Little Lord Fauntleroy (1936) is an American family drama film directed by John Cromwell and produced by David O. Selznick.

It stars Freddie Bartholomew as Cedric “Ceddie” Errol (the young Lord Fauntleroy), Dolores Costello as his mother “Dearest,” and C. Aubrey Smith as the Earl of Dorincourt (Cedric’s grandfather). Based on the 1886 novel Little Lord Fauntleroy by Frances Hodgson Burnett, this film was the inaugural production of Selznick’s new independent studio, Selznick International Pictures.

It surprised Hollywood by choosing a sentimental Victorian children’s story for the studio’s debut, yet it proved to be a major critical and commercial success. Little Lord Fauntleroy earned enthusiastic reviews upon release and attracted huge audiences - reportedly the crowds at New York’s Radio City Music Hall were so large and excited that extra police were called in to manage them.

The film ultimately became Selznick International’s most profitable picture until Gone with the Wind (1939). It remains a beloved classic, noted for its heartfelt story, strong performances, and lavish production values. Below is a detailed examination of its production, plot, reception, and legacy. 

Set in the early 1880s, Little Lord Fauntleroy tells the story of Cedric Errol, a compassionate young American boy living in modest circumstances in Brooklyn with his widowed mother, whom he adoringly calls “Dearest.” Unbeknownst to Cedric, his late father was English aristocracy - the disowned son of the formidable Earl of Dorincourt.

When Cedric is about nine years old, the Earl’s lawyer, Mr. Havisham, arrives with shocking news: Cedric is the sole heir to his grandfather’s title and estate, and is invited to England to assume his role as Lord Fauntleroy. 

Cedric and his mother travel to England, but the stern, cantankerous Earl (who still harbors prejudice against Cedric’s American mother) insists that “Dearest” reside in a separate cottage away from Dorincourt Castle. He pointedly refuses to meet or acknowledge her, blaming her for “stealing” his son. Cedric, unaware of the rift, moves into his grandfather’s grand castle while his mother lives nearby.

 Despite the Earl’s gruff and cold demeanor, Cedric’s innocence, kindness, and positive outlook begin to thaw his grandfather’s heart. The boy treats the Earl with respect and affection, and the old man finds himself charmed by Cedric’s generosity and sense of justice. Cedric befriends everyone from the castle staff to the local villagers, even convincing his grandfather to be more compassionate to his tenants and neighbors.

The once bitter Earl softens under the influence of his grandson - he becomes less tyrannical, starts caring for the welfare of the villagers, and even begins to secretly watch over Cedric’s mother, admiring her goodness from afar. 

Just as Cedric is fully accepted as the Earl’s heir and all of Britain is introduced to the charming new young lord, a crisis arises. Another woman, Minna, comes forward claiming that her son is the true offspring of the Earl’s eldest son (Cedric’s father’s older brother) - meaning Cedric would lose his title and inheritance.

The Earl is devastated but feels compelled to accept this claimant, and Cedric, though heartbroken at being displaced, handles the revelation with grace. However, Cedric’s friends from Brooklyn intervene: Dick Tipton, a shoeshine boy who is Cedric’s pal from New York (played by a young Mickey Rooney), recognizes the woman from newspaper reports.

Dick realizes she is his estranged stepmother and that her claim is a fraud - the boy she’s pushing forward as the “real” heir is actually her own son from a prior marriage. Dick brings his older brother Ben (the real father of that boy) to England to expose the deception. The ruse is uncovered, proving Cedric is indeed the rightful heir. 

With the inheritance scare resolved, the humbled Earl apologizes to Cedric’s mother and invites her to live with them at the manor. In the joyful finale, Cedric, his “Dearest” mother, and his grandfather are reunited as a family. On Cedric’s tenth birthday, the Earl hosts a grand outdoor celebration at Dorincourt, where Cedric’s American friends (like Mr. Hobbs the grocer and Dick the shoeshine) mingle happily with British high society. The film ends on a heartwarming note: Cedric has not only gained a fortune and a title, but also succeeded in softening his grandfather’s heart and uniting his family. 

(The film’s story closely follows Burnett’s novel, with a few adjustments: notably, Cedric’s age is slightly older in the film (around 9, versus 7 in the book) to match Freddie Bartholomew’s age, and the film downplays some of the book’s sentimentality to appeal to 1930s audiences.) 

Development: Little Lord Fauntleroy was the first film produced by David O. Selznick’s new independent company, Selznick International Pictures, formed after he departed MGM in 1935. Selznick had a personal fondness for classic literature and had recently scored a hit at MGM with another Victorian story (David Copperfield, 1935). Eager to replicate that success for his own studio, he set his sights on Burnett’s 50-year-old children’s novel, which had been wildly popular in the late 19th century.

He purchased the screen rights from actress Mary Pickford for $11,500 - Pickford had produced and starred in a 1921 silent film version of Little Lord Fauntleroy (famously playing the dual role of the boy and his mother). Selznick’s decision to remake Fauntleroy raised some eyebrows in Hollywood; many saw the material as old-fashioned “Victorian syrup.” Legendary screenwriter Ben Hecht jokingly telegrammed Selznick, “The trouble with you, David, is that you did all your reading before you were twelve.” Nevertheless, Selznick was confident. He knew the story had perennial appeal, and he was keen to launch his studio with a prestige family film that could capture the public’s imagination. 

Screenplay and Direction: Selznick hired Hugh Walpole, a novelist and playwright, to write the screenplay - an interesting choice, as Walpole was a distinguished British author rather than a regular Hollywood scenarist. After Walpole’s draft, Selznick had the script polished by Ben Hecht (despite Hecht’s earlier ribbing) and writer Richard Schayer to ensure it was engaging for contemporary 1936 audiences. The adaptation stayed faithful to the novel’s plot but made some tweaks: for example, they toned down the saccharine aspects and emphasized humor and warmth to avoid the story feeling too twee. John Cromwell was brought on to direct. 

John Cromwell was a respected director who had just finished Of Human Bondage (1934) at RKO and was known for skillfully handling literary adaptations. Cromwell shared Selznick’s view that Fauntleroy needed a delicate touch; he later noted that the story was so sentimental it could have been “dangerous material” if handled poorly, so they worked to translate its Victorian charm into something acceptable to modern audiences. Under Cromwell’s direction, the film strikes a balance between heartfelt earnestness and gentle humor, avoiding excessive melodrama. 

Casting: A major asset to the production was securing young Freddie Bartholomew for the title role of Cedric. Bartholomew, a British-born child actor, had skyrocketed to fame after starring in David Copperfield (1935) for Selznick at MGM. Selznick essentially “borrowed” Bartholomew from MGM for this film, knowing that the boy’s genteel demeanor and emotional sincerity could carry the role. Freddie Bartholomew’s performance is central to Little Lord Fauntleroy’s success - he manages to portray Ceddie as pure-hearted and polite without coming across as cloying or priggish. (Interestingly, the screenplay adjusted Cedric’s age to about nine years old, a bit older than in the book, to better fit Freddie’s look and maturity, since the actor was 11 during filming.) 

For the role of Cedric’s loving mother, known as “Dearest,” Selznick cast Dolores Costello. Costello had been a popular actress in the silent era (nicknamed “The Goddess of the Silent Screen”) and was the former wife of John Barrymore. In fact, this film marked Dolores Costello’s return to the screen after a long absence - she had taken a break from acting during her marriage and to raise children, and she was freshly divorced in 1935. Selznick signed her as one of the first contract stars of his new studio. In Little Lord Fauntleroy, she is billed as Dolores Costello Barrymore, since she was still legally using her married name at the time of production. Her casting added a touch of Hollywood royalty to the project (as a Barrymore by marriage), and her poised, gentle performance as Cedric’s mother received praise, especially given it was essentially a comeback role. 

As Cedric’s gruff English grandfather, the Earl, veteran character actor C. Aubrey Smith was perfect. Smith was a distinguished English actor known for portraying aristocratic or military gentlemen; with his commanding presence, bushy eyebrows, and signature handlebar moustache, he personified the irascible but ultimately golden-hearted nobleman. His interactions with Bartholomew form the emotional core of the film. Reportedly, on set C. Aubrey Smith was as avuncular off-camera as on, helping to mentor the young star. 

The supporting cast was filled with talented actors of the era: Guy Kibbee appears as Mr. Hobbs, the kindly Brooklyn grocer who debates politics with Cedric; Henry Stephenson plays Mr. Havisham, the Earl’s wise lawyer; and Una O’Connor is featured as the Errols’ chatty Irish servant, Mary. A highlight is the appearance of a fifteen-year-old Mickey Rooney in a spirited supporting role as Dick Tipton, Cedric’s shoeshine-boy friend from New York. Rooney, on loan from MGM like Bartholomew, brings a streetwise energy that helps cut the sweetness - his scenes in Brooklyn add humor and a touch of American sass. (The pairing of Bartholomew’s earnest charm with Mickey Rooney’s spunky persona worked so well that MGM later teamed them in several other films after 1936.) Rounding out the cast, we have Constance Collier as the Earl’s stately sister Lady Lorridaile, Helen Flint as the conniving false claimant Minna, and Jackie Searl as her bratty son. Even small roles are notable: this was one of the final films for famed costume designer Sophie Wachner, and bit parts and uncredited cameos included future familiar faces from Hollywood’s character actor pool. 

Filming Details: Production took place in late 1935. Principal photography was completed within the last two months of 1935, staying close to schedule and budget. The film’s budget was originally set around $500,000 - a considerable sum for a family drama at the time - and the final cost came in at roughly $590,000. Selznick, known for his meticulous oversight, invested in high-quality production design to recreate both 1880s Brooklyn and Victorian English aristocracy on screen.

Interiors of Dorincourt Castle, with grand halls and lavish furnishings, were constructed on Hollywood soundstages. To provide authentic English exteriors, the crew also did some location shooting in California - for instance, rustic rural scenes were filmed in Calabasas, CA, which could pass as the English countryside on film. The cinematography was handled by Charles Rosher, an Academy Award-winning cinematographer (Rosher’s elegant lighting captures both the softness of the pastoral scenes and the grandeur of the Earl’s estate).

The musical score was composed by Max Steiner, one of Hollywood’s top composers, who wove in a sweeping, tender orchestral score that underlines the story’s emotional beats. Steiner’s music helps set the storybook tone from the opening credits, but he also incorporates playful motifs (like jaunty, American-style tunes for the Brooklyn scenes) and stately themes for the Earl. 

Costumes and Design: An interesting production decision was related to Cedric’s appearance. In Burnett’s original novel and illustrations, Little Lord Fauntleroy is famously depicted wearing elaborate velvet suits with lace collars and sporting long, flowing curls - the quintessential “Fauntleroy suit” that actually sparked a real fashion craze for little boys in the late 19th century. By the 1930s, however, that look had become a symbol of foppishness or effeminacy (“Little Lord Fauntleroy” had even become a teasing term for overly prim boys). Selznick’s team was aware of this and took steps to avoid making their young star seem ridiculous to contemporary viewers.

They even engaged the public in the decision: surveys and polls were conducted asking whether Cedric should have the long curls or a more typical haircut. The response was overwhelmingly to modernize the look. Thus, in the film, Bartholomew’s Cedric has a neat short haircut and dresses in relatively simple, modest period clothing (small Eton suits and sailor caps), rather than the extreme lace-collared outfit described in the book.

This choice was deliberate to counter the “sissy” stereotype associated with the character - and it worked, as audiences found Freddie Bartholomew’s Fauntleroy adorable and admirable, not laughable. (The film does slyly reference the costume issue: early on, Cedric’s mother shows him a fancy suit, but the final image we see is Cedric in a normal suit for the big introduction to society.) 

The rest of the costumes, designed by Sophie Wachner, were lush and detailed, fitting the 1880s setting. This project turned out to be Wachner’s last film as a costume designer, and she went out on a high note: Little Lord Fauntleroy features everything from humble American work clothes to aristocratic attire. Dolores Costello’s Victorian gowns and the Earl’s dignified frock coats help convey the different worlds that the characters inhabit. 

Production Challenges and Trivia: Selznick put a lot of effort into marketing and publicity for Little Lord Fauntleroy. Knowing that some might initially dismiss the film as overly sentimental, he made sure to generate positive buzz and position it as a must-see family event. He brought on publicist Russell Birdwell, who engineered a record-breaking promotional stunt: a gigantic two-mile-long canvas banner advertising Little Lord Fauntleroy was hung along Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, stretching from Selznick’s studio lot all the way past the MGM studio towards the ocean.

This massive sign - at the time, the longest ever erected for advertising - made headlines itself, signaling that Selznick had high hopes for the film. Additionally, the studio’s PR team gathered endorsements from unlikely audiences: one innovative ad campaign featured quotes from famous men known for toughness (including boxing champion Jack Dempsey and other sports or industry figures) expressing their admiration for the character of Little Lord Fauntleroy. This was intended to dispel any notion that the story was only for women or children - if macho men could appreciate its virtues, surely anyone could. 

Filming itself went smoothly for the most part. Freddie Bartholomew was a seasoned young actor and had no issues carrying the film, but the schedule had to accommodate standard limited working hours for child actors. Mickey Rooney, ever the energetic teen, reportedly kept the mood light on set. There were no major star clashes or disasters recorded; in fact, compared to many Selznick productions, Fauntleroy was relatively calm - a testament to Cromwell’s steady direction and the professionalism of the cast.

By early 1936, the film was completed and ready to show. 

Premiere and Release: Little Lord Fauntleroy premiered with significant fanfare. Its world premiere was a special event held on March 4, 1936 at the Warm Springs Foundation in Georgia - this was the polio rehabilitation hospital founded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The choice of venue made the premiere a combination of Hollywood glitter and charitable cause: young patients at the Warm Springs hospital were the guests of honor at the screening. (Dolores Costello attended in person; Freddie Bartholomew was expected too, though records are unclear if he made it to that event.) This unique premiere tied in with Roosevelt’s foundation and generated positive publicity about the film bringing joy to children facing adversity, a theme resonant with the movie’s own content.

After that, the film began its theatrical run. It opened in U.S. theaters in the first week of March 1936 (for example, it debuted in Philadelphia on March 5, 1936, and opened wide across the country by mid-March). 

In early April 1936, Little Lord Fauntleroy arrived in New York City at the prestigious Radio City Music Hall for its big-city debut. There it truly sold out showings and drew enormous crowds. Contemporary reports noted that throngs of people lined up around the block to see it; the demand was so high that extra police officers were brought in to maintain order and safety at the Music Hall screenings. This kind of turnout was normally associated with the year’s top cinematic attractions, confirming that Selznick’s film had captured public interest in a big way. One trade publication (Motion Picture Daily) projected that the movie would gross an impressive $100,000 in just one week at Radio City - a huge take for a single theater in that era. 

Critically, Little Lord Fauntleroy was warmly received. Many reviewers who might have been inclined to sneer at a “sentimental children’s film” admitted that the movie won them over. In The New York Times, critic Frank S. Nugent gave a glowing review (published April 3, 1936). He called the film a “pleasant” and skillful screen version of the familiar story, applauding how it avoided treacly excess and instead delivered genuine charm. Nugent particularly praised Freddie Bartholomew’s winning portrayal and John Cromwell’s direction, which he felt kept the story engaging for all ages. 

Time Magazine, in a March 1936 write-up, noted that while the premise might sound saccharine, Selznick’s production had lent dignity and appeal to the film. The Time reviewer highlighted that the movie was not simply a tale of a boy’s devotion to his mother (which modern psychology, the magazine quipped, might regard as overly attached), but smartly refocused as the story of a plucky Brooklyn boy who “makes good in the old country.” The adaptation was commended for being “handsomely rewritten” by Hugh Walpole, “beautifully staged, and superbly directed” by Cromwell.

The review also complimented the film as evidence that Selznick International Pictures was off to a flying start, and it singled out the principal actors - Bartholomew, Smith, and Costello - for their enjoyable performances (cheekily calling the movie an “actors’ holiday” for them). 

Trade papers and fan magazines echoed similar sentiments. Variety described the film as wholesome family entertainment with broad appeal, predicting (correctly) that it would do very well at the box office. Many reviews took note of the potential for children and parents to enjoy it together. Because of its family-friendly nature, some communities and even schools embraced the film; for instance, it was reported that in Providence, Rhode Island, schoolteachers encouraged students to see Little Lord Fauntleroy - viewing it almost as an enriching story about kindness, good manners, and moral character. 

One reason the film resonated in 1936 may be its escapist, uplifting quality. During the mid-1930s, people were still coping with the Great Depression. The rags-to-riches fantasy of a poor American boy discovering he’s heir to an English fortune had a magical appeal. It’s a Cinderella-type story, but with a grandson and grandfather, emphasizing cross-generational healing and hope. Audiences found the transformation of the cold aristocrat through a child’s goodness particularly heartwarming.

As film historian David Thomson later observed, Little Lord Fauntleroy is unabashedly sentimental - “a shameless monster of sentimentality” - yet it’s crafted with such skill and sincerity that it’s disarming. He noted that one might roll their eyes at the sweetness if you weren’t having such a good time watching it. The film tapped into a nostalgic yearning for simpler virtues and even a romanticized view of nobility. In an era rife with economic hardship, seeing a kind-hearted underdog elevated to luxury and, more importantly, bettering the life of someone powerful, was likely a comforting fantasy. 

At the box office, Little Lord Fauntleroy performed very strongly. By the end of its run, it was one of the year’s more profitable films relative to cost. It had particular success in family-oriented bookings and long runs in many cities. By 1939, records indicate the movie had earned about $447,000 in profit (this figure accounts for its budget and expenses versus its earnings). That profit number suggests robust grosses for a drama of its type - it essentially nearly doubled its cost. In fact, until Selznick produced Gone With the Wind three years later, Fauntleroy remained the top moneymaker in the Selznick International library. Considering the competition in 1936 (this was the year of films like San Francisco, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, etc.), Little Lord Fauntleroy’s success was a notable achievement for a gentle period piece. It did not receive any Academy Award nominations (the Oscars were a bit limited in categories then - and notably, 1936 was the first year they awarded a special Juvenile Oscar, which that year went to Shirley Temple; Freddie Bartholomew was not given any special Oscar despite his acclaimed work). Nonetheless, the film’s triumph was measured in audience love and lasting reputation rather than in trophies. 

Internationally, the film also found audiences, especially in English-speaking countries. In the UK, where the story’s setting partly belongs, viewers enjoyed the Anglo-American bridging of the narrative. (Though one could imagine some Brits chuckling at an American child bringing such virtue to an English peer!) The movie was released in various countries under translated titles (for example, in France as Le petit Lord Fauntleroy and in Germany as Der kleine Lord). Over time, Little Lord Fauntleroy continued to be re-released and shown, particularly as a wholesome classic suitable for children’s matinees and holiday programming. 

Little Lord Fauntleroy holds an interesting place in both literary and film history. The character of Cedric “Little Lord Fauntleroy” was once an iconic cultural figure thanks to Frances Hodgson Burnett’s novel - so much so that, as mentioned, it influenced fashion and entered the lexicon. By the 20th century, the term “Little Lord Fauntleroy” had come to describe any pampered, overly polished boy, sometimes used teasingly.

The 1936 film, by consciously toning down the frills and emphasizing Cedric’s genuineness, helped reframe the character for modern audiences. Freddie Bartholomew’s portrayal presented Fauntleroy as earnest and kind rather than prissy. This positive depiction arguably rehabilitated the image of Fauntleroy in pop culture, making him a symbol of innocent virtue and good manners, instead of a joke. 

The novel’s enduring popularity meant that the story would be told on screen again and again. Prior to 1936, aside from Mary Pickford’s notable 1921 silent version, there had been a lesser-known 1914 British film adaptation. After 1936, the story continued to resonate. Perhaps the most famous adaptation after this film is the 1980 television movie Little Lord Fauntleroy, a color production starring Ricky Schroder as Cedric and Sir Alec Guinness as the Earl. That version, made for TV, became beloved by a generation and is frequently rebroadcast (in some countries, such as Germany, Der kleine Lord (1980) became a Christmastime TV staple).

However, many admirers of the tale regard the 1936 Selznick version as the definitive classic. It’s often praised for its production quality and the performances of Bartholomew and Smith, which some feel have not been surpassed. Even decades later, scenes like Cedric’s first tearful night apart from his mother, or the finale of his birthday reunion, can still tug at the heartstrings. 

In terms of home media and preservation, Little Lord Fauntleroy eventually fell into the public domain in the United States (like many films of the 1930s whose studios failed to renew copyrights under the old laws). Being in the public domain has a mixed impact: on one hand, it means the film can be shown freely, copied, and distributed by anyone, which helped it proliferate on television, VHS, and later DVD - it has long been included in those inexpensive classic film collections and was easy to find at libraries or online archives (the film can even be watched on the Internet Archive for free).

On the other hand, public domain status often led to low-quality dupes and prints circulating, some of which were in poor condition. For many years, viewers had to put up with subpar image quality when watching Fauntleroy outside of archival screenings. 

Thankfully, there were restoration efforts to preserve this charming piece of cinema. In 2012, the esteemed George Eastman House Motion Picture Department undertook a restoration of Little Lord Fauntleroy. They worked from David O. Selznick’s personal 35mm nitrate print of the film (Selznick had kept copies of his productions).

The restoration aimed to create the best possible quality print and digital transfer, given that the original negatives were presumed lost or deteriorated. The result was released on Blu-ray and DVD in 2012 by Kino Lorber as part of their “Kino Classics” line. This Blu-ray edition marked the first time in ages that the film was available in such clarity, with correct contrast and a stable image, doing justice to Charles Rosher’s cinematography.

While a few scratches and flaws remain (since no pristine source survives), reviewers noted that this is likely the best the film will look unless a better element is discovered. The improved visuals and audio allow modern audiences to appreciate the craftsmanship of Little Lord Fauntleroy much more than fuzzy old TV prints did. 

Critics and classic film buffs have continued to discuss Little Lord Fauntleroy over the years. It often comes up as a prime example of a “heartwarmer” from Hollywood’s golden age - a film that unabashedly aims to lift spirits and celebrate moral values. It’s frequently included in lists of great child performances or notable kid-centric films of the 1930s. Freddie Bartholomew’s work, in particular, is remembered as one of the standout child actor achievements (alongside Shirley Temple’s and a few others from that decade). Moreover, the movie is notable in the context of David O. Selznick’s career. Film historians look at Fauntleroy as a precursor to Selznick’s later successes.

It demonstrated Selznick’s philosophy of production: buying prestigious literary properties, casting top talents, and ensuring high production quality to elevate the material. The success of Fauntleroy gave Selznick the financial boost and confidence to pursue bigger projects - he went on to produce A Star Is Born (1937), Rebecca (1940), and of course, the monumental Gone with the Wind (1939). In that sense, Little Lord Fauntleroy’s triumph was an important building block in Hollywood history, showing that independent production could compete with the big studios through quality and showmanship. 

Cultural references: The term “Little Lord Fauntleroy” has remained in English vernacular. While the film itself might not be directly referenced as often in modern media, the idea of a “Little Lord Fauntleroy” outfit or hair is still recognized (a child in velvet knickers with a fancy collar, for example, might be jokingly called a little lord Fauntleroy in books or films).

Whenever this phrase is used, it indirectly points back to Burnett’s story and the film adaptations that visualized that image. Also, the trope of a poor child discovering noble lineage has been reused in various forms in literature and film - one could argue Little Lord Fauntleroy popularized a kind of modern fairy tale that we see echoes of in later stories. 

Over time, Little Lord Fauntleroy has maintained a reputation as a family classic. It may not be as universally known today as, say, The Wizard of Oz, but among enthusiasts of classic cinema it is held in high esteem. The movie’s sincerity and the obvious care put into its production give it a timeless quality. Modern viewers who come across it (for instance, parents showing it to their children, or classic movie channels airing it) often comment on how engaging it still is.

The relationship between Cedric and his grandfather—spanning a generational and cultural gap—feels touching and genuine.

The film’s message, that kindness and decency can melt the hardest of hearts, is a universal theme that still resonates. 

In summary, Little Lord Fauntleroy (1936) endures as an example of Hollywood’s golden age storytelling at its most pure. It showcases the talents of a remarkable child actor, the polished direction of John Cromwell, and the production savvy of David Selznick. Its impact includes helping cement certain sentimental story tropes in cinema, bridging American and British cultural sentiments on screen, and leaving behind an image of “the perfect little gentleman” that still finds echoes in culture.

Thanks to restoration efforts, new generations can continue to enjoy this film in the best quality possible. Whether one watches it as a window into 1880s nostalgia or 1930s filmmaking, Little Lord Fauntleroy remains a heartwarming experience, carrying the simple but enduring lesson that honesty, generosity, and love are more valuable than all the titles and riches in the world.