Hepburn's OVERACTING!


It's amazing she HAD a career after the crazy overacting of her first few films.

This movie is just...weird. The plot wasn't half bad, the story pretty interesting, except for Hepburn. She's so over the top, it's almost a characature.

It is almost astonishing to imagine that the scenery chewer in "Morning Glory" was the same actress who did "The Philadelphia Story" only seven years later!

I guess a bout with "box office poison" did something to Hepburn's acting. There's just no comparison between how she is in "The Philadelphia Story" or any of her later works to the histrionics of the early days!

reply

[deleted]

she's not nearly as bad in this as she is in the first half of Little Women. I can't watch that movie; she drives me crazy. It's almost like a parody of Jo March.

reply

I'll respectfully disagree here---I didn't think she overacted at all. Her performance may have been a bit old-fashioned, in keeping with the style of the times (movie acting has undergone a continual evolution since sound first came in)---but overacting? Not really--- and in fact I thought her performance conveyed Eva Lovelace's personality adequately enough. While watching, I got the sense that this was a very young, naive woman trying to cover up her inexperience and inadequacy with bravado, with a bit of misplaced snobbery and false polish added into the mix.

The problem with the film has more to do with the script. It's a very short picture, and there is no character development at all----fully rounded personalities just aren't written down there on the page. In fact, it seems like a lot of the plot development takes place off-screen entirely; like the fact that Joseph had taken her under his wing and was coaching her, so that by the end of the picture she could in fact give a great performance. I think the film should have been all about her growth as an actress and maturation as a person overall, along with the slowly growing romance between Eva and Joseph. But none of this is on-screen.

While I thought Hepburn was okay given the limitations of the script, she was still inexperienced on-screen and I do find it difficult to believe that she won the Oscar for this performance. Of course, I don't believe I've seen any of the other nominated performances for best actress from 1933, so I can't compare and say who I think SHOULD have won. She certainly did learn quickly, however---in just a few years her work would show a great depth and nuance totally missing from her early films. But---it's fun to watch her make the journey. (And man---wasn't she just gorgeous as a very young woman?)

reply

Yes, she was gorgeous - no one can top her in the Philadelphia Story, for her looks or her acting.

I just find as I get older and see a lot of her movies over again that some of her tics are just irritating. She had them when she was very young (I keep wanting to punch her with the 'Christopher COLUMBUS!' in Little Women) and unfortunately when she got old.

She's still one of my favorite actresses. I just find that like other things, as you get more mature, your tastes change. :)

reply

Yes, I know what you mean when you say your tastes change as you get older! Though for me, the classic film actresses I liked as a teenager---Hepburn and Bette Davis and Crawford and Geraldine Page and a few others---are still favourites of mine. I've just added to the list as my knowledge of older films became more extensive.

Each of the actresses I mentioned above do have their own very individual sets of mannerisms, and I guess it's simply a matter of personal taste as to whether a viewer finds the mannerisms of any particular actress irritating or distracting. It's also true that as each of those actresses aged, their mannerisms became more pronounced.

In a way, however, it is precisely these mannerisms that made these women stars. Viewers knew what to expect when they went to see these women at the pictures. Each actress excelled at portraying certain character types in a certain acting style. And while these women may have occasionally ventured outside of what would be considered their comfort zone by taking roles that were somewhat atypical, their fans went to see them on screen because these actresses DIDN'T disappear into their roles; because the fans knew what to expect---and liked it.

reply

The two worst over actors were Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn. And yet, they had a few roles in which the director must have held them back to reality.

Katherine Hepburn was very engrossed in her career and her popularity. She was very sure of her place in Hollywood having won so early.
I do think in much later years she was excellent.

Bette Davis it seems got worse as the years went on. I think it is very hard to watch their early work. Davis seemed to settle down in the middle of her career only to resurrect the silliness in later years.

Oh well, 30 years from now people will be laughing about the 2000s the way we are now laughing about the 80s and 90s movies.

reply

[deleted]