This, for me, is the best rendition of the classic story which has been done very well in other years, including the Winona Ryder production a few years ago. Katherine Hepburne plays Jo, the most dominant of the sisters. She rules the family when their mother is away. They perform plays, make things, do whatever they can to keep themselves balanced in tenuous times. Of course, there are all the typical problems of the time. Men are fascinated with them, but they are still very particular. Especially, Jo, who is so idiosyncratic that she becomes sought after. But she has big dreams. There is also illness and poverty that they must face every day. There are touching scenes and hilarious ones. I would recommend seeing this film first if you are a fan of the book. Being a male, I didn't read it until it became a choice for my ninth grade students. Some put it down for being too sentimental. Yes, it is, but in the most wonderful way.

Little Women (1933) was directed by George Cukor. The movie is based on the novel written by Louisa May Alcott. The story takes place during the Civil War, but the action is set in Concord, Massachusetts. The film is semi-autobiographical. The book and the film follow the adolescent and young adult lives of the four March sisters: Jo (Katherine Hepburn), Amy (Joan Bennett), Beth (Jean Parker) ad Meg (Frances Dee.) Spring Byington plays their mother, and Paul Lukas plays Professor Bhaer. Jo is the sister who represents Louisa May Alcott. The plot involves her struggle to become a writer, in parallel with Alcott's own struggle to become a successful novelist. George Cukor knew how to bring great performances out of these talented actors. And, of course, his professional relationship with Katherine Hepburn was extraordinary for them both. Little Women was the first of the eight films they made together. Hepburn was only 26 when she starred in Little Women. However, her extraordinary acting ability and her unbelievable beauty were already evident. Her talent was unique, and Cukor knew just how to put that talent onto the screen. If you're a Katherine Hepburn fan--as most of us are--you can't miss Little Women. All films made for the big screen look better on the big screen. However, we saw the movie on DVD, and it worked very well.

Little Women (1933)A fairly lavish affair, with one of my favorite directors, George Cukor, making the most of his growing fame as a "woman's director." Of course, the leads here are four girls and their mother, among the children the rising star, Katherine Hepburn, in her second film (after Bill of Divorcement, also by Cukor, and a better film in many ways). The standards here are high, the acting solid, the sets uncompromised. The plot is very goody-goody, for lack of a better word. There is a lot of family sweetness, growing young love affairs, charity to the poor, and a feeling of life being simply terrific, whatever its worries (worries like the Civil War, raging quietly in the background, never seen and rarely felt).Cukor makes the most of Alcott's novel, I think, and Hepburn is wonderful, with all the hints of her real greatness on screen to come. The basic structure of the plot (or plots) is how each girl matures, overcoming personality flaws to become truly admirable people. It might be frustrating that human flaws are simply to be overcome, but we shouldn't resent a little optimism, and reaching higher goals, now and then. A heartfelt and really well made American drama. And I admit freely, I cried several times. That's better than any words.

Pre-code Hollywood wasn't all wisecracking gangsters and gold-digging chorus girls – they did have room for the respectable alongside. In retrospect it was good insurance because the un-enforced production code wouldn't last much longer, and wholehearted decorum would prove a lot more solid fare than watered-down melodrama. At the time however it seemed like a huge risk. The early talkies tended to have short runtimes and were spiced-up with action, smut and variety acts. Would the public sit through nearly two hours of demure literary adaptation? Luckily, producer David O. Selznick was a bold yet shrewd risk-taker. He knew Little Women wouldn't be an automatic success, and that he would have to pick his creative team with great care. As was customary with his most cherished projects the screenplay passed through the hands of a lot of writers. In all likelihood most of these were simply doing a polish job. The bulk of the script is probably the work of the two credited writers Sarah Mason and Victor Heerman, the same team that adapted Stella Dallas and Golden Boy. Their adaptation realistically captures the feel of the passage of time, something that is very difficult to do in the process of a condensing a fat novel into a reasonable amount of screen time. In other words, the years in the story don't seem to jolt forward, and yet we are made conscious of the gradual maturing of Alcott's girls.For the director's chair Selznick selected the relatively young and inexperienced George Cukor. Another risk perhaps, but Cukor had learned quickly in the handful of pictures he had made. In particular, he soon established a talent for easing up stolid or stagy material without compromising its dignity. He does this by keeping a constant presence of motion to his images, with moving elements such as crackling fireplaces or rain-spattered windows gently framing the players. Often at pivotal moments in scenes, such as a new character entering the room, he completely changes the camera angle to give a totally new feel to the location, an example being when Marmee walks in on the girls' play rehearsal. These simple techniques keep the scenes constantly fresh without being intrusive. Cukor also has a really sparing use of close-ups and face-on shots of actors, using them like trump cards at the most emotionally powerful moments.But perhaps the greatest burden in Little Women lies on the shoulders of its young(ish) cast, and it is the young ladies themselves are the main standouts. Frances Dee, who plays Meg, was a highly talented but sadly underrated performer who never really got a big break, but was very visible throughout the 30s in roles like this. She's a subtle and solid performer, perfectly suited to the role of eldest sister. Jean Parker (Beth) was the youngest of the four actresses, and yet she gives one of the most mature and natural performances, perhaps because being the only genuine teenager she is most able to convince as one. Joan Bennett (Amy) also ages her character well, making perhaps the most successful transition from girl to woman. And of course, Miss Katherine Hepburn, who with less screen experience than any of them still looked like the old pro. She livens up the role of Jo with her simple willingness to play the tomboy and not give a damn. Still she is most satisfying in the later scenes when her character has matured, which makes one wish she hadn't been given all these girly roles at the start of her career.Well-balanced though the screenplay is, nothing could prevent Little Women from being the bucket of rose-tinted Victorian syrup that Louisa May Alcott's novel is. However the efforts of those four fine actresses and the good sense of Mr Cukor save it from being simply a series of twee vignettes, and turn it into a truly moving picture. For Selznick, this was the first of his many risks that would pay off in spades.