ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,4/10
3,4 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueWhen a naively innocent, aspiring actress arrives on the Broadway scene, she is taken under the wing of several theater veterans who mentor her to ultimate success.When a naively innocent, aspiring actress arrives on the Broadway scene, she is taken under the wing of several theater veterans who mentor her to ultimate success.When a naively innocent, aspiring actress arrives on the Broadway scene, she is taken under the wing of several theater veterans who mentor her to ultimate success.
- A remporté 1 oscar
- 1 victoire au total
Fred Santley
- Will Seymour
- (as Fredric Santly)
Robert Adair
- Roberts
- (uncredited)
Ralph Bard
- Head Usher
- (uncredited)
Billy Bletcher
- Actor
- (uncredited)
Robert Bolder
- Actor
- (uncredited)
John Carradine
- Dream Apparition
- (uncredited)
Louise Carver
- Miss Waterman
- (uncredited)
Helene Chadwick
- Miss Murray
- (uncredited)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesKatharine Hepburn and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. performed the balcony scene from "Romeo and Juliet" in costume, but it was not used in the picture.
- GaffesWhen a newspaper clipping is shown on screen, the Broadway impresario's name in the article is Lewis Easton. In the end credits, the character's name is Louis Easton.
- Citations
Gwendolyn Hall: My! You're gaining weight.
Rita Vernon: Yes. I'll soon be your size, my dear!
- ConnexionsEdited into Starring Katharine Hepburn (1981)
Commentaire en vedette
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
'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
- TheLittleSongbird
- 25 mai 2020
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Morning Glory?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Ladolež
- Lieux de tournage
- Times Square, Manhattan, Ville de New York, New York, États-Unis(establishing shot, archive footage)
- société de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 239 000 $ US (estimation)
- Durée1 heure 14 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Morning Glory (1933) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre