Los impostores

From the beginning of this film I was puzzled as to why Louisa May Alcott, whose main character in "Little Women" is set straight on her own writing career by being told to write what she knows, would follow up that story with a crazy yarn about some sleazy con artists. Further, I wondered why she would water down her own most vibrant character Jo into a staid, boring matron, and turn her gentle, wise professor husband into an inept fool.

The answer of course is that she didn't. Apparently the studio felt that the title and a few characters were all it needed from the book. While I haven't read the book, I can say having seen the movie that the studio should probably have stuck to the book. The story they came up with is lackluster and has none of the strong character development of LM. I am a Kay Francis fan, but she has too few opportunities in the script to make anything of her Jo. On its own merits, the film is mildly entertaining, but ultimately forgettable.

Though Louisa May Alcott's Little Women is definitely the superior book by most standards, Little Men certainly has its supporters and like Little Women it has seen many filmed versions. This particular one from RKO in 1940 starring Kay Francis as the now grownup Jo March is probably the best known.

Jo's a woman now and married to that visiting professor guy played by Carl Esmond here and they're running a school now, the Plumfield School where they try to make young gentlemen out of spirited boys. Back in the day girls were not considered to need an education, but they're kind of snuck in anyway.

George Bancroft and sidekick Jack Oakie stop by one day and deposit Bancroft's son with the school, Jimmy Lydon. Esmond who's not a worldly sort is so taken with Bancroft that he gives him their savings to invest. For all his pretensions Bancroft and Oakie are a pair of amiable grifters.

Oakie gives the best performance in the film, he steals whatever scene he's in. In fact he's the guy who comes up with a unique solution to everybody's problems in the end.

Jo March was one of Katharine Hepburn's earliest film successes back in 1933. If Kate had still been with RKO it might have been interesting to see her naturally age into the part again. As it is Kay Francis does well by Jo.

Little Men also reminds so much of a 19th century Boys Town so much so you keep waiting for Mickey Rooney to pop up. He also would have been a natural for Jimmy Lydon's part.

This version of a timeless literary classic still holds up well and is great family viewing.

This one compares relatively well with the other old "Little Women" and "Little Men" movies. It boasts an evenly keeled performance from Jimmy Lydon (as Danny), who handles the material particularly well. Other Louisa May Alcott adaptations err by casting older, and far too cutely made-up, stars as Alcott's young characters. Possibly, due to his relative youth, Mr. Lydon gets less than "star billing". Higher-billed veterans Kay Francis (as Jo March) and George Bancroft (as Major Burdle) provide strong adult support. Ms. Francis' portrayal of an older "Jo" rings true. However, Jack Oakie (as Willie the Fox) has the most enjoyable role. In black-and-white, Nick Musuraca photographs Darrell Silvera's sets quite nicely. Still, the total effect sometimes too cute for comfort.

***** Little Men (11/29/40) Norman Z. McLeod ~ Jimmy Lydon, Kay Francis, Jack Oakie, George Bancroft

Jo March and her husband Professor Bhaer operate the Plumfield School for poor boys.

When Dan, a tough street kid, comes to the school, he wins Jo's heart despite his hard edge.

And she defends him when he is falsely accused.

Dan's foster father, Major Burdle, is a swindler in cahoots with another crook called Willie the Fox.

When the Plumfield School becomes in danger of foreclosure, the two con men cook up a way to save the home.

It's not a bad movie. Starts out very funny but then drifts away into schmaltzy.

Elsie the Cow Before you watch this 1940 version of "Little Men", you should be aware that it is only BASED on the Louisa May Alcott story. So much of it is a creation of the studio that at times, it's almost unrecognizable from the source material. I really wanted to see the original, but the story I did see was still pleasant.

The story begins with a baby being dropped in the lap of a film-flam man (George Bancroft). Not surprisingly, the child, Dan, grows up to be a smaller version of his dad--full of the devil and way too old for his age. However, after years of traveling the country selling patent medicine and lying up a blue streak, it becomes inevitable that Dan should go to school. So, he's placed in the boarding school run by Jo (the main character from "Little Women") and the boy fits in about as well as a stripper at a Baptist Bible college!! In addition, Jo's husband unwisely believes Dan's father is a decent man and industrialist and entrusts them with the home's assets. What happens next? See the film.

The emphasis in this "Little Men" is clearly on Dan as well as on laughs. Now the film was quite enjoyable--the acting was nice (especially Kay Francis as Jo) and the script nice. It just wasn't "Little Men"!