One example was when she spoke a couple of times, acting and deliberately mimicking a deep-throated guttural voice for a man. I think her efforts to be the tomboy were overdone in a few instances, which only drew my attention to this aspect of her role. Hepburn does a very good Jo, but not great. So we can't so readily experience the ups and downs, the emotions, the tragedy and love felt between the sisters and their mother. The problem with the overly heavy emphasis on the one character in this first movie is that the audience doesn't get much of a sense of who are the rest of the members of the family. The later remake – 1949's MGM production, does flesh out all the characters more. I would like to have seen more development of the sisters than this film has. For that reason, and a few others I'll mention, I think this rendition falls short of the interesting story told in the book. While that may be as one would expect for many stories – a star or hero being the focal point of a whole work, this film, based on this book, was supposed to be about several 'little women.' So, most of the rest of the characters in the film – save a neighbor male friend, really get short shrift. That is to say, her part, her lines, her camera time seem to surpass the combined times of all the rest of the cast. In this first screen adaptation with sound of Louisa May Alcott's famous novel, Hepburn IS the movie. Few would deny the powerful presence of Katherine Hepburn in any movie she ever made.

Katharine hepburn book me