User Reviews

"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.

A WOMAN REBELS (RKO Radio, 1936), directed by Mark Sandrich, from the novel "Portrait of a Rebel" by Netta Syrett, offers Katharine Hepburn the type of role most suited for both her talents and personal interests, that of a feminist fighting for equal rights. Rather than a biography about early fighters of the feminist movements as Virginia Wolfe or Susan B. Anthony, A WOMAN REBELS takes a look at a fictional character named Pamela Thistlewaite.

The story, set in "England, the middle of the Victorian era," introduces Pamela Thistlewaite (Katharine Hepburn), and her younger sister, Flora (Elizabeth Allen), living in Gideon Gray estate with her widowed father, Judge Thistlewaite (Donald Crisp) and humble Aunt Betty Bumble (Lucile Watson). Tutored by their governess, Piper (Eily Malyon), Pamela, with her thirst for knowledge, questions authority to why "women are inferior to men." Because of her outspokenness towards her disciplinarian father ("If you are unjust as a father, you must be equally unjust as a judge"), Thistlewaite decides to have his daughters introduced to society where they are to meet young men as prospect husbands. During a gathering, Flora meets and falls in love with sailor, Captain Alan Craig Freeland (David Manners), whom she marries and settles to Italy. As for Pamela, she encounters Gerald Waring Gaythorne (Van Heflin) with whom she becomes interested. Meeting secretly in England at Madame Tussand and Sons Exhibition Wax Works, they eventually have an affair before Pamela learns too late that Gerald is married. Keeping her pregnancy a secret, Pamela, accompanied by Aunt Betty, takes time away visiting with Flora, also expecting a child. While at her residence, Pamela meets Alan's guest for the weekend, Thomas Lane (Herbert Marshall), with whom Pamela becomes good friends. When Flora later learns Alan has been killed in an explosion at sea, the shock causes her to lose both her child and life. Raising her daughter as Flora's child, Pamela returns to England where she breaks all barriers by seeking employment. She finally lands one at Ladies Weekly Companion where she submits articles to William C. White (Lionel Pape), her publisher. After meeting with a young woman (Molly Lamont) struggling through life with a baby and no husband, Pamela, who sees herself in this girl, takes a stand by writing articles on woman's suffrage titled "Shame of Civilization" to instant success. While Lane wants Pamela as his wife, she turns him down so not to have her past ruin his political career. Years later, as her "niece" grows to womanhood, young Flora (Doris Dudley) meets and falls in love with a young man part of Pamela's hidden past, later leading to a scandalous trial.

Considering the many novels and motion pictures bearing the theme of women birthing children out of wedlock and raising it as a child of another, A WOMAN REBELS offers nothing new in that regard, yet it's a wonder why it didn't prove successful at the box office. Weak scripting/ unsatisfactory conclusion, perhaps. Dreary underscoring, maybe. Time period? Not quite. Three years later, Bette Davis starred in THE OLD MAID (Warner Brothers, 1939) bearing a similar theme in same basic era, this time on American soil during and after the Civil War, resulting to something much better and highly effective. Hepburn, most noted for costume dramas as LITTLE WOMEN (1933) and THE LITTLE MINISTER (1934), was facing a career slump by this time, following previous failures as SYLVIA SCARLET (1935) and MARY OF Scotland (1936) to her name. While Hepburn's first mother role might or should have shown great promise, it only added insult to injury to being her third flop in a row.

Of the Hepburn flops, A WOMAN REBELS, one of her lesser known and discussed projects from the 1930s, is actually better to some extent, with honorable mention to Donald Crisp's forceful performance of a cold-hearted, stern father treating his children with indifference because they're females. David Manners, Hepburn's love interest in her screen debut of A BILL OF DIVORCMENT (1932), has little to do in his final movie role. For Van Heflin and Doris Dudley (who sometimes resembles Joan Fontaine), both in film debut performances, only Heflin, given the film's most memorable line, "Hatred can hold two people together more stronger than love," went on to become as a accomplished actor with Academy Award best supporting win to his name in the 1940s. According to Bob Dorian, former host of American Movie Classics, where A WOMAN REBELS aired regularly prior to 2000, Hepburn wore 22 different Walter Plunkett designed costumes covering the Victorian England era (1860s to 1890). Costumes may have been the fashion for Hepburn, but its authentic historical Victorian-era setting gives this another plus. While Hepburn was allowed to age through the process, the make-up department avoided the common overplay of white hair and extended wrinkles over a more natural approach. Herbert Marshall, who comes late into the story, makes a satisfactory suitor who claims, "These modern women are so weak." Elizabeth Allan's meek sister role, though small, equally balances that of Hepburn's forceful manner.

Once available on video cassette through Blackhawk Video in the 1980s and currently on DVD through the TCM Archive Collection, A WOMAN REBELS can be found whenever shown on Turner Classic Movies. (**1/2)

Katharine Hepburn did "A Woman Rebels" in 1936, when she was under contract to RKO Studios. She had a string of not so successful films prior to this, although made a sensational debut in "Bill of Divorcement" in 1932 and the wonderful "Alice Adams" in 1935. Hepburn basically plays herself here, all theatrical mannerisms and that light, slightly shrill voice. We are not so sure how to take the character of Pamela, although we guess from the title she will make some sort of stance for women's rights, circa mid-1800's; and indeed she does. Donald Crisp has a nice turn as her cold dominating father, and a young Van Heflin as one of Pamela's suitors is barely recognizable. Herbert Marshall is good as the man who loves Pamela through many decades. The soap suds are laid on pretty thick, and the film is not one of Hepburn's more memorable films. Still, for true Hepburn fans, it is always good to watch her in the earlier days. Fortunately for Hepburn, better roles were ahead in the decades to come. Hepburn leaving RKO was the best thing she did for her career.

In the pantheon of feminist films that Katherine Hepburn did in her career, A Woman Rebels definitely belongs. Even though this Victorian costume drama failed at the box office, seen today it's manifesto for the feminist cause and altogether proper for the daughter of a suffragette to have brought to the screen.

Kate and her sister Elizabeth Allan are being raised as proper Victorian ladies by their widowed father Donald Crisp which means no rights at all. Liz dutifully accepts her lot, but not Kate. Liz accepts David Manners a young naval lieutenant as a husband picked out by Crisp, but Kate has a fling with Van Heflin that's left her pregnant. And Heflin's engaged to another proper Victorian lady to boot.

Kate goes off to Italy to live with her sister while Manners is on duty. Allan is also expecting, but after Manners is killed in action, Allan dies of a broken heart. On Allan's deathbed she and Hepburn decide to raise Hepburn's expected as her niece rather than her daughter.

Back in the United Kingdom, Hepburn goes to work for a woman's magazine and under her direction the publication becomes a feminist manifesto for its time. Still old sins have a way of coming back to haunt one and they do Kate in a most peculiar way.

Herbert Marshall is in A Woman Rebels as Kate's faithful suitor and British nineteenth century diplomat. He looks earnest and faithful much like a pet collie, but in fairness the role isn't all that much.

One can certainly see what attracted Hepburn to A Woman Rebels. It's very message was parlor talk in the Hepburn household when she was growing up. Still the film does have a lot of unresolved situations, mostly due to the Code being firmly in place now and flexing its censoring muscles.

Kate's co-star Van Heflin was pretty unknown at this time and she would pick him to co-star with her as well as Joseph Cotten in The Philadelphia Story when Hollywood pronounced her box office poison. Though she didn't pick him for the screen version, she was the one who got him an MGM contract when she went there and from there Heflin became a star.

A Woman Rebels is a story which probably would have been better told now than back in the day. Perhaps someone like Gwyneth Paltrow will take up where Kate the Great left off.

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.

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.

The sins of the father shall be visited upon his children, and upon his children's children. Katharine Hepburn plays a woman who was a bright, curious child whose father stymied that curiosity because she was "just a girl". Later in life, Hepburn's illegitimate daughter, whom she raises as her niece, is a bright, curious child, whose curiosity Hepburn stymies whenever said curiosity would reveal her illegitimacy. There's wonderful hypocrisy at work in Hepburn's character, but the film absolutely fails in addressing the issue. Very disappointing.

Also infuriating is the handling of the character of the father, who is strict and regimented at the beginning of the film and is reduced to being a near-weeping milksop, comforted by and comforting his loving daughter, near the end. Where was he during the raising of his granddaughter? Were I Hepburn, I wouldn't let him near her, but if that's the case, how did they become reconciled by the end? It makes no sense.

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.

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.

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).

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."

In this classically independent, feminist role for Katharine Hepburn, old Hollywood gets their hooks into the main message. A woman who seems to be a rebellious and independent really has all the same flaws as everyone else of her sex: she falls in love with a man. As in most stories-and let's face it, these movies mirror real life-a woman's main goal isn't to be free of men's ties, but to fall in love. While Kate and her sister, Elizabeth Allan, are bullied by their stern father, Donald Crisp, Kate's form of rebellion is to sneak off and start a relationship with Van Heflin consisting of clandestine meetings and lots of kisses. Since this is a period piece, those types of kisses would only be shared by married people, and if discovered, her reputation would be ruined. That's a great way to show feminine independence, right, to let a man ruin your reputation?

Anyway, the twists and turns of life make Kate soon regret her affiliation with Van. Her decisions aren't the smartest, and pretty much every hassle in her life could be avoided. I found it hard to feel sorry or root for her, even though it was clear the audience was supposed to do both. On the upside, Kate looks really pretty in this movie! If you like seeing Herbert Marshall as the long-suffering man on the outside looking in you can rent this one, but it sure doesn't make Van Heflin seem very likable. This was his first movie, though, and quite a break for him to be paired up against such established heavyweights!

Victorian era Katherine Hepburn doesn't like cruel father Donald Crisp. In no particular order, she has a baby out of wedlock, is courted by Herbert Marshall for twenty years, becomes a leading figure in the women's rights movement, and goes through more than twenty costume changes in this uninvolving and poorly conceived movie.

It's certainly true that the issues discussed here were and remain real problems, but showing them in newspaper headlines in this movie is no way to discuss them. Neither is Miss Hepburn particularly convincing playing the long-suffering woman. Despite the obvious care with which producer Pandro Berman shepherded this movie into being, the fabulous set design, the gracefully moving cameras, the presence of newcomers Doris Dudley and Van Heflin, this one cannot claim to have simply aged poorly. It was a flop when it came out. And quite rightly so.

It seems to take little to raise a player to the status of star. Sometimes two successes in a row will do it, and then, especially in the Studio era, theyy bent their efforts towards producing vehicles that would profit from and sustain that stardom. The contrary takes a little longer, but this was Miss Hepburn's third money-losing picture in a row, and the failures just kept coming.