The princess image fits well on her, explaining why there’s a lengthy dream sequence of Sara as a literal princess complete with ballet where she’s the prima ballerina. Temple is best in the moments where she struggles to acclimate to her new status, although her scrunched up face isn’t a believable indicator of tears now matter how many times she tries. There’s no reliance on previous Temple tropes like singing – although there is a song and a dream sequence – or her acting overly precious, although the final images is meant to kick you in the ribs with pure sweetness. It’s not to say Temple is poor in the role, just lacking in any technique.

With the addition of several characters acting as intermediaries on Sara’s behalf, the character becomes little more than a figurehead for innocence and faithfulness. How can they not work? We’re talking about Shirley Temple here! Having known the machinations of the plot, it’s compelling having Temple go on a fruitless search for her father, leaving a bit of ambiguity that she wishes her father was alive, but with all the aid and encouragement, disbelief is hard to held. You know things are going to work, no matter what. The reason this never gels in the 1939 version is Temple’s gigantic persona. Minchin and it’s her spirit that keeps her afloat. When she loses everything, she openly defies Miss.

Where the 1995 version excelled was in giving Sara Crewe agency over events. The Little Princess, both versions and the novel, work because of the fairy-tale nature of the story: Cinderella turns back into a pumpkin and has to prove she’s the owner of the glass slipper all over again. Minchin (Mary Nash) keeps Sara on, but forces her to work as a servant. After of ruining the school’s reputation, Miss. When her father allegedly dies, Sara is left penniless. Minchin Seminary while her father goes off to fight in the Boer War.

Sara Crewe (Temple) and her father travel to England where Sara is left at the Miss. Either way, Shirley Temple’s magnificent shadow ends up dampening the glow of Burnett’s work, installing far too many characters and lessening the suspense of the overall story. You could say this minor title change sums up the differences between the two films, and it’s hard avoiding comparisons. I’ve always had an abiding love for the 1995 reboot of Burnett’s novel, changing the indefinite article from The to A Little Princess. Frances Hodgson Burnett’s tale of a little girl trapped in an all-girls boarding school after her father dies holds a special place in my heart, but it’s not for this version of the Little Princess.

The little princess 1939 tcm