Morgenrot des Ruhms

Historical accounts of the 1932-33 Academy Awards claim that there was only polite applause when the Best Actor and Best Actress awards were presented. Charles Laughton won Best Actor for his performance in "The Private Life of Henry VIII," and the guests at the awards ceremony were not pleased that the Academy chose a (gasp!) non-American. Katharine Hepburn won the Best Actress prize for her performance in "Morning Glory," and the tepid response to her win was due to the fact that the actress had already made herself unliked among Hollywood circles. Hepburn of course would go on to have perhaps the single most illustrious career ever for a movie star, and whether or not she was ever truly liked, she became one of the most revered and respected actresses in the business.

But based on her performance in "Morning Glory," it's easy to see why she turned people off. She's just weird. That weirdness was likely interpreted as unique, and she certainly delivers lines in the film in a way that no actress had delivered lines before her. I have to believe it's this uniqueness that won her the Oscar. But as a performance, it's pretty dreadful, though the movie around her is such an afterthought that I don't know that anyone could have done much with it.

Hepburn plays Eva Lovelace, a naive, stagestruck kid who comes to New York with ambitions to be a serious actress and annoys everyone so much that they just give in and give her her big break even if there's no logical reason for doing so. (I'm sure that's how the show business world really works). I don't know whether to blame the writing, directing, or Hepburn herself, but Eva comes across as mentally unhinged rather than innocent, and the film gives us no conceivable reason that a theater impresario (Adolphe Menjou) and a renowned playwright (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) would be so infatuated with her, let alone allow her to just sit around their offices and homes all the time while they go about their business. Despite being innocent and haughty and above it all, she falls into bed easily with Menjou and then becomes obsessed with him, until the end when, on a dime, she pivots and realizes that she's a woman scorned. Nothing in this movie makes narrative sense, and you want to see Hepburn punched in the face more than you want to see her character make it on Broadway.

I had the most fun with Mary Duncan, an actress I'd never heard of, who plays a Broadway diva, and I was struck with how much sex appeal Douglas Fairbanks had. Why on earth Hepburn's character didn't fall for him instead of Menjou is just one of the nonsensical plot developments this film wants us to swallow.

Grade: C-

It's a tired old story - maybe not so tired in 1933 - about a young hopeful, Eva Lovelace (Hepburn) who comes to Broadway in search of fame. Kate's character is just so naive and so forward - and broke yet proud - that she is captivating. I can't think of anybody else who played it just like this so early in the talking film era.

She bursts in on producer Joseph Easton's (Adolphe Menjou) office thinking because he actually said a few kind words to her in passing that there was some kind of professional connection there. She has several completely forward conversations in his office with complete strangers, and some react positively and some negatively. But it establishes who Eva is as a character.

Playwright Joe Sheridan (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) is in love with the girl from first sight. Easton uses her one night and casts her aside, although from the set up it doesn't seem to be something he planned. Eva is just so naive that she thinks that this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship. Easton is such a coward he doesn't want to face her again.

RKO spent money on the stars for this one - they didn't rely on their stock company to populate it except perhaps for Hepburn who was under contract for several years and made her worst films for them. Only after she got away from RKO did she become great. But wasn't that true of everybody except for perhaps Robert Mitchum, Astaire, and Rogers?

The dialogue is very creaky, some of the scenes are too long, in particular the last one. And after watching it I was puzzled that Hepburn actually won her first Oscar for this, but not Alice Adams. So I looked up her competition. Only two other Best Actress nominees that year - Diana Wynward for the lead in one of the most puzzling Best Picture winners of all time - Cavalcade, and May Robson in Lady for a Day. So she won in a weak year.

If there had been Best Supporting Actress awards that year, I'd nominate Mary Duncan as diva Rita Vernon who is a completely obnoxious person who thinks her fame will last forever even though she is rounding the top of the hill. She trades catty remarks barb for barb and simply doesn't know what to do when confronted with the guileless Eva.

Lowell Sherman directed this one, and he got good performances out of everybody involved. I don't think I've seen a 30s film without a gimmick in it in which Fairbanks Jr. Looked better.

"Morning Glory" (1933): Katherine Hepburn won her first Oscar in the role of a naive, romantic young woman who wants to become a New York stage star. The story is of that climb, and were it kept this direct, might not be a brain teaser, but at least it wouldn't end muddled. Her character begins as a wonderfully flaky, idealistic, bubble-headed but assertive hopeful, who stumbles her way into the hearts of calloused stage people. You can't help but like her. However… whether it's in the script or the editing, the sense of TIMING becomes very odd. Her character is given plenty of attention and patience in the first half of the film, and then the story is increasingly horse-whipped into a faster & faster, more compressed, rushed explanation, until finally – at the end (if you can call it that) – the entire idea simply SCREECHES TO A SUDDEN HALT – and you're left looking around the room, wondering if the electricity just went out.

Many of the reviews point out how dated some of this movie is. And it is. It is a museum piece. That does not make it unwatchable. The story is cliche-ed by now, but only because Hollywood kept making various versions of it over the years. The talking movie was in its infancy then and silent movies were still a recent memory. The stage is where many film actors of the time started and performing in the theater meant putting the material across for the audience and projecting which current movie acting does not require. (Just show up and be yourself.) The theater had more cache in 1932 than movies and it is perfectly understandable Eva Lovelace would be attracted to it. Hepburns Bryn Mawr accent fits perfectly with the character who worries too much about how she sounds and wants to sound more British or high-toned. Her naivete makes her laughable at one moment and charming in another. Hepburn does a good job with all of that. She talks too much and says silly thinks that reflect her youth and romantic ideas about the stage, as the character is from some town in Vermont. She can be grating as the character no doubt would have been.

The script does not shy away from what went on with Adolph Menjou the night of the party where she gets drunk. (Pre-Code) The fascination with drunken writers and witty theater critics fits the time and is long gone today.

Even the great movie stars of the time felt that they had to appear in the theater at some point to show they were really as good as advertised.

Expecting Morning Glory to be something like The Power of the Dog of 1932 shows only how silly we are ourselves. I'm sure in 2112 Don't Look Up and the recent Batman will look very quaint and dated as well.

Douglas Fairbanks Jr. Does a lot with his part. (Why did he not have a bigger career?) Menjou is perfectly credible and restrained in his role that could have lent itself to scenery chewing.. The part that meshes best with Hepburn's is C. Aubrey Smith who is just British and paternalistic enough to make the role credible without overdoing it. He does a lot with his expressions. Mary Duncan as the egocentric star who gets the boot is fine. The catty dialog between divas is still funny. Yes there are gaps in the script's timeline that leave important events out. Lengthy talking scripts were a rarity then. Movies were still measured in reels. Yes it is old and the plot has been done many times since, but as a glimpse at what was popular with audiences in 1932, it is still worth a look. Hepburn, though a mannered actress at times, turned out to be no Morning Glory herself.

It was interesting to see Lowell Sherman directing, being somebody that knows him better as an actor specialising as villains and cads. My main reason though watching 'Morning Glory' was the cast, this has always been one of my most frequent main reasons for watching a film (that and appealing concepts, as well as wanting to see everything from an admired actor/actress/director). Not just Katharine Hepburn, who garnered her first Oscar here, but also Adolphe Menjou, C Aubrey Smith and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.

'Morning Glory' is not an easy film to rate or review. It is interesting for historical interest, to see how Hepburn's performance fares and whether the Oscar win was deserved or not. There are a fair share of big strengths in 'Morning Glory' but also a fair share of obvious and not at all overlookable drawbacks, which is why my feelings are so conflicted here for a film that is perfectly watchable but didn't quite click with me somehow.

The best thing about 'Morning Glory' is the cast, with the performances being so good that they make up almost half my rating. The obvious starting point being Hepburn, who dominates the film in a very winning performance. It is not a subtle one by all means and all the talk could definitely have been less, but she is at her most radiant at this stage of her career and was clearly enjoying herself, if she appears mannered that was the point of her character and she clearly relished those mannerisms. Fairbanks is a lot more subdued in comparison but is appealingly earnest as the film's most likeable character.

Smith is in a role that suits him to the ground and he is a very warm presence in it. Menjou is in the type of role he specialised in and played better than anybody else in his generation, and he is deliciously smarmy. Mary Duncan charms and amuses. Max Steiner's lush score is another plus, there are moments of nice wit, the film starts off really well and Hepburn's Shakespeare recitation is priceless.

Which is why it's sad that, with all those pluses, 'Morning Glory' wasn't better. The script has far too much talk and overdone babble and gets pretty flabby in the latter stages. Sherman's direction seemed erratic and unsure, if to choose as to whether there was a preference for his acting or direction it is a no-brainer. While there are moments of lovely photography, namely with how Hepburn is captured, it tends to be too restricted and static with too much of a filmed play feel.

Editing seemed jumpy and while the costumes are nice the sets could have been a lot more expansive and less stage bound. While 'Morning Glory' started off very well, the story became increasingly creaky and the second half jumps around a lot, which affects the coherence of character decisions and events and can feel rushed yet also bland. Do agree with others about the ending being very abrupt to the point of not being much of one at all, not to mention it is not a surprising one at all.

On the whole, doesn't quite bloom or glow. A bit on the fence here. 5.5/10