Little Women (1933)

Little Women (1933)
Little women is a coming of age drama tracing the lives of four sisters: meg jo beth and amy. Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 07/20/2004 Starring: Katherine Hepburn Paul Lukas Run time: 117 minutes Rating: Nr Director: George Cukor
Customer Review: Faithful adaptation of Little Women
This 1933 Hollywood adaptation of Little Women is lavishly produced and a true classic. The story itself is a family drama, centering on the lives of the March sisters - Meg [Frances Dee], Jo [Katharine Hepburn], Beth [Jean Parker], and Amy [Joan Bennett] who live with their mother, Marmie in a New England town during the time of the Civil War, whilst their father is away fighting. Of all the movie adaptations, this 1933 version is the most faithful to the novel and though not my personal favorite [I love the 1949 version with June Allyson the best], I still love it for Katharine Hepburn's performance as the feisty, independent-minded Jo March who harbors dreams of becoming a published author. The actresses who play the sisters are all quite good, but somehow pale in comparison to the latter versions [I liked Elizabeth Taylor's performance as Amy in the 1949 version, and Claire Danes' performance as Beth in the 1994 adaptation. The actor who portrayed Laurie was the weakest of all the adaptations. Apart from the lack of good looks [seeming almost girlish in some scenes], he also lacks stature and credibility in his portrayal of Laurie. Other than that, the production details are convincing and well-done, and I also like this version for staying as true as it could to the novel by Louisa May Alcott. This version is worth owning for Little Women fans and fans of classic Hollywood dramas.
Customer Review: 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.