"LITTLE WOMEN" (1933) Review

 

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1933) Review

There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 best-selling two-volume novel, "Little Women". And I mean many adaptations - on stage and in movies and television. I have personally seen three television adaptations and four movie adaptations. One of the most famous versions of Alcott's novel is the 1933 movie adaptation, produced by Merian C. Cooper and directed by George Cukor.

Although I have seen at four adaptations more than once, I had just watched this version for the very first time. Judging from the reviews and articles I have read, Cukor's "LITTLE WOMEN" seemed to be the benchmark that all other versions are based upon. So, you could imagine my anticipation about this film before watching it. How did I feel about "LITTLE WOMEN"? That would require a complicated answer.

"LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of the four March sisters of Concord, Massachusetts - Margaret (Meg), Josephine (Jo), Elizabeth (Beth) and Amy - during and after the U.S. Civil War. Since second daughter Jo is the main character, the story focuses on her relationships with her three other sisters, her parents (especially her mother "Marmee"), the sisters' Aunt March, and the family's next-door neighbors, Mr. James Laurence and his grandson Theodore ("Laurie"). Although each sister experiences some kind of coming-of-age throughout the story, the movie focuses on Jo's development through her relationship with Laurie and a German immigrant she meets in New York City after the war, the charming and older Professor Friedrich Bhaer. Jo and her sisters deal with the anxiety of their father's involvement in the Civil War, genteel poverty, scarlet fever, wanted and unwanted romance, and Jo's fear of dealing the family breaking apart as she and her sisters grow older.

I must saw that the production values for "LITTLE WOMEN" were certainly top-notch. One has to credit producer Merian C. Cooper in gathering a team of excellent artists to re-create 1860s Massachusetts and New York for the movie. I was especially impressed by Van Nest Polglase's art direction, Sydney Moore and Ray Moyer's set decorations and art direction team of Hobe Erwin, George Peckham, and Charles Sayers. However, I simply have to single out Walter Plunkett's excellent costume designs for the film. I doubt very much that Plunkett's costumes were an accurate depiction of 1860s fashion, I believe he came close enough. Plunkett's career also included work for 1939's "GONE WITH THE WIND", "RAINTREE COUNTY", from 1957 and the 1949 version of "Little Women". I suspect that this film marked his debut for designing costumes for the mid-19th century. I did have a problem with the hairstyles worn by three of the four leads. A good deal of early 1930s hairstyles seemed to have been used - with the exception of the short bob. At least three of the actresses wore bangs . . . a lot. Bangs were not popular with 19th century women until the late 1870s and the 1880s.

Until the release of the 2019 film, George Cukor's adaptation of Alcott's novel has been considered the best by many film critics. Do I agree with this assessment? Well, I cannot deny that I had enjoyed watching "LITTLE WOMEN". One, producer Merian C. Cooper and director George Cukor did an excellent job in their selection of the cast - especially the four actresses who portrayed the March sisters. All four had excellent chemistry. The movie's portrayal of the U.S. Civil War and the years that followed it immediately struck me as pretty solid. And although there were moments when the film threatened to border on saccharine, I must admit that Cukor and the screenplay written by Victor Heerman and Sarah Y. Mason kept both the narrative and the film's pacing very lively. And finally, I enjoyed how the movie depicted Jo's friendship and romance with Professor Friedrich Bhaer. I found it warm, charming, romantic and more importantly . . . not rushed.

However, I do have a few issues with "LITTLE WOMEN". There were times when the movie, especially during its first half hour, seemed in danger of wallowing in saccharine. I get it. Alcott had portrayed the Marches as a warm and close-knit family. But Alcott had included minor conflicts and personality flaws in the family's portrait as well. It seemed as if director George Cukor, along with screenwriters Sarah Y. Mason and Victor Heerman were determined to whitewash this aspect of Alcott's novel as much as possible. This whitewashing led to the erasure of one novel's best sequences - namely Amy March's burning of Jo's manuscript in retaliation for an imagined slight, Amy's conflict with her schoolteacher, the development of Amy and Laurie's relationship in Europe, and Meg's conflict Aunt March over her relationship with tutor John Brooke. These deletions took a lot out of Alcott's story. It amazes me to this day that so many film critics have willingly overlooked this. Do not get me wrong. "LITTLE WOMEN" remained an entertaining film. But in erasing these aspects of Alcott's story, Cukor and the two screenwriters came dangerously close to sucking some of the life out of this film. Ironically, Mason and Heerman repeated their mistake in MGM's 1949 adaption with the same results.

Most critics and movie fans tend to praise Katherine Hepburn's portrayal of Jo March to the sky. In fact, many critics and film historians to this day have claimed Hepburn proved to be the best Jo out of all the actresses who have portrayed the character. Do I agree? No. Although I admired Hepburn's performance in the movie's second half, I found her portrayal of the adolescent Jo in the first half to be a mixed bag. There were times when I admired her spirited performance. There were other times when said performance came off as a bit too strident for my tastes. I honestly do not know what to say about Frances Dee's performance as Meg March. My problem is that I did not find her portrayal that memorable. I barely remember Dee's performance, if I must be honest. I cannot say the same about Joan Bennett's portrayal of the youngest March sibling, Amy. Mind you, Bennett never received the chance to touch upon Amy's less pleasant side of her nature. And it is a pity that the screenplay failed to give Bennett the opportunity to portray Amy's growing maturity in the film's second half. But I have to admit that as a woman who was roughly three years younger than Hepburn, she gave a more subtle performance as a pre-teen and adolescent Amy, than Hepburn did as the teenaged Jo. The one performance that really impressed me came from Jean Parker's portrayal of Beth March, the family's shyest member. I thought Parker did an excellent job of conveying Beth's warmth, fear of being in public and the long, slow death the character had suffered following a deadly bout of scarlet fever.

I can honestly say that Mrs. "Marmee" March would never be considered as one of my favorite Spring Byington roles. Mind you, the actress gave a competent performance as the March family's matriarch. However, there were times when she seemed too noble, good or too ideal for me to regard her as a human being. As is the case in most, if not all versions of "LITTLE WOMEN", the Mr. March character barely seemed alive . . . especially after he returned home from the war. I cannot blame actor Samuel S. Hinds, who portrayed. I blame the screenwriters for their failure to do the character any justice. On the other hand, I did enjoy Henry Stephenson's portrayal of the complicated, yet likeable Mr. Laurence. I enjoyed how Stephenson managed to slowly, but surely reveal the warm human being behind the aloof facade. Edna May Oliver gave a very lively performance as the irascible, yet wealthy Aunt March. In fact, I would go as far to say that her performance had breathed a great deal of fresh air into the production. Not many critics were impressed by Douglass Montgomery's portrayal of the March sisters' closes friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence. I can honestly say that I do not share their opinion. Frankly, I felt more than impressed by his portrayal of the cheeky, yet emotional Laurie. I thought he gave one of the film's better performances - especially in one scene Laurie reacted to Jo's rejection of his marriage proposal. I thought Montgomery did an excellent job of reacting emotionally to Jo's rejection, without going over the top. I also enjoyed Paul Lukas' interpretation of Professor Bhaer. There were moments when his performance threatened to get a little hammy. But the actor managed to reign in his excesses - probably more so than Hepburn. And he gave a warm and charming performance as the romantic Professor Bhaer.

Yes, I have some issues with this adaptation of "LITTLE WOMEN". If I must be honest, most of my issues are similar to my issues with the 1949 adaptation. This should not be surprising, since both movies were written by the same screenwriters - Sarah Y. Mason and Victor Heerman. However . . . like the 1949 movie, this "LITTLE WOMEN" adaptation proved to be a solid and entertaining adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. One can thank Mason and Heerman, director George Cukor and the fine cast led by the talented Katherine Hepburn.

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1970) Review

 

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1970) Review

It is very rare to find a British adaptation of an American novel. It is even rarer to find more than one adaptation of a particular novel. Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel, "Little Women" must have been very popular with the BBC network. The latter had adapted the novel four times. Several years ago, I had seen the network's 2017 version. I thought it was the only version adapted by the BBC . . . until I had stumbled across the 1970 adaptation.

Set during the 1860s decade, "LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of the four March sisters of Concord, Massachusetts and their coming of age stories during and after the U.S. Civil War. With second daughter Josephine aka Jo serving as the story's main protagonist, the miniseries focused on the sisters' struggles with the family's diminished finances, their personal ambitions and especially their love lives. Early in the story, the March sisters become acquainted with their neighbor, one Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence, grandfather Mr. Lawrence and his tutor, John Brooke. Whereas third sister Beth develops a friendship with the elderly Mr. Lawrence, oldest sister Meg falls in love with Mr. Brooke, and the youngest Amy develops from a slightly vain and coddled child to a mature and self-assured young woman. As for Jo, the story focused on her development from a temperamental and stubborn girl, who learns to maintain her hot temper, navigate through her relationships with two men and adhere to her ambitions to become a writer.

Another surprising aspect of "LITTLE WOMEN" that I had learned was that it was the longest adaptation of Alcott's novel with a total running time of 225 minutes. This gave screenwriters Alistair Bell and Denis Constanduros to be as faithful to Alcott's novel as possible. Were they? Somewhat. The pair did take care to explore Laurie's volatile relationship with his grandfather - something that a good number of the other adaptations had failed to do. And it allowed glimpses into his growing relationship with Amy in Europe. Also, the early stages of Meg's marriage to Mr. Brooke ended up being explored, something that only the 2019 movie adaptation had repeated. I believe the miniseries did a very solid job of conveying these aspects of Alcott's novel.

But the miniseries left out Meg and Laurie's experiences at Annie Moffat's party. The miniseries also left out the sisters meeting with Laurie's English friends - something only the 2017 adaptation had included. Bell and Constanduros had changed the time period of Amy's near drowning at Walden Pond from the winter to either the spring or summer, allowing a rickety pier to send her into the pond, instead of thin ice. And it never touched on Amy's violent encounter with her schoolteacher over pickled limes. Did these aspects of the screenplay harm the production? Hmmmm . . . perhaps not. But I do feel that the miniseries' increased emphasis on the Lawrence men's relationship came dangerously close to overshadowing the March sisters' own relationships. I am relieved that the miniseries managed to focus somewhat on Jo's relationship with Professor Bhaer. However, I do have a problem with the sexist manner in which Constanduros and Bell had the professor viewed his future marriage to Jo. Whatever admiration Professor Bhaer had for Jo's writing skills seemed to fly out of the window in his anticipation of her being a good wife. Superficially, I had no problems with the brief focus on Meg and John's marriage, even if it could have been somewhat more thorough. But I believe it exposed what I believe was one of the miniseries' main problems.

"LITTLE WOMEN" did have its share of problems. Like the 1978 television adaptation, it is clear to see that it suffered somewhat from a low budget. If I must be frank, that seemed to be more obvious in this adaptation. Aside from Amy's near drowning at Walden Pond and some of European settings featuring Amy and Laurie, all other scenes had obviously been shot inside a studio. Very disappointing, considering a good number of BBC productions featured a mixture of interior and exterior shots. I found the actresses' makeup and hair - especially the latter - to be inconsistent and frankly, a big mess. Betty Aldiss' costume designs seemed solid enough, but not particularly earth shattering. Although the cast solely featured British performers, I believe a handful of them managed to handle American accents quite well - especially Stephen Turner, Stephanie Bidmead and Martin Jarvis. But despite their solid or excellent performances, the rest of the cast seemed to struggle maintaining one. And could someone please explain why three of the actresses who portrayed the March sisters seemed to be incredibly loud? Nearly every time one of them spoke, I had to turn down my television's volume. Some have explained these scenes featuring quarreling between the four sisters. They have even gone as far to claim this adaptation was the only one that featured the sisters often quarreling. Well, they would be wrong. Nearly every adaptation (I am not certain about the 1933 movie) of Alcott's novel featured quarrels between the sisters. So, this explanation does not strike me as a good excuse for the loud voices.

Judging from the previous paragraph, one would assume I have a low opinion of the majority of performances featured in "LITTLE WOMEN". Not really. Most of the performances featured in the miniseries struck me as pretty solid. Actresses Angela Down ("Jo"), Jo Rowbottom ("Meg"), Janina Faye (Amy) and Sarah Craze ("Beth") all gave solid performances and managed to capture the nuances of their individual characters in a competent manner. As I had stated earlier, I had a problem with most of them - with the exception of Craze - resorting to loud and histrionic voices in their portrayals of the March sisters at a younger age or in the case of Rowbottom, engaged in a heated quarrel. I thought Jean Anderson gave a solid performance as the stuffy Aunt March. Frederick Jaeger gave a very likeable performance as Jo's love interest, the intellectual Professor Friedrich Bhaer. And I believe the actor had a solid screen chemistry with Down. I really had a problem with actress Pat Nye, who portrayed the family's housekeeper, Hannah. Nye's handling of Hannah's American accent struck me as ridiculously exaggerated . . . to the point that her accent almost seemed Southern. Patrick Troughton, a talented actor in his own right, had more or less been wasted in his role as the family's patriarch, Mr. March. I do not believe he had spoken more than three to five lines in this production.

I can think of at least four performances that really impressed me. It seemed a pity that not one of them came from the four actresses who portrayed the sisters. Oh well. John Welsh has my vote as the second best version of Mr. James Lawrence, the March family's wealthy neighbor. I thought he did an excellent job of developing his character from a strict and curmudgeon guardian to a warm-hearted man who learned to develop a relationship with his grandson. Most portrayals of John Brooke, Meg's future husband, have never impressed me. But I must say that I found Martin Jarvis's portrayal of the character more than impressive. The actor was given an opportunity to delve more into Mr. Brooke's personality and he ended up giving one of the better performances in the miniseries. If given the chance to vote for the best performance in "LITTLE WOMEN", I would give to Stephen Turner for his portrayal of the sisters' close friend, Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence. I suspect Turner had greatly benefited from Bell and Constanduros's script, which seemed more interested in Laurie as a character than the four leads. But judging from Turner's performance, I suspect his would have overshadowed everyone else's due to the actor's superb handling of the character. I also have to compliment Stephanie Bidmead's portrayal of the March family's matriarch, Mrs. "Marmee" March. Not only did I find her performance warm and elegant, but it also lacked the dripping sentimentality of the earlier versions and the heavy-handed attempts to make the character "modern" - relevant to today's movie and television audiences.

"LITTLE WOMEN" had its flaws. I cannot deny this. But I feel its flaws - which included a limited budget and some questionable American accents - were not enough to dismiss the nine-part miniseries as unworthy. I believe the 1970 miniseries proved to be a lot more solid and entertaining than some fans of Alcott's novel believed, thanks to Paddy Russell's competent direction, a damn good screenplay by Denis Constanduros and Alistair Bell, and a first-rate cast led by Angela Down.

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1933) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "LITTLE WOMEN", the 1933 adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 novel. Directed by George Cukor, the Oscar nominated film starred Katherine Hepburn, Joan Bennett, Frances Dee, Jean Parker and Douglass Montgomery:




"LITTLE WOMEN" (1933) Photo Gallery

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1970) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "LITTLE WOMEN", the BBC's 1970 adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 novel.  Directed by Paddy Russell, the nine-part miniseries starred Angela Down, Jo Rowbottom, Janina Faye, Sarah Craze and Stephen Turner:

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1970) Photo Gallery