Good


Katharine Hepburn IS Jo. I have to agree with Robert Osborne when he said this role "fit her like a glove."

Amy and Beth were COMPLETELY miscast. Joan Bennett was 23 playing a 11/12 year old girl!!! I was quite upset. Now, maybe it was the writing but I felt that Jean Parker wasn't right for the part of Beth. She didn't seem as selfless and caring as the Beth in the book or the Beth played by Clare Danes in the 1994 adaptation.

Paul Lukas as Friedrich Bhaer wasn't a complete miscast but he often came off as a stupid, blundering idiot instead of a wise, quiet German professor.

While I sometimes felt that Laurie was wearing too much eye-liner and lipstick and Katharine Hepburn cried altogether too much or too dramatically for Jo, it was, on the whole, a good adaptation.

I prefer the Winona Ryder/1994 version but that's probably because I've grown up with it and I can't picture anyone else in the roles.

reply

[deleted]

Personally, I would have loved Katharine Hepburn if she did nothing but play hopscotch through the entire film, so I am hardly objective... But I actually found her a lot of fun as Jo. She was a bit too over-the-top towards the beginning, but then again, so was everyone else in the film. (And isn't Jo supposed to be a bit melodramatic? I don't remember; I haven't read the book in at least ten years...)

Anway, I thought that Hepburn developed Jo's character beautifully, and I loved seeing her grow from a wild, fun-loving girl to a mature, strong woman without losing too much of her personality.

reply

Hepburn annoys me in most things, but she was perfect as Jo. Winona Ryder? ewww yuck. too waifish. And I never ever liked June Allyson in ANYTHING, so Hepburn for me.

nice socks, man.....

reply

they all overacted. it was the 1930s. that's the way things were. you have to accept that and get past it to enjoy such a film.

reply

I don't know why some people hates Katharine Hepburn as Jo. She may be noisy and irksome but that's how her character is supposed to be, at least until she matures.

I haven't a favorite between this film and 1994 version. But then I am not fan of chick flicks. I saw them just because my wife forced me . Anyway I found them enjoyable to some extent. Both of them.

reply

The 1933 version suffers from overacting and Hepburn isn't so good as Jo despite her fans claims to the contrary. I much preferred June Allyson in the role and the 1949 version is much better overall.

----------

If you're watching 'Fullscreen' DVDs, you aren't getting the whole picture.

reply

[deleted]

It wasn't any better in the 1949 version where a 17-year old (and fully developed) Liz Taylor played 11-year old Amy. And June Allyson was excrable.

reply

Especially Amy? What about Jo? June Allyson was 30 years old and portraying a 16-year-old. Yikes!

reply

Especially Amy? WHat about Jo? June Allyson was 30 years old and playing a 16-year-old. Mary Astor (who played her mother) was only 11 years younger.

reply

Pan and Scan, you may prefer some things about the 1949 version, but the 1933 version at least follows Alcott's books (yes, they were originally two books, with the first ending with Meg waiting to marry Brooke) more carefully.

One gross inaccuracy is that in the 1949 version: In the books, Beth does die. In the other movie versions before and since the 1949 version, Beth dies. She does not in the 1949 version. The only reason I can imagine for making that change is that 1949 wasn't that long after World War 2, and people were tired of death, illness, and injury.

reply

I know there wasnt a death scene, but Beth did die, didnt she?

nice socks, man.....

reply

Beth does die in the 1949 version. They just don't show it. I recently watched it two days ago. The only inaccuracy I could spot was that they made Beth the youngest.

reply

[deleted]

I like all the versions, even the 1970's TV version with Susan Dey. I like seeing the differences in the stories. However, making Beth the youngest was an odd thing to do in the 1949 version, I agree.

reply

I love the 1933 and 1949 versions of the film, but not the 1994 version.

I like Katharine Hepburn in the role as Jo, but I thought that she overdid it a bit. June Allyson in the 1949 version did a better job IMHO.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

Of all the discussion of the age difference between the actresses and the characters they're playing in all versions, I think Bennett stands out the most. A grown woman of 23 (who looked it) dressed in pinafores and a little girl's hairstyle playing a school girl...it was bizarre.

idk, maybe in the early 30s, there weren't child actresses who could carry the roles, or directors and producers just didn't think it was important.

reply