined by Sutton Foster and Maureen McGovern, which officially opened at the Virginia Theatre on January 23 following a tryout at Duke University. Did critics find this Little Women astonishing?

Here is a sample of what they had to say:

Eric Grode in his Broadway.com Review: "Little Women isn't the most sophisticated or rapturously melodic show you'll find on Broadway. But this chamber-size musical pulses with a generous affection for its source material and a refreshing realization that Broadway audiences don't always need to be wowed. Most audience members will arrive with a fair amount of foreknowledge: Louisa May Alcott's tale of four respectable sisters growing up in Civil War-era New England, notably the willful Alcott surrogate Jo, has been a perennial favorite among young women and men mostly women for almost 150 years. Theatergoers with no connection to the novel may have a tougher time at first, but the performances of Sutton Foster as Jo and especially Maureen McGovern as the materfamilias Marmee root the drama with a heartfelt confidence that overrides the show's shortcomings... A comfortable, honest, highly satisfying night at the theater."

Ben Brantley of The New York Times: "Watching this shorthand account of four sisters growing up poor but honest during the Civil War is like speed reading Alcott's evergreen novel of 1868. You glean the most salient traits of the principal characters, events and moral lessons, but without the shading and detail that made these elements feel true to life in the book... [Jason] Howland's score is brisk, sprightly and forgettable, though appealingly performed by a synthesizer-free acoustic orchestra, a rarity on Broadway these days. [Mindi] Dickstein's lyrics are largely so generic they could slide right into a variety of different musicals. The slim and supple [Sutton] Foster has a lot to carry on [her] twitchy shoulders. If Little Women does develop the following of young girls and their mothers the producers have targeted, it will be largely Foster's doing. Her Jo brings to mind another brass-larynxed misfit, Elphaba, the green-skinned witch created by Idina Menzel in the reigning schoolgirl favorite of musicals, Wicked. Jo even has an eardrum-quaking first-act curtain number like Elphaba's in Wicked. It is called 'Astonishing.' But while Foster invests it with every ounce of her considerable skill and vigor, like so much of the show the song feels too ersatz to raise a single goosebump, much less astonish."

Clive Barnes of The New York Post: "The surprising thing is that Louisa May Alcott's sweet, adolescent tearjerker Little Women hasn't been made into a Broadway musical before: It had, after all, given rise to no fewer than four movie versions. Having finally arrived last night at the Virginia Theatre, the mystery remains. It really is a lovely story, full of simple, totally unsophisticated charm. Rodgers and Hammerstein could have crafted it into an endearing, enduring hit. The present production, skillfully staged by Susan H. Schulman, is full of delightfully calculated performances, including an entrancing turn by its giddily attractive star, Sutton Foster as Alcott's deliciously hoydenish, proto-feminist heroine, Jo. So much for the good news. For, just as you can't make a good beef stew without plenty of flavorsome beef, you can't make a good Broadway musical, however appealing the seasoning of the story may be, without the right music. And the score to Little Women, with its Jason Howland music and Mindi Dickstein lyrics, is weak, generic and, when it's not unnoticeable, boring."

David Rooney of Variety: "It's hard not to love the March girls of Concord, Mass., so deeply etched are Jo, Meg, Beth and Amy on the cultural and emotional landscape that they resurface from generation to generation like cherished friends. That built-in affection is fortunate, then, for Little Women, a pleasant but staid revisitation that's too leisurely in locating the heart of the material. But the producers of this unapologetically old-fashioned tuner have secured an appealing, capable cast whose conviction and energy help bolster the mostly unmemorable songs."

Michael Kuchwara of The Associated Press: "Jo March, the spirited center of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, is a perfect musical-theater heroine. She could be a distant cousin of such female independence icons as Nellie Forbush, Eliza Doolittle, Dolly Levi, Fanny Brice, Mame Dennis and more. And as played by Sutton Foster, Jo is a joy to watch in an otherwise lukewarm new musical... Foster works hard, very hard in fact, to lift the show, which is far too genteel for its own good. What entertainment it delivers is primarily in Foster's hands, and it is fortunate that this engaging, spunky performer is on stage for a good portion of the evening. Little Women has its heart in the right place and, for some, particularly those looking for family entertainment, its wholesome earnestness could be enough. Others will have to be content to savor the accomplishments of its star, who, indeed, does shine bright."

Gordon Cox of Newsday: "The show inflates the novel's minute goings-on to a scale better visible from the balcony, and you can sometimes feel the strain. What it has in its favor, though, is an ideally cast star at the head of an affectionate if oversized production, cleanly directed by Susan H. Schulman. Sutton Foster brings her endearingly gawky spunk to Jo, the de facto center of the novel and the obvious heroine onstage. On its own terms, this Little Women probably will satisfy, with a condensed take on a heartwarming story that hits the right broad emotional notes. When held next to the delicate novel, though, the pumped-up proceedings look somewhat diminished."