VeteranLight
I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.
Jonah Abbott
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
Loui Blair
It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.
MartinHafer
"A Woman Rebels" was a big money loser when it debuted. I think much of it was because it was a very strongly feminist film...even by 1936's standards...and most folks weren't ready to see a movie with such modern sensibilities...especially the notion of a single woman having a baby.The movie is set during the mid-late Victorian era. Pamela (Katharine Hepburn) and her sister Flora have a father (Donald Crisp) who is extremely cold, detached and loveless. He also is angry because Pamela wants more out of life than was typical of a woman of the day. She wants to read, educate herself and be something other than just a dutiful wife...and he is determined to marry her off like her sister. However, Pamela falls for a rogue and soon finds herself pregnant. To hide this, she goes to stay with Flora...and when Flora's husband dies as does Flora, Pamela pretends that her new baby is her sister's. She also does the unthinkable...she gets a job and eventually becomes a very modern and emancipated lady.This is a very well made film but as I said the notion of a single mother must have not sat well with folks. Worth seeing and among the actress's better early films.
Neil Doyle
At a time when she was considered "box-office poison" by film exhibitors, KATHARINE HEPBURN starred in A WOMAN REBELS, the story of the daughter of a strict judge (DONALD CRISP) crusading for women's rights in Victorian England, when it was unheard of for women to seek work in the office.Hepburn plays the role of Pamela Thistlewaite with all of her arch mannerisms intact under the direction of Mark Sandrich. VAN HEFLIN has a brief early role as one of her suitors who reveals that he's already married. She then switches her affection to HERBERT MARSHALL with whom she has an on again/off again relationship conflicted by Hepburn's stance on women's rights.Hepburn photographs beautifully and looks fetching in her Victorian costumes, but she's merely playing another facet of her "Little Women" character (Jo March), with ambitions to become a writer for a Ladies Home Journal and become an independent woman without need of a man in her life. Here, she's as self-sacrificing and noble as ever, but it's all rather stifling and mired in the '30s style of melodramatic screen acting.The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Allan, David Manners and Lucille Watson, who behaves exactly as though she's playing Aunt March again.Hepburn fans who enjoy seeing her play herself will probably enjoy this tremendously. Others beware. Best line in the movie goes to an aged Van Heflin who says, toward the end, "Hatred can bind two people together more strongly than love."
Cleydael
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
jrgirones
Katharine Hepburn shines as always in this entertaining film that tries to focus on the raise of feminism in the last mid-century. The subject is interesting enough and so is the personality of the main character, played consistently by Miss Hepburn in a mixture of strength and frailty, but unfortunately this ends being a soapy melodrama. Extremely watchable, but could have been a more relevant approach to feminism.
