Love Kate as Jo - Little Women (1933) Discussion

[–] JAdibhatla 17 years ago

Really, if you can, get yourself an UNabridged copy and dig into it immediately. This book is absolutely timeless--for one thing, the Alcott family was such a bunch of free-thinkers that a reader today will find more in common with Jo and her sisters than did Alcott's contemporaries. Slavery, emancipation of women--and--interesting for today--the role of parents as equals in bringing up their children--issues dear to the Alcott hearts. And over the years, ours, too!

I highly recommend this. Of course, it's Part One of a trilogy--Alcott wrote LITTLE MEN and JO'S BOYS years afterwards--but they lack that "certain something." Good stories but not that "eternal fire" of LITTLE WOMEN.

Good luck! :-)

reply

[–] xavierPoulain 17 years ago

I will try. My attempts have been futile in the past.

reply

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 17 years ago

<<I've never read the book, but I felt I didn't need to after watching this movie. Everyone's performance felt like it came right off the page, especially Kate's.>>

I don't want to sound rude, but if you've never read the book, how do you know you can make that assessment?

"Just close your eyes...but keep your mind wide open."

reply

[–] xavierPoulain 17 years ago

I feel that I can make that assessment based on what the film presented to me, which, I think, read like a book from beginning to end.

reply

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 17 years ago

Okay.

"Just close your eyes...but keep your mind wide open."

reply

[–] jopeabody 17 years ago

She IS Jo.

reply

[–] xavierPoulain 17 years ago

DUH!

reply

[–] baseballgirl 16 years ago

I loved her in this movie, too. It's one of her best performances in my book.

I really love this movie overall. I can't believe there are so few topics on the message board!

Pirates 3 lessons: Crabs are the climax of a love story and we just can't get rid of Orlando Bloom

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xavierPoulain 16 years ago

EW! I hate Wynona Ryder. If I see a movie with her in it, my focus immediately goes to the other actors in the movie.

reply

[–] Kcos 16 years ago

yes

reply

[–] xavierPoulain 16 years ago

Girl, Interrupted for example. It was meant to display Ryder's talent, but Angelina Jolie totally stole the show by way of the rug under Ryder, which is why Jolie won her respective Oscar.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xavierPoulain 16 years ago

I can tell you why.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xavierPoulain 16 years ago

well, that is possible. It's obvious that her role on Morning Glory wasn't broadcated by the studio as much as Little Women's was, but, Kate did do an excellent job playing an ambitious woman in a time when an ambitious wasn't popular for women to be and at a time of the Great Depression, and FDR who was promoting hope and optimism for the future by being optimistic and ambitious at a time when the country needed it. That's why she won Best Actress that year.

reply

[–] SeisCinemaSeis 15 years ago

She was the best part of this movie. Really outshines the rest of the cast. At times you feel that this movie was just a star vehicle for Katharine Hepburn. Which probably was the intention of this film.
However I liked Katharine as Jo.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hachmom-1 14 years ago

I think Katharine Hepburn was perfect as JO, its probably the best of her early work...I do think she does overshadow the cast somewhat, and think the Winona Ryder is probably a better more accurate adapation of the book. Both versions are on my favorites.

It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices

reply

[–] simplemines 12 years ago

"I found her to be very loud & annoying as Jo. "

I used to love this movie, but since I've seen it a few times, every time, I get more irritated with Hepburn. She's SO over the top, it's almost like she's playing a parody of Jo March.

I keep wondering why I ever thought she was good in this!

reply

[–] Randy_D 11 years ago

Hepburn's performance is the weakest link in this film, as far as I'm concerned. "Loud & annoying" is pretty accurate! However, Joan Bennett was great. Makes me want to see more of her movies.

reply

[–] shred-com 11 years ago

I'm sorry but I thought Joan Bennett was quite terrible. Her crying scenes were extremely forced.
Katherine however did a wonderful job. Personally I thought she deserved an Oscar nod. First time seeing the film and liked it alot.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I prefer June Allyson as Jo (from the 1949 version). I just finished the 1933 version and Kate didn't seem quite as loud in this role as she did last time I watched this.

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

reply