Little Women

This satisfying movie adaptation of "Little Women" features a strong cast and a production that was quite solid for 1933. While a glance at the story outline might give the impression that it is simplistic or childlike, that is far from the case. The novel offers well-defined characters and many situations that bring out worthwhile insights into the characters and into life in general. While neither this nor the other movie versions of the story have the same thematic depth, this version effectively presents enough of the material in a thoughtful and entertaining way.

Katherine Hepburn heads the cast, and gives plenty of life to Jo. Naturally she gets the main focus, but the other sisters and the secondary characters also get some good moments, and most of them get a chance to steal a scene or two. Henry Stephenson and Douglas Montgomery get a number of good scenes as the March family's neighbors. Edna May Oliver is well cast, and it's only too bad that she did not get a couple more scenes. Paul Lukas makes Professor Baer come alive. By no means least are Jean Parker, Frances Dee, and Joan Bennett as Beth, Meg, and Amy.

It is often easy to tell when the movie was made, most especially because of the sound. But actually the production is better technically and artistically than are most movies of the early 1930s. Several of the sets are particularly well done, creating just the right atmosphere for their scenes. Director George Cukor puts it all together nicely.

This is the kind of movie that is generally out of style at present, because it lacks the kind of self-indulgent material and the self-absorbed style that so unduly impress many of today's movie fans. But the only genuine weakness is that it has a few technical limitations, most of which are common to many films of its era.

What this adaptation does offer is a sympathetic and sometimes insightful look at the lives of some ordinary but strong persons, who are brought to life by a good cast and a director who seemed himself to care about the characters.

LITTLE WOMEN is quite possibly the one book written post-Shakespeare that has the most number of film adaptations to its credit. Louisa May Alcott's novel, after all, offers a fine host of roles, particularly for women--of the March girls alone, there's the eldest sister Meg; the frail but saintly Beth; spoilt baby of the family Amy; and last but most certainly not least, spunky tomboy Jo. (This is not to forget the smaller, but still integral, supporting roles of Laurie, Mr Lawrence, Professor Bhaer, and of course, Marmee March.) The story is an engaging one too, following the lives of the March sisters--in particular Jo--as they grow and deal with change, with love, and even with death. Even though the story itself is tied to a particular setting in the 1860s (and even then the historical setting is almost peripheral), the characters and their relationships with one another--siblings, parent/children, friends and lovers--are simply timeless. That's probably why the novel has seen as many attempts to have it committed to film as it has.

I hate to make a snap judgement, having not seen any more versions of Little Women than the 1994 one, but I believe that this version, made by RKO studios and starring a delightful Katharine Hepburn as Jo March, has every right to be considered the definitive film version of the Alcott novel. The writing, for one thing, is exceptional. Although never quite the novel's substitute, it condenses the book marvellously, sketching the characters and relationships of the girls quickly and efficiently, and never skipping over the best parts of the book (for example, Laurie's profession of love for Jo). Of course the screenplay will never measure up to the book--it is rare that a film could surpass the wealth of detail and beauty of description available from the written word. But nothing's perfect, and this screenplay, by Sarah Y. Mason and Victor Heerman, is as close as an adaptation can get while retaining its own distinct flavour as a film.

As for the casting, I have very few complaints about it, since Hepburn--all angles and attitude, all loud-voiced and tomboyish--is perfect as Jo and is ably supported by Frances Dee as Meg, Henry Stephenson as the sweetly paternal Mr. Laurence and Douglass Montgomery as Laurie (though he plays the role a tad too fey for my liking). Special praise must be reserved for both Jean Parker (Beth March) and Paul Lukas (Professor Fritz Bhaer): Parker for bringing an impossibly sweet and lovely character to life, and making the audience genuinely grieve for Beth when she takes her leave of her family; Lukas for managing to avoid making Professor Bhaer a hard, frightening man with whom the audience simply cannot imagine Jo being in love (as is *my* impression from the book). I was rather disappointed with Joan Bennett as Amy, and that is of course partly attributable to the fact that the character isn't particularly sympathetic in the novel either, so it isn't really fair to expect a miracle from Bennett. Still, Bennett seemed to me to be the most lifeless of the sisters--one might think this an unfair judgement, since anyone acting opposite the powder keg that is Katharine Hepburn could easily be deemed lifeless if he or she weren't able to hold his/her own against her. Still, the arguably less well-known Frances Dee and Jean Parker had no problem with it.

In the final analysis though, there is no doubt that this film, however 'ensemble' the cast, belongs only to Hepburn. Her performance, although somewhat mannered and brassy at times (not necessarily simultaneously, thank goodness!), is nothing short of brilliant. She's sad, she's funny, she's touching, and as she does in her best roles, she transcends her own (pretty formidable!) character to breathe life into Jo as only she can. Witness the simple scene in which Jo breaks down, alone, at night, after having sold her hair for her mother's travel expenses... or the scene when Jo truly believes that scarlet fever is going to take Beth from her, and she trudges up into her own attic, the weight of the world on her shoulders, and collapses into tears. There is also nothing more charming than Hepburn as she gallops down the stairs in a frock which she burnt by leaning against the fireplace, or when she runs like a free, untamed spirit through the woods when chased by Laurie. Strange, sweet, funny Jo--this complex combination of jealous child and strong woman, stubbornly refusing to relinquish the familiar while adamantly placing her family above her own interests always... it really is a role that seems to have been written for Hepburn, just as she seems to have been born to play it. It is perhaps for LITTLE WOMEN as much as for MORNING GLORY (released in the same year) that Hepburn won her first Oscar in 1933. Nobody photographs Hepburn as flatteringly as her good friend and director George Cukor either, so some of the close-up shots of her in LITTLE WOMEN are simply breathtaking in having managed to capture her beauty, her youth and her personality all at once.

Nothing about this film is perfect; after all, perfection is too high a standard to be applied to adaptations (and most other films!). But LITTLE WOMEN really does have a little something to offer everybody--a sweet, timeless story about love and growing up and family. It's something that everyone can relate to, and that's probably more than enough.

I'm probably not the target audience for this movie, so take my review with a grain of salt. I've also never read Louis May Alcott's novel, so I can't speak to how good an adaptation this is. But as a stand alone movie, George Cukor's 1933 version of this classic story is just too saccharine to bear.

To modern audiences, Katharine Hepburn is obviously the draw, and this was one of two movies released in 1933 -- the other, "Morning Glory," featuring the first of her record four Oscars -- that vaulted her to stardom. It's easy to see why -- her fiery, take no prisoners screen presence immediately places anyone else she happens to be in a scene with under her shadow. But Cukor would have done well to reign her in a bit in this film. Her Jo is a frantic, spastic creation at first, and Hepburn's performance is all over the place when trying to portray her as a young woman on the cusp of adulthood. As Jo matures, Hepburn settles down and her performance becomes more assured. But even without that, the story is just so maudlin and sentimental, and all the characters so goody goody, that I don't think a better lead performance would have made the movie any more enjoyable for me.

"Little Women" won the Oscar for Best Writing-Adaptation at the 1932-33 Academy Awards, and it also won nominations for Best Picture and Best Director (Cukor). Bit of Oscar trivia: 1932-33 was the last year the Academy split the award year over different calendar years. Beginning with the 1934 awards, the eligibility period would run from January 1 through December 31 as it does now. But in order to correct the schedule, the 1932-33 eligibility period ran from August 1 of 1932 through December 31 of 1933, meaning a whopping 16 months worth of films were eligible, the only time in Oscar history when an eligibility period was longer than 12 months.

Grade: B-

Having grown up with the Technicolor version of the 40s with a young Liz Taylor and a perky June Allyson, I was pleased to find this was just as good a version, better in many ways. Katharine Hepburn, as you might expect, is wonderful as the tomboy Jo March, who finds responsibility after a lifetime of woe for the family. Other cast stand-outs include Edna May Oliver as Aunt March. Laurie is a bit of a wet fish though. Both early versions are much, much better than the Winona Ryder one of the 90s, which was a sentimental Hollywood nostalgia trip which just didn't work. I'm still split between the two early ones but this is a definite favourite and I'd highly recommend it.

Few would deny the powerful presence of Katherine Hepburn in any movie she ever made. In this first screen adaptation with sound of Louisa May Alcott's famous novel, Hepburn IS the movie. That is to say, her part, her lines, her camera time seem to surpass the combined times of all the rest of the cast. While that may be as one would expect for many stories – a star or hero being the focal point of a whole work, this film, based on this book, was supposed to be about several "little women." So, most of the rest of the characters in the film – save a neighbor male friend, really get short shrift. For that reason, and a few others I'll mention, I think this rendition falls short of the interesting story told in the book.

I would like to have seen more development of the sisters than this film has. The later remake – 1949's MGM production, does flesh out all the characters more. The problem with the overly heavy emphasis on the one character in this first movie is that the audience doesn't get much of a sense of who are the rest of the members of the family. So we can't so readily experience the ups and downs, the emotions, the tragedy and love felt between the sisters and their mother.

Hepburn does a very good Jo, but not great. I think her efforts to be the tomboy were overdone in a few instances, which only drew my attention to this aspect of her role. She didn't seem to come by it naturally. One example was when she spoke a couple of times, acting and deliberately mimicking a deep-throated guttural voice for a man. At other times, she seemed to push it a bit and overact in flamboyance of tom-boyish behavior.

There were no other notable performances by other cast members. Paul Lukas as Professor Bhaer and Douglas Montgomery as Laurie were good. Most of the rest were just OK or non-descript. One member was just not right for the role of Marmee. Spring Byington brought no depth or real feel to the role that the viewer could sense. But, then, the film just seemed to glide over the lesser roles.

"Little Women" is a good story in the American library, and this film is enjoyable to watch. But, for a much more involving and endearing film, be sure to see the 1949 rendition by MGM.