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.
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.