उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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

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-

"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.

MORNING GLORY (RKO Radio, 1933), directed by Lowell Sherman, stars Katharine Hepburn in her third feature film and one she was born to play. The story involves Eva Lovelace (Hepburn), an aspiring actress from Vermont who comes to New York City in hope to get an acting job in the theater. While at an employment office, she comes across a veteran actor (C. Aubrey Smith), a theatrical manager (Adolphe Menjou), and a young playwright (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) who, at first, thinks she's "daffy." Eventually, the leading lady (Mary Duncan) of the upcoming play walks out on opening night because the producer refuses to meet her salary demands. Then Eva, the understudy, is given her big opportunity to take her place. After her stage performance (which is not presented on screen), Eva steals the show and becomes an overnight success. Now in love with the playwright (Fairbanks), Eva comes to realize then and there that a career and a relationship cannot mix, which places her in a dilemma.

While Hepburn won her first Academy Award for her performance here, I personally feel her role as Jo March in LITTLE WOMEN (RKO, 1933) was far better suited for her and should have gotten the award for that one instead. And like the character of Eva Lovelace, no one can be Jo March but Kate Hepburn. The story elements to MORNING GLORY does echo Kate's early stage origins. In spite of some scenes where she, at times, overacts, this is HER movie from start to finish. In a TV documentary on Kate's movie career, it was said that Constance Bennett was scheduled star as Eva Lovelace, but when Kate read the script, she saw herself as that character and got to play her instead. Kate is, however, convincing when she changes from naive youth to a mature woman. The movie includes some very witty dialog to help the story along. Great bit: The exchange between Mary Duncan and Geneva Mitchell outside Menjou's office, "You've gained."/ Response: "I'll soon be your size, my dear!" Another memorable scene is Kate's reenacting the "Romeo and Juliet" balcony scene at a dinner party. Kate and Adolphe Menjou later appeared in STAGE DOOR (RKO, 1937) with Ginger Rogers, which improved over MORNING GLORY. Both have the elements of looking like a filmed stage play, but the 1937 production presented more characters and a plot that moved at a faster pace.

MORNING GLORY, which was distributed on video cassette in the 1980s, first by Nostalgia Merchant and later through RKO Radio Home Video, played regularly on the American Movie Classics cable channel prior to 2000. MORNING GLORY was remade in 1958 as STAGE STRUCK with Susan Strasberg and Henry Fonda, but while both versions can be seen from time to time on Turner Classic Movies, it appears that MORNING GLORY happens to be the better known of the two. (**1/2)

In only her third film, Katharine Hepburn gives a lovely performance as a skinny, aspiring actress coming to New York from a small Vermont town convinced she will become a star. From the opening scenes where she stares admiringly at portraits of famous actors in the theater lobby, and then nervously starts her chatterbox conversation with C. Aubrey Smith in producer Adolphe Menjou's outer office, you are compelled to root for her because of her exuberance. But the climb to stardom is not that easy, she learns, failing in a small role Menjou gives her, taking menial jobs in vaudeville to keep from starving until she can get a break. When she does get the break of a lifetime, replacing the star who quit on opening night when her financial demands were not met, Hepburn is filled with fear of failure once again.

I loved the famous scene where Hepburn gets slightly drunk at a party given by Menjou and recites the "to-be-or-not-to-be" soliloquy from Hamlet and the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet. So did the guests, who applauded, and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., who fell in love with her. The supporting cast were all excellent, but I particularly liked Helen Ware playing Hepburn's costumer, who was briefly once a famous star, but faded quickly, like a morning glory.

If you are interested in credit errors, note that Menjou's onscreen character name credit is given as "Louis Easton," but when you see it printed throughout the film it is spelled "Lewis Easton."

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.

Story about Eva Lovelace (Katharine Hepburn) a stagestruck girl who comes to NY determined to be a great actress. She learns quickly that it isn't that easy and falls in love with producer Louis Easton (Adolphe Menjou) who doesn't love her. And writer Joseph Sheridan (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) DOES love her but she doesn't have a clue.

The story is VERY old and the movie itself is incredibly stagy (it's based on a stage play--and it shows) but it is worth watching. It's well-directed and cast and Hepburn is just incredible. She won her first Academy Award for this and it's easy to see why. She never strikes a false note (even during a drunk scene at a party which could have been done very badly) and she's young and beautiful. Also Menjou is very good (as usual) and Fairbanks is just so-so but he WAS an incredibly handsome young man.

See it for Hepburn. And it is short (about 72 minutes).

How Katharine Hepburn won an Oscar for Best Actress of this film is a bit mystery. I mean, she's okay, but nothing special. This was only her third film. Many think it would have been more appropriate had she won for "Little Women," her second film, also done in 1933. Frankly, I liked her better in "Alice Adams," her one of three movies she did in 1935.

Whatever. Her character in the movie is better than the story, which totally runs out of steam in the second half, so much so that I, frankly, didn't care at that point what happened to country girl "Eva Lovelace" in her quest to be a big actress in New York City.

Those who like stage plays will like this movie, because that is what it is, based on Zoe Atkins play. Some may find it dated, but that's not unusual considering the date. I find many early 1930s films very dated, but still a lot of fun.

Hepburn plays a charming girl in this, and had a beautiful face when she was young, so I can tolerate her snobby accent. In this story, she was a delight compared to Mary Duncan's role as the spoiled actress, coddled by Adolph Menjou. And speaking of actors, Hepburn may get all the attention but Douglas Fairbanks Jr., is every bit as good as her, if not better, in this film. Why didn't he win an Oscar?

One complaint: it's hard to understand a sizable amount of dialog in here. Words are slurred or breathlessly delivered (I really hate that) and you find yourself saying, "what did she say?" It's ridiculous. I saw this on VHS. However, the good news is that it is now available on disc, as part of the "Katharine Hepburn Collection" and has the subtitle option, if one is interesting in seeing it. There is a catch: you have to pay $50 since it is part of a set.

Was there ever a brighter more eager theatrical hopeful than Katharine Hepburn in Morning Glory? She set the standard for playing them in this her third film and first Oscar winning performance.

Young Eva Lovelace comes into the office of producer Adolphe Menjou looking for her first big break. She charms everyone with both her innocence and determination. Menjou, playwright Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., and old time actor C. Aubrey Smith all seem to be completely charmed by her.

Morning Glory is a short film and I'm sure there's a director's cut out there somewhere. Note after Hepburn meets all the three mentioned above in Menjou's office, they cut next to where she's going to a party at Menjou's and there's reference to some out of town play she did on tour in which she must have flopped badly. It's eluded that Fairbanks was the one who cast her. I'm wondering if audiences in 1933 saw more than the 74 minutes that are on my VHS copy.

One of these days TCM should run Morning Glory back to back with All About Eve. Essentially it's the same story with a protagonist who's wicked and manipulative instead of innocent.

Hepburn got her Oscar for the way she did the classics after having a little too much champagne. She does Hamlet's 'to be or not to be' and then she really electrifies the guests and Menjou's party and I'm sure the movie goers with her recitation of Juliet's soliloquy from the balcony scene. When you got Will Shakespeare doing your dialog did the other contenders for the Oscar have a prayer?

Morning Glory, a chance to see the young Kate go on to be great.

I ordinarily don't like Katharine Hepburn even with her four Academy Awards. She, Gloria Swanson, and a handful of other actresses sound like they're putting on--like they are trying to hard to sound like something and someone they're not. To this day I can't place Katharine Hepburn's accent and manner of speaking. It's like she made up a way of speaking just to be different. So you can trust me when I say she was perfect for the role of Eva Lovelace.

Eva Lovelace was a young unknown actress who traveled to New York to try to make a name for herself on Broadway. She went to see Louis Easton (Adolphe Menjou) (Louis per end credits, Lewis per a poster in the movie), a big time Broadway producer. Louis wasn't terribly impressed with her gumption and her flare, but Joseph Sheridan (Douglas Fairbanks) certainly was. Douglas was a playwright who wrote many things for Mr. Easton.

If Eva was going to make it in New York she was going to have to be spectacular and she was going to need some help.

Katharine Hepburn playing an actress is great. It fits her perfectly. It's the perfect role to explain everything about her I mentioned in the first paragraph. She was made for the role of Eva Lovelace and she truly brought the character to life.

2.99 on YouTube.

Katharine Hepburn plays Eva Lovelace who comes to New York dreaming to become a star in the world of theater.Morning Glory from 1933 is a fine drama.It has witty dialogue and the acting work is brilliant.Douglas Fairbanks Jr (1909-2000) plays Joseph Sheridan.But this movie works mostly because of Hepburn's excellent performance.She is just glorious in this movie.Morning Glory was her third movie and she won her first Oscar from this.Sadly this legendary actress died recently in the age of 96.The world lost a great talent in her.There will be no one like her again.But we can always watch her old movies like Morning Glory and be amazed by her greatness.Katharine Hepburn;The stage is yours!

If you're looking for a strong plot, I think you'll be disappointed with this film. The plot is...well, what I expect in many early 1930s film.

If you looking for interesting acting, then you'll like this film. Of course, the focus is on Katherine Hepburn, who turns in a most interesting performance. I enjoyed watching a very different role for C. Aubrey Smith. Adolphe Menjou is also quite good here, as is Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.

Simply from a history perspective, you should watch this film at least once.

I am not impugning the acting ability of Katharine Hepburn--she made some very fine films (any of her films with Spencer Tracy, "Bringing Up Baby" and "Holiday" quickly come to mind). However, when seen today, "Morning Glory" seems incredibly antiquated--and much of it is due to Miss Hepburn's rather bizarre performance. At times, she is likable and engaging while at others I just cringed at her overacting. And yet, oddly, she received her first Oscar for this uneven performance. It's an obvious example of how times and tastes have changed---such a performance would never be allowed today. It also might help to put these early Oscars in some perspective. They were NOT chosen like they are today, but at that time picked by a small group of studio owners and their pawns. So, if the big-wigs decided to award an Oscar, they did. Surely some actress did a better job in a movie in 1933! Perhaps it was just a slow year, but could it have been THAT slow?!

Hepburn plays a young lady who has come to Broadway to make a name for herself. However, she is not at all polished and VERY full of herself, so it's not surprising that the going is rough for her career. The only thing that saves her is a strange waif-like quality that makes some men want to look out for her and help her....though she isn't a particularly distinguished actress on stage. However, later in the film, the nasty diva refuses to go on and the writer of the play convinces the producer to give his protégé a chance. Naturally (and magically), it is Kate and naturally she's inexplicably a huge success...and the film soon ends after Hepburn (GROAN) muses about the fleeting nature of success.

The plot isn't bad, though the way Hepburn goes from nobody to leading lady is a bit clichéd--even for 1933. "42nd Street" and many other musicals have done the exact same bit, so seeing it once again was a bit disappointing. The main problem with the film was clearly Hepburn. I am not sure if the blame can be entirely placed on her--perhaps the director wanted this campy and uneven performance. The writing, too, cannot be ignored--some of Hepburn's lines were pretty tough to believe. All in all, I see this as a mildly interesting but way, way overrated film. Much, as I said, might be due to changing tastes--all I know is that I would put this in my Top 10 list for least Oscar-worthy Oscar winners.

The plot is simple: obsessively star-struck Eva Lovelace comes to Hollywood, and tries to get a role onstage. She's 'a bit of a character', amusing producer Lewis Easton and charming writer Joseph Sheridan right away. One of the best scenes in the film is when she introduces herself to the two of them: her incessant stream of chatter is a wonder to behold; some of the things she says funny and chilling at the same time. (Eva, for example, has envisioned her own death by her own hand, while onstage, at the 'xenith' of her career.) She is childish in her earnestness, and so romantic and imaginative that she is deeply stricken by the disappointments that pile one on top of another, be it tanking in a role or being unceremoniously 'dumped' by Easton after a one-night stand. The ending of the film is both chilling and puzzling: is Eva a character to be sympathised with, then?

In other words, the film itself is certainly nothing special. It would be forgotten except for the fact that Katharine Hepburn, screen legend, won her first Academy Award for it. Was it deserved? Much as I love Hepburn, I hesitate to say it is--there are roles she has played that are indubitably worthier than that of Eva Lovelace. (Tracy Lord in The Philadelphia Story comes immediately to mind.) Of course, the Academy never does seem to reward real merit; perhaps this award was as much for Little Women (released in the same year) as it was for Morning Glory.

This is not to say, of course, that Hepburn was bad. Far from it. She does a delightful job of portraying the obsessively earnest Eva, and she's a delight in her inebriated scenes. While drunk, her Eva displays undoubted signs of both the comic genius and the dramatic ability we've come to associate with Hepburn. Her reading of Shakespeare is both dark and evil, and light and lovely. Even the last, ambivalent scene, is a triumph for her.

{Even so, if you want to see Hepburn giving a masterful portrayal of a stagestruck actress, however, may I recommend the infinitely more entertaining (and qualitatively superior) film, STAGE DOOR. She is unreservedly excellent in that.}

For all we know of Eva Lovelace, she might well have been a morning glory--an overnight star, whose fame and fortune disappears almost as quickly as it began. We know far more about the actress who played Eva, of course, and we know for certain that Katharine Hepburn is no morning glory. Her career has lasted six decades; her impact on American film and the role of women therein is immeasurable... and, oddly enough, Morning Glory is how it all started. Perhaps, given Hepburn's unique and unconventional life and career, that is, in the end, most fitting.

Arriving in New York City from a small town in Vermont, ambitious and wafer-thin Katharine Hepburn (as Eva Lovelace) wants to be an actress. Her irresistible pretensions and unusual beauty catch the eye of playwright Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (as Joseph Sheridan) as Ms. Hepburn attempts to join the company of Broadway producer Adolphe Menjou (as Louis Easton). Hepburn's career staggers one step forward and two steps back, with her memorable moments highlighted by a tipsy impromptu performance of the "Romeo and Juliet" balcony scene at a snooty party...

This unoriginal, but appealing story would have worked better without lurching around so often...

Hepburn won her first "Academy Award" as "Best Actress" for this role; however, this "Oscar" was another in the film organization's puzzling choices. Note, the eligibility period was confused and extended, which inadvertently excluded Greta Garbo's "Queen Christina" from the running. Moreover, RKO quickly followed-up "Morning Glory" with a hit version of "Little Women". Hepburn was also perfectly mannered in her winning role, and received great support from an excellent cast. As the man attracted to Hepburn's true nature, Mr. Fairbanks is particularly good.

******* Morning Glory (8/16/33) Lowell Sherman ~ Katharine Hepburn, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Adolphe Menjou, Mary Duncan

Katherine Hepburn had just finished her second film when, as she was waiting to meet producer Pandro Berman is his RKO Radio Pictures' office, she spied upon a script on his desk, the soon-to-be August 1933 "Morning Glory." She picked up the screenplay and began reading the first few of pages. Hepburn, who remembered herself as a struggling young, ambitious actress trying to get a part on the Broadway stage, easily identified with its main character Eva Lovelace. When Berman arrived at his office, Hepburn said "That's the most wonderful script ever written for anybody."

The producer broke the news that Constance Bennett was assigned the role of Eva. The ever-persistent Hepburn insisted she was a better fit for the role, claiming she was born to play her. Berman finally relented, and the August premier of "Morning Glory" proved Kate's instincts were more than a personal sentiment. The Academy recognized her as cinema's Best Actress during its 6th Annual Awards ceremony. The win was the first of four Best Actress Oscars Hepburn earned, the most any actor or actress has ever received.

"Morning Glory" follows Eva from her first appearance in Broadway producer Louis Easton's (Adolphe Menjou) office to her attending a party at his apartment. Many cite Hepburn's soliloquy of Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' and 'Romeo and Juliet' after Eva downs a few glasses of champaign on an empty stomach as the reason for her Academy win. Eva's personality is engaging, despite Easton calling her a 'nut case.' Her rapid-fire conversation is almost a stream-in-consciousness of her mind bolting ahead of her mouth. James Rich writes, "The speeches are revelatory, not just as pieces of great acting, but for the character, revealing her vulnerability, her intelligence, and the power of her singular belief." Hepburn was assisted by director Lowell Sherman, a veteran silent screen actor who turned director in 1930. His last movie was with Mae West and Cary Grant in "She Done Him Wrong" when he was hired to direct the RKO film, with the stipulation he could rehearse with his actors a week before filming on a tight schedule. He shot the motion picture chronologically, allowing Hepburn to grow into her ever-maturing character as the production progressed.

Hepburn, nominated twelve times for Best Actress, established a tradition from her first nomination by not attending the Awards's ceremony. She expressed being very thrilled at the win, an event that sent her career rocketing skywards. As for the Zoe Akins' penned play on which "Morning Glory" was based, it wasn't performed on stage until 1939 in a limited run. "Morning Glory" was later remade in 1958 as "Stage Struck," starring Henry Fonda and Christopher Plummer in his film debut, with Susan Strasberg playing Eva.

When Katharine Hepburn first appeared on cinema screens, she was deemed a great new star, even winning an Oscar – for the film under review – almost instantly; however, before long, audiences had grown tired of her particular brand of histrionics and the actress was quickly declared "box-office poison"! She then wisely changed pace to screwball comedy with Howard Hawks' BRINGING UP BABY (1938), was subsequently handed a once-in-a-lifetime part on a silver platter (by playwright and personal friend Philip Barry, no less!) with "The Philadelphia Story" (superbly filmed by George Cukor in 1940), eventually became an institution when she teamed up (for 9 films and in real life) with Spencer Tracy, and ultimately grew into the "First Lady of Acting" – going on to win 3 more golden statuettes, a record, several years after her first! But, for what it is worth, it all started here...

Truth be told, I have never been much of a fan of Hepburn's – though I concede that she has appeared in many a fine film throughout her lengthy career. Anyway, the role she plays here fits her like a glove i.e. that of an ambitious young actress rising to the top out of pure chance and sacrificing stardom for love (indeed, the title is a trade phrase for such meteoric members of the profession). Actually, the narrative is not quite as maudlin as it appears from this plot line – and, yet, the brief 74-minute running-time does not give it much of a chance either: we are told that Hepburn seeks acting lessons from aged luminary C. Aubrey Smith (but we never see them at it) and, crucially, her crowning achievement on the stage is only represented by the enthusiastic applause of the audience and the bows she takes at the curtain call!! That said, her thespian skills are displayed in a drunken party sequence at the home of her producer (Adolphe Menjou, with whom Hepburn would be reunited for another classic about the artistic vocation i.e. STAGE DOOR {1937}), where she dutifully quotes a couple of Shakespearean perennials ("Hamlet", "Romeo And Juliet")! For the record, director Sherman had himself been a prominent actor (his most notable appearance perhaps being that of the washed-up film director in Cukor's WHAT PRICE Hollywood? {1932}) who briefly made the switch behind the camera before his untimely death in 1934.

The afore-mentioned STAGE DOOR was characterized by the bitchiness among the myriad female performers, here represented by the original temperamental (and blackmailing!) star of the production which ultimately gives understudy Hepburn her one shot at glory. The heroine (which, at a low ebb in her striving to make it on her own, is reduced to appearing in vaudeville!) is infatuated with the much older Menjou (who quashes her romantic illusions by stating that she now belongs to no man but to Broadway alone, a line which has since become a cliché in this type of film!); consequently, she overlooks the attentions of love-struck young author Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (playing a character named Joseph Sheridan!). In the film's closing moments, after finally confessing his feelings to her but ready to back down so as not to be in the way of her success, she is persuaded to make the right choice for herself (obviously, happiness) by the company's elderly personal assistant – herself a former leading light of the so-called "Great White Way" but whose single-minded pursuit of fame had rendered lonely and bitter! It must be pointed out that MORNING GLORY would be remade 25 years later by Sidney Lumet: renamed STAGE STRUCK, it was still good but inferior overall, and starred Susan Strasberg, Henry Fonda, Christopher Plummer and Herbert Marshall.

Movies like MORNING GLORY make me wonder how in God's good name anyone cares a whit about the Oscars. How does anyone take that show's judgment seriously? Especially when turkeys like MORNING GLORY are able to nab that putrid Academy gold? If it deserved an award for anything, then it was making a 75-minute movie feel longer than GONE WITH THE WIND.

The plot crawls along those minutes, offering up nothing beyond pretentious drivel about A-R-T and melodramatics on autopilot. The structure is almost nonexistent: thirty minutes in and I still felt like the movie was spinning wheels, going nowhere. The whole thing is so, so talky, which is okay when your dialogue sparkles and your characters are involving. Not here. Most of the characters lack interest and the protagonist Eva Lovelace (her stage name, don't you know) is actively annoying.

Now, I get that Eva is supposed to be naive and affected. Fine. But my God, she seems less a character than a prepackaged bundle of actorly tics and mannerisms, combined with perpetual dewy-eyed innocence. I like Katharine Hepburn, but out of her many films, this has got to be among her worst efforts, if not THE worst. She never made me believe this was a real human being she was playing, never got me invested in this starstruck ingenue cranked up to eleven. Now, this could be the writer's fault as well... but who knows? The whole thing is just a long, drawn-out yawn that thinks it's more profound that it is.

Sometimes I get irritated at how narcissistic Hollywood is, even on the subject matter of its films: there's an obvious Hollywood bias in favor of stories about show business, especially show business people. It seems as if, even if the main story isn't about show business, there's inevitably a girlfriend who's a nightclub singer or someone's putting on a skit or having a talent show. However, there are some exceptions to this tiresome self-promotion. The Gaynor and Garland versions of "A Star is Born," "What Price Hollywood," "Stage Door" and "Sunset Boulevard" come to mind. Here's another film about becoming a star that I love. "Morning Glory" is about a stage-struck young girl who makes it to the top. Sound familiar? Yes, but there's a charming little variant here - she achieves her stardom with her naiveté intact. This proposition would seem hard to swallow if it weren't for the fact that the young ingenue happens to be a very young Katherine Hepburn. You don't need gauze over the lens with Hepburn before the camera. She seems to generate her own nimbus. It also helps that Adolphe Menjou is present as the worldly wise, cynical, yet in the end kind impresario.

But for me, the biggest treat is that Hepburn was directed in "Morning Glory" to her first Oscar by the great Lowell Sherman, whose untimely death deprived movie lovers of a great talent, both behind and in front of the camera. What is so eerie about Sherman is his almost autobiographical end-life in film. In "Morning Glory" he was directing a brand new star playing a brand new star. And in "What Price Hollywood," the prototype of "A Star is Born," Sherman actually played a director who discovers and develops a new star, a director who's at the end of his rope - as Sherman actually was! "What Price Hollywood" was Sherman's penultimate film - he died, worn out, two years later.

Sure, "Morning Glory" is dated to modern audiences, but even if you're unable to get over yourself and make allowances for passé cinematic styles, which are inevitable in films not far removed from the pantomime of silents, let yourself get a kick out of watching this story behind the story.

Katharine Hepburn is a young actress who comes to New York for fame and fortune in "Morning Glory," also starring Adolphe Menjou, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and C. Aubrey Smith. Eva Lovelace ("my stage name, I can shorten it if you want something else") is eccentric, fast-talking, and has many fantasies about acting and theater. The reality hits hard as at one point, she seems not only starving but homeless. Noting that she is in trouble, an elderly actor, Hedges (Smith) who meets her in producer Louis Easton's (Menjou) office invites her to Easton's opening night party. With no food in her stomach, she gets drunk recites some monologues, and ends up in bed with Easton. She's in love; he never wants to see her again. Meanwhile, Easton's writer Sheridan (Fairbanks) has fallen in love with her.

Dated, melodramatic, predictable - "Morning Glory" is all of that but somehow the theatrical repartee and attitudes ring true - some things never change, including competition between actresses. Hepburn is very young, slim and pretty, and she does an excellent job as a young woman embarking on a new life. Why with Fairbanks Jr. staring her in the face she fell for Menjou I'll never know. Fairbanks is incredibly young here but very effective. Menjou is perfect as an elegant, gracious producer who in the end is all business. C. Aubrey Smith gives a dignified and lovely performance as Hedges.

The ending does leave one asking, is Eva Lovelace to be a morning glory (i.e., flash in the pan) or not? Somehow whatever happens, the film leaves you with the impression that Eva will make it work in her own eccentric way.

I enjoyed Adolph Menjou's performance in this film, and there's quite a bit of enjoyable, witty dialogue. But I found Hepburn's performance annoying. A certain amount of the affectedness in her performance is appropriate--she's playing a girl enamored with the "idea" of being a great star. But Hepburn is so over the top. And her awful screechy voice. The "drunk" scene when she does bits of Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet and so impresses the audience -- well, she's laughable. I'm amazed that she won Best Actress for this. Amazed.

As contrast to Hepburn's exaggerated performance, Fairbanks seems strangely subdued. And a subdued Fairbanks is just a fairly attractive face and not much else to him.

Adolph Menjou is sexy, worldly-wise, and off-handedly kind in this film. Unlike other reviewers here on IMDb.com, I can see why Hepburn's character falls for him. I would have, too. When you're feeling vulnerable, an attractive daddy figure can sweep you off your feet.

C. Aubrey Smith, as always, is charming. I also enjoy seeing his name in the credits. He did a million films, played the same role in almost all of them, and never turned in a bad performance.