Little Women (1933)

Some Comparisons

The most interesting thing about the three film versions of "Little Women" is comparing them to each other or comparing each of them to Alcott's book.

What makes them so difficult to choose between is that the casting of the four title characters is the critical element, and each film featured at least one actress whose performance was clearly superior to her character's portrayal in the other two films.

This all star cast would include Jean Parker (Beth) in the 1933 version, Janet Leigh (Meg) in the 1949 version, and Winona Ryder (Jo) in the 1994 version. The 1994 version also had the best Amy, if only because they wisely split the role into a younger Amy (Kirsten Dunst) and an older Amy (Samantha Mathis).

Since Jo is pretty clearly the most important of the four sisters (to the story), the 1994 version gets my nod as the best of the three films. The 1933 version pulls in as a close second as Joan Bennett and Katherine Hepburn are the second best Amy and Jo; and Francis Dee's Meg is as good as Trini Alvarado's. Neither Margaret O'Brien nor Claire Danes come even close to Parker's portrayal of Beth.

The biggest casting problem all the productions had was in the age of the actresses. With the exception of Beth, all three characters must span a five year period. The casting process typically addressed this by selecting older actresses and getting them to play (with varying degrees of success) much (June Allyson was 32 years old) younger versions of themselves during the first half of the film.

At least the 1994 versions managed to get the birth order right. The 1933 version had some problems in this area, as Hepburn was two years older than Dee and Bennett five years older than Parker. While this still causes many Alcott fans to cringe, it is nothing compared to the 1949 version where Allyson was ten years older than Leigh and Elizabeth Taylor was five years older than O'Brien.

Taylor should have played Jo, which would have saved viewers from Allyson's embarrassing portrayal and from Taylor's attempt to pass as a blonde. Few actresses (even in black and white) were less suited to a light hair color. While Taylor's portrayal of Amy is painful, she would have been well suited to the Jo role.

Critics frequently point out that both Hepburn and Allyson were much like Jo in real life, so there is a certain irony that Ryder's portrayal of the character (one so dissimilar to herself) was far superior. But Ryder and Jo have a similar level of intensity so maybe it was not as much a stretch as it seems.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. August 17, 2008

Good for it's time, but the acting just doesn't hold up.

I just borrowed this one from the library. For the most part it is a very faithful adaptation of the beloved novel (which I finished reading two days before viewing this version). Unfortunately, some parts are too faithful - like the first fifteen or twenty minutes. This part is almost verbatim from the book and was soooooo slow! I was worried that the entire movie would be this way and be six hours long. Thank goodness the screenwriters began condensing after this long opening sequence.
The actresses playing the four March sisters did a good job but they all looked approximately the same age leaving no room for age progression throughout the movie. The acting was okay for its time - but by today's standards it comes off as very melodramatic. Hepburn was a suitably tomboyish Jo but even she had her unintentional laughable moments - particularly the "swoon" as Prof. Bhaer was playing the piano and singing. That scene really made us laugh. But not as much as Jo's surprise reaction to Laurie's appearance in the attic upon his return from Europe. I can't do it justice by describing it - you've got to see it. I didn't think my daughter would ever stop laughing. August 13, 2008

Little Women (1933) - still young and beautiful

Little Women (1933), directed by George Cukor story of March family, four beautiful loving sisters and their Marmee, is an early adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's beloved 1860s classic and certainly one of the best. This is the movie that I believe should be universally loved and praised because it is a cinematic triumph. Everything is perfect in it. The clothes, the hairdos, the sets, cinematography, the musical score by Max Steiner and the brilliant script that brings to life the timeless story -together they take you effortlessly to the Marches' world where you feel their true love and caring for one another, and follow their dreams, theirs hopes, and their heartbreaks. This is the film that made me jealous of the girls who have sisters by showing what treasure the sisters' love is. This is the movie which I want to watch with my Mom during the Mother's day and to tell her how much she means to me. This is the movie with very young, very talented, strong willed, independent, and excellent Katharine Hepburn, perfect as Jo March, the character that Alcott could've written with her in mind. Yes, the film is sentimental, so what? Made 75 years ago, it is young, beautiful, heartwarming, and radiates love, kindness, and goodness. May 13, 2008

Melodramatic, slow, bad acting... but a beautiful Hepburn

A couple of old friend were practically slobbering over this version of Little Women, so I finally decided to watch it. I was really taken aback. People here on Amazon really liked Kate as Jo, and they're entitled to their opinions, but she looked like she was trying too hard. Some of her facial expressions look glued on.

The Beth in this version looked way older than she should have been, and neither the actress's face nor voice expressed the personality she was supposed to portray. Elizabeth Taylor's Amy was more real and believable than this one, and more articulate... though Liz looks horrible with blond hair and thick black eyebrows. The father in the movie looked like he should have played James Laurence, the grandfather. But Laurie took the cake. The actor was very small, unlike the tall Laurie in the June Allyson/Elizabeth Taylor version. His acting was horrible and overstated, and he lacked the charm and strength that the other Laurie had. Okay, and he lacked LOOKS! There, I said it.

If you hadn't read the book, you wouldn't know what's going on a lot of times. June Allyson's expressions and dialogues were very helpful and entertaining, while Katharine's were either too overstated or too understated. I highly recommend the 1949 version of Little Women. If you want vaudeville, look no further. The Katharine Hepburn version is as melodramatic as it gets. And the movie is slow enough that you could go to the bathroom and come back and not worry about missing much. The ending was quick and cheesy. And oh yes, how many buckets will we need to collect all the tears shed in this movie? (By the characters, NOT me! *yawn*)

I think I've said enough; I'm just glad I rented this from Netflix and didn't buy it.
April 2, 2008

Marvelous classic!

This is a great classic about the March family during the Civil War!
After winning an Academy Award for Best Actress in 1933's "Morning Glory," twenty-five year-old Katharine Hepburn went on to play Jo in this marvelous classic. Little Women re-teamed Katharine Hepburn with director George Cukor whom she would go on to make many more movies with. He said Katharine Hepburn was "born to play Jo." She was incredible (out of all the versions, she is my favorite Jo)! I didn't care for the Laurie in this version as much (Peter Lawford was better in the 1949 film)though. Spring Byington (In the Good Old Summertime, Presenting Lily Mars) played Mrs. March and Joan Bennet did a great job as Amy.
Both the 1933 and 1949 versions are very similar as far as the screenplay and everything goes. I recommend both of them very highly!
March 22, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...