La gloria del mattino

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).

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.

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."

"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.

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