Little Women (1933)

I will admit - the only reference I had to Little Women previous to this, was the 1994 movie version of the book that I never read. But in my defense, I was a dedicated Lucy Maud Montgomery fan, so my youth and early teens were already full of reading about historical families and friendships. But I was a very loyal fan to the 1994 movie, which is why I have no interest in seeing the 2019 version. But this 1933 version stars Katharine Hepburn as Jo, so of course I  had to see it.

I was really struck by the similarities between the two versions, and I have to wonder if both movies took lines from the book verbatim. Because of this, this 87 year old movie didn't at all seem dated to me. It did not lack for production value, or acting chops - noting that in 1994, the movie was very much an all-star-cast, and in 1933 the only truly famous actors (or at least still well known 87 years later) are Hepburn and Joan Bennett, who plays Amy.  Hepburn, of course, was brilliant as Jo. If this hadn't been a well-known book, I would have sworn the role was created for her.

While there was surprisingly little difference between productions, I can't help but be aware that there would have been a vastly different audience reception. Little Women takes place during the civil war, and while the patriarch of the family is off fighting, the mother and her daughters must make sacrifices at home, while also giving to the poor. Beyond the stark reminder that this is in fact what we now know as middle-class, those of us in 1994 and 2019 could not fully appreciate the lives of the March family. But in 1933, viewers were in the middle of the great depression, and WWII was just a few years away.  So I now lament that you really don't know what the world is about to throw at you, as I sit here just three months after the release of the 2019 version, in the midst of the COVD-19 pandemic. Family, sacrifice, and staying positive are indeed messages that are never going to go out of style.