Speaking from memory, I’d say that most of the Little Women movies keep Jo’s sisters fairly consistent. Amy, whether played by Elizabeth Taylor or Kirsten Dunst or Florence Pugh, is bold and confident. She knows her mind and pursues her future, probably making her a Three. Beth, besides being physically vulnerable, is consistently shy and reticent. She might be a Five or a Two, although ultimately it doesn’t matter. The effect of her death on Jo is what moves the story forward. Meg, who is deeply embarrassed when she’s caught breaking a rule, is probably a Nine. She’s solid and average, very much the eldest child.
However, Jo swings between portrayals. Katharine Hepburn and June Allyson both give Jo a physical, Body Type character. Winona Ryder’s Jo goes in a different direction. Her love of the family’s theater troupe is more intellectual than physical. We don’t see Jo sword fight with Laurie, for instance. She prefers the costuming and the exploration of authentic feelings. This Jo is possibly a Four. Her sisters are a social team she can’t bear to disband. She nears despair after Beth’s death, which leads Marmee to arrange the New York trip for her. When Professor Bhaer takes her on the opera date, the stimulation of music and spectacle overwhelm Jo. Much of Ryder’s Jo can be understood by emotion. The production itself leans into bright and cheerful horn music, the Victorian Christmas theme, and a May garden bursting with blooms. The visuals reinforce Jo’s relationship to her time and place.
Maya Hawke’s Jo lives in a different world. Father at war, which is shown during the opening moments, sets a darker tone. The family itself is less idealized and more realistic, with the sisters avoiding chores and responsibility. This Jo is often angry and probably an Eight. A Jo who’s a Body Type is what we expect, so this is a strong choice for the character. It’s only when she softens her shell and digs into her sorrow that she becomes the writer we know.
Saoirse Ronan’s Jo is the most difficult for me to Enneagram because, as I’ve made clear, I didn’t like the structure of her version. Her character development is difficult to follow because the section with Beth’s illness jumps back and forth in time. Also, the two endings — one expected, one surprising — make it hard to evaluate who she is. Before this movie I didn’t know that, although Alcott’s story about Beth and her sisters is based on real events, the boys’ home and Professor Bhaer are imaginary. It’s a fascinating theme to contrast our expectation of the classic Jo as a false front for a more complicated, realistic Jo. It’s only at the end at the publisher’s that we see the scope of who Jo is. The book and the real events of Alcott’s life can support this wonderful dichotomy. The tension in Jo — will she live a conventional, married life, or will she defy expectations and follow a professional career only — is the unique element in this version. Don’t introduce it at the Nine! The last shot on Jo’s face is mysterious. This was your movie. Start here and work backwards, building the shots and the beats that make this moment impactful rather than an end-of-story throwaway. Because this Jo has the potential for great highs and lows — because of the suffering in the tension between the two versions of Jo — I would guess she’s a Four.
If you look at my Enneagram reviews for the different iterations of James Bond, you’ll see they swing between Fours and Eights. It’s the same thing with Jo March. (Isn’t that interesting?) Am I saying that Jo and James — ruthless and unconventional in their lifestyles — are similarly constructed characters, or am I saying that Fours and Eights share so much common ground, as unbelievable as that seems, that a singular character can be either number? I don’t know. Maybe it’s only that writers are predictable, and Fours and Eights make for good storytelling.
