Manhã de Glória

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."

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).

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.