I watched Little Women (1933) and I liked it. 3.5/5
–
George Cukor’s Little Women (1933), based on Louisa May Alcott’s beloved novel, is a heartwarming and sincere adaptation that captures the spirit of the March sisters’ journey through love, loss, and growing up during the Civil War. While it holds an important place in cinematic history and features a truly charming performance by Katharine Hepburn as Jo, the film doesn’t fully escape the limitations of its era. With its sentimental tone and some stilted pacing, it falls just shy of greatness but remains an endearing and watchable take on the classic story.
A Tale of Sisters and Strength
At its core, Little Women is a timeless story of family, resilience, and finding one’s place in the world. The film focuses on the March sisters—Jo, Meg, Beth, and Amy—as they navigate life’s ups and downs in 19th-century New England. Their bond as a family serves as the beating heart of the story, and the film does a commendable job of bringing that bond to life.
Jo, the headstrong and ambitious aspiring writer, is undoubtedly the star of the show, and Katharine Hepburn’s performance elevates this version of Little Women. Hepburn infuses Jo with a fiery independence and tomboyish charm, perfectly embodying the character’s rebellious spirit and longing for something beyond societal expectations. Whether she’s passionately defending her writing dreams or lamenting her inability to “fit in,” Hepburn’s Jo is a joy to watch and the film’s emotional anchor.
The other sisters are portrayed with varying degrees of success. Frances Dee as Meg is poised and proper, Jean Parker’s Beth is sweet and timid, and Joan Bennett’s Amy, though a bit miscast (she was too old to convincingly play the younger version of Amy), brings a youthful liveliness to the role. Together, the sisters create an authentic sense of family, even if their individual arcs sometimes feel underexplored.
Cukor’s Direction: Faithful but Safe
George Cukor is often praised for his sensitive approach to storytelling, and he handles Little Women with care, staying faithful to Alcott’s novel while making adjustments for a 1930s audience. The film captures the warmth and coziness of the March household, with its crackling fires and bustling activity, and it’s easy to feel swept up in the nostalgia of the sisters’ world.
However, Cukor’s direction is also somewhat restrained. The film leans heavily into sentimentality, which works well in some moments but feels cloying in others. Certain scenes—like Beth’s illness or Jo’s heartfelt goodbye to Laurie—are emotionally effective, but others feel overly staged, lacking the naturalism that later adaptations would bring to the material. The film doesn’t quite delve into the depth of the sisters’ struggles, opting instead for a polished, romanticized version of their lives.
A Product of Its Time
As charming as the 1933 Little Women is, it’s impossible to ignore its dated qualities. The production values, while solid for the time, feel quaint by modern standards. The sets and costumes capture the period well enough, but there’s a theatrical quality to the film that occasionally breaks immersion. The dialogue, too, can feel overly formal and stylized, which detracts from the authenticity of the sisters’ relationships.
The pacing is another issue. At just under two hours, the film feels rushed in parts, particularly in its handling of the later chapters of the novel. Major events—like Beth’s death or Jo’s decision to reject Laurie’s proposal—don’t quite get the weight or buildup they deserve. The film’s episodic structure, while true to the source material, can feel disjointed, as if it’s rushing to hit all the major plot points without fully developing them.
Hepburn’s Jo: A Star Is Born
Despite its shortcomings, Little Women is worth watching for Katharine Hepburn’s performance alone. Hepburn’s Jo is passionate, bold, and unafraid to defy expectations—a character who feels ahead of her time, even in a 1933 film. She captures Jo’s internal conflict beautifully, from her fierce independence to her deep love for her family. Watching Hepburn’s Jo is like watching a star being born—her charisma is undeniable, and she brings an emotional depth that elevates the entire film.
Final Thoughts: A Classic Worth Revisiting
Little Women (1933) is a faithful and heartwarming adaptation of Alcott’s novel, anchored by Katharine Hepburn’s standout performance. While it may not have the emotional depth or polish of later versions, it’s a charming piece of classic cinema that captures the essence of the March sisters’ bond. Yes, it’s a little dated, and the pacing can feel uneven, but the film’s sincerity and nostalgia make it a worthwhile watch—especially for fans of the novel or classic Hollywood.
This is a film that wears its heart on its sleeve, and while it might not resonate with everyone in the same way, it’s hard to deny its earnestness and charm. If you’re in the mood for an old-fashioned take on a timeless story, this version of Little Women is worth revisiting.