Little Women

There are some novels out there that are so influential that people keep adapting them, bringing them back into the spotlight for each new generation. Louisa May Alcott’s late 1800s novel Little Women is one of them. Not long after that novel was published, Marian de Forest adapted it for the Broadway stage in 1912. It was re-adapted four more times for the stage with the most recent version premiering in 2024. 

It has also been adapted seven times for the big screen. The first two, released in 1917 and 1918, are considered lost films, unavailable to be watched at present. Preservation for old films was not a high priority in the early days of the cinema, and so little effort was made to keep copies of these films safe and available. As such, they exist now only in records and the occasional still images. 

It wasn’t until 1933 that a proper sound picture was made based on Alcott’s novel. This version, directed by George Cukor, would be a seminal early performance by Katharine Hepburn, setting her up to be a bonafide star whose career would span well into the 1990s. This would be followed by a color film version in 1949, a 1994 version starring Winona Ryder, and a 2018 film, updated to contemporary times, released to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the publication of the novel. Lastly, Greta Gerwig released her adaptation in 2019, bringing her own interpretation and sensibilities to the classic novel. 

While all of these versions are good films in their own rights, the 1933 and 2019 films share one achievement the others don’t: Both were nominated for Best Picture Oscars during their respective years. While neither took home the prize, that doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t deserving. Greta Gerwig’s film faced tough competition from Bong Joon-Ho’s amazing Korean social commentary about class divides, Parasite. With the big push for diversity at the Academy, and a truly amazing picture that also happened to fit that bill, there wasn’t much of a chance her film would be the winner. However, looking back at the 1932/1933 Oscars through contemporary eyes, there isn’t a film on that list that is better. The winner that year, Cavalcade, while grand in scope, lacks emotional depth and meanders a lot. We are not privy to the votes, leaving us only to speculate, but Little Women 1933 is the film on that list that outshines all the others. It’s the film that has the heart and depth that none of the others have. 

The film is set during and after the American Civil War in Concord, Massachusetts. Here we are introduced to Marmee March (Spring Byington) and her four daughters; Josephine “Jo” (Katharine Hepburn), Amy (Joan Bennett), Margaret “Meg” (Frances Dee), and Elizabeth “Beth” (Jean Parker). We get a sense immediately just what kind of household Marmee is running as she volunteers assistance for those in need while waiting for her husband to return from the war. She laments that, though she expends a great deal of time and effort in this charitable work, she wishes she could do more. 

The daughters, all of whom have distinct personalities of their own, aid their mother in her endeavors, even giving up their precious few luxuries when asked to help a neighbor in need. Jo, the most spirited of the four, is tomboyish and dreams of becoming a famous author. She writes plays for the family to perform for the local children. She also spends several hours a week reading to her Aunt March (Edna May Oliver), a wealthy but bitter woman who has little interest in such trifles as romance. Amy has been blessed with beauty but cursed with a streak of selfishness. Meg is employed as a governess, and Beth has a love for music. She is shy by nature and overly sensitive but is also skilled at playing the clavichord. 

The film is told through a series of vignettes, following the lives of these women as they grow older, mature, experience love, and even face tragedy and death. If you’re unfamiliar with the story, it will take you to unexpected places, shifting focus in a way that can catch you off guard at times. However, if you have seen any one of the numerous adaptations, or read the book itself, it doesn’t diverge from any of these sources enough to surprise you. That isn’t a bad thing. Even Greta Gerwig’s novel hews close to the original prose, only taking minor liberties with the characterizations and the way the story is laid out. 

While there really isn’t a focal character in this story, the film does spend more time with Jo than it does the other sisters. This was the case with the other adaptations, too, as her character goes through the most development over the course of the story. She is also the most colorful character. Her outgoing personality and penchant to speak up, even when the situation doesn’t warrant it, instantly attracts us to her. Katharine Hepburn is a brilliant choice for this role, and for a time, it would be the role she would be associated with. She would even reprise it for the radio years later. Katharine was twenty-five when she starred in this, which lent to some confusion on my part as to how old Jo is supposed to be. I never quite bought that she was supposed to be fifteen at the beginning of the film and age another fifteen years over the course of it. The same can be said for the other sisters, too, but it is most noticeable with Jo because we spend so much time with her. 

Jo is given the love story, too; two of them, in fact. She is flirtatious with Laurie (Douglass Montgomery), the grandson of their wealthy neighbor, Mr. Laurence (Henry Stephenson), though she doesn’t see herself as the type to settle down and marry. The two enjoy a simple chemistry and genuinely enjoy each other, but when he proposes to her, she runs away from him. Only after she finally achieves her ambition as a writer is she able to open up to the prospect of romance and marriage, well after Laurie has moved on and found another.

A major sacrifice made in the adapting of this novel is the stories of the other sisters. They get their moments, especially Amy, but so much of the book has been trimmed out that it leaves a lot of their stories by the wayside. This was better managed in the Gerwig film, though it is still a bit imbalanced. There is simply no substitute for the novel, and no film version to date has been able to match it. 

But this film comes very close to it, about as close as you can get with the limited time available for a film of this type. It would become too unwieldy trying to add another hour or more into the film to cover more of Alcott’s prose. In this way, it would be interesting to see this adapted into a limited-run series where it could be broken up into smaller pieces and capture more of what Alcott had written about in 1898. Perhaps one day we will have just that. 

Looking back at all the films nominated for the Best Picture Oscar that year, this is perhaps the most polished and well-made of the bunch. There is so much to see and devour in each scene and, though there are moments of extreme sadness and loss, there is also a great deal of levity that lightens up the mood and keeps things moving smoothly. This is one of the, if not the most, beloved adaptations of Little Women ever made. It’s beautifully told, uplifting, self-affirming, and poignant. It’s also a well-told story about sisters, sacrifice, and just plain life in general. It speaks to the heart, which is why this story still resonates all these decades later. What more can you ask from a bit of entertainment that is coming up on its hundred-year anniversary?

Academy Award Nominations:

Outstanding Production: Merian C. Cooper and Kenneth Macgowan

Best Director: George Cukor

Best Adaptation: Victor Heerman and Sarah Y. Mason (won)

____________________________________________________

Release Date: November 16, 1933

Running Time: 115 minutes

Not Rated

Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Joan Bennett, Paul Lukas, Frances Dee, Jean Parker, Edna May Oliver, Douglass Montgomery, and Henry Stephenson

Directed by: George Cukor