Une femme se rebelle

Apart from a wonderful plot, superb acting from Katherine Hepburn, Herbert Marshall as a charming leading man, as a historical film costumer, this one goes on my A-list.

I've only seen about 3/4 of the film -- caught it on Turner classic movies channel and got hooked. Don't know what the costuming in the early part of the flick was like, but from the time I tuned in, which covered the mid to late 1860s through the 1890s, I was VERY impressed.

The 1930s and 40's "golden age of Hollywood" was not a particularly good era for accurate costuming in film -- the artistic/visual impact generally seemed to trump any concerns about authenticity. And the 50s, 60's and 70's got broadly worse.

This film stands out from the 1930's crop BIG time.

The 1865-1870 period is difficult to get right and is seldom portrayed -- elliptical hoops, small bonnets, tailored details -- all presaging the "first bustle era" of the early 70's but not yet at the bustle stage. Costume Designer Walter Plunkett gets it right and designed some lovely, authentic gowns. The film seems to flash forward pretty rapidly to the late 1870's to early 1880s "natural form" era and then the 1890s, so both bustle eras are missed out, but the periods he covers, he does RIGHT.

Ironically, this is the same Walter Plunkett famous for his gorgeous, yet woefully inaccurate costumes for Vivian Leigh in Gone With the Wind -- however, if you look at that film, the costuming for Melanie Wilkes and the supporting & background women is actually pretty good, as are the various male civilian outfits. Alas, the stuff that's most remembered is the stuff that's wrong - Scarlett's clothes and the godawful uniforms.

Suggests to me that the great Plunkett richly deserved his reputation, DID understand historical costuming and must have been working to some broader artistic judgement call on the part of either the director / production designer or producers on GWTW.

With no such constraints on "A Woman Rebels", he did a phenomenal job.

-- Kathryn Coombs Historical Wardrobe, Ltd Historical Entertainment, LLC

Katherine Hepburn had already made Little Women, and a bunch of her "names" films of the early 1930s. here, she's Pamela, headstrong, outspoken, and thirsty for knowledge. for which she is reprimanded. Dad is Donald Crisp, with the downright upright british accent. and comes down on Pamela when she gets caught reading and trying to improve herself. the awesome Lucile Watson (Mother, in The Women!) is her governess, and encourages her to read and learn. Van Heflin has a small part as well. Pamela meets Thomas, who seems to work for the embassy. (Herb Marshall was seventeen years older than Hepburn. ) the picture is great, but the sound is pretty rough. Trials and tribulations for Pamela and her sister while in Italy. so they head home. and bump into Thomas. again. he wants to spend more time with her, but Pamela has plans to work. and that just wasn't common, or appreciated at the time. directed by Mark Sandrich. died at 44 of a heart attack. had directed Top Hat and Gay Divorce, two really fun films! novel by Netta Syrett, who actually had been born in 1865, so she would have been twenty in 1885 ! sounds like the story of her own life. or an acquaintance. or who she wanted to be. sadly, the old time customs and slow pace of the story keep the film dragging a bit. it's certainly interesting as a Hepburn film, and was considered one of her "loser" films. it's also a standout film as an early pro-women-equality film.

I think this RKO melodrama distills Hepburn's strengths in her early years even better than in her celebrated performance of Jo March in "Little Women". Kate was not the kind of actress who could play common or weak (although she was common but strong in the under-appreciated "Spitfire"). During this period, she mostly played strong and independent characters.

"A Woman Rebels" is a very good story about a Victorian woman who dares to be independent at a time when women were expected to get married. A career was considered out of the question. I think it's very well written and directed with good performances, especially from Herbert Marshall and Van Heflin (in his debut film performance).

Pamela (Katharine Hepburn) and Flora are the Thistlewaite sisters living under their controlling unloving father in the patriarchal system of Victorian England. They are both excited to be set up with husbands. Pamela's man Gerald cannot marry her due to his situation. Tragedy strikes Flora. Pamela struggles alone with a love child in a man's world.

Katharine Hepburn became box office poison with this as her third flop in a row. I do wonder if her righteous feminism has anything to do with the bad press. The story is one of melodramatic tragic romance. More could have been done with the romantic storyline but that would detract from the independent woman angle. There is a bit of rushed feel to some of the plotting. It's adapted from a novel and that can sometimes rush a story. After all, the movie spans a lifetime. It has one really fun scene with a donkey. Otherwise, this is a fine melodrama.

Katharine Hepburn stars in an early feminist melodrama co-starring Herbert Marshall. The film is noteworthy for not only its lush production and excellent performances, but also the ahead of its time, and novel, depiction of women's rights and suffragists of the 19th century. Hepburn is so good she lights up the screen. Marshall, as always, delivers perfect support. The story is interesting, the cast is appealing, the sets and costumes are magnificent, the direction and cinematography are sublime, and the screenplay is intelligent and literate. Unlike many films of the 1930s, this one doesn't have a tacked on sexist ending. It's true to the women's rights cause through and through. Of all of the historical melodramas I have seen, this ranks with the best. It rises above the (condescending) 'women's picture' genre because of the timelessness of its theme.