Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

If you could ask Katharine Hepburn a question....


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Since Kate is the SUTS star today it was interesting to read what TCM wrote related to the western movie Kate and Tracy did: that on the set Kate didn't act like the independent gals she was (or now I suspect pretented to be), but instead was like a little high school kid in love.

 

Just more evidence that Kate really didn't get what she wanted out of the relationship but just pretented it was all good to save her ego.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Taking this from another thread. Was Kate completely happy in her relationship with Tracy? Well I obviously I cannot say that. And yes I expect she would have been happier if Tracy did divorce his wife in the end.

 

However the question is would she have been happier "independent" as you say if she just left Tracy? I do not think so. Is some happiness better than no happiness at all?

 

On another note I am probably the odd one out but I never much cared for the Hepburn/Tracy rom-coms. I much prefer her romantic comedies with Grant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we are that far apart on this topic. I note you make this point: Is some happiness better than no happiness at all?

 

This implies Kate settled. I believe this was the case, but that is not a role model for an independent 'do it my way' women. Not at all in fact.

 

This is why I say Kate was somewhat phony. Based on what I know about Tracy he wasn't all that nice (it fact some say down right mean), and Kate settled for that, all because of 'love'? Again, not the actions of a free sprit, I did it my way, type of gal.

 

Now to be fair to Kate many women, especially given the era, had to settle for men that didn't give them a fair shake. I understand that. My knock on Kate is that she acted all high and mightly about it saying that this is how she wanted it. I'm just not buying that. Now I'm not saying this means that a women has to be married to live a full life. But if one is going to have relationships no independent person would of settled for what Kate settled for. That is the myth of Kate Tracy.

 

But the funny part of all this is that for most people Kate Tracy is one of the great Hollywood love stories. To me it is a somewhat tragic story especially from the point of view of Tracy's wife. Most people pretent she didn't even exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also enjoy the Grant Hepburn movies more than the Tracy Hepburn ones but I really enjoy some of these like Women of The Year and Pat and Mike. Just not as much as the Grant ones. Holiday is my favorite one they made, but I know most people would say Bringing Up Baby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}

> I don't think we are that far apart on this topic. I note you make this point: Is some happiness better than no happiness at all?

>

> This implies Kate settled. I believe this was the case, but that is not a role model for an independent 'do it my way' women. Not at all in fact.

>

> This is why I say Kate was somewhat phony. Based on what I know about Tracy he wasn't all that nice (it fact some say down right mean), and Kate settled for that, all because of 'love'? Again, not the actions of a free sprit, I did it my way, type of gal.

>

> Now to be fair to Kate many women, especially given the era, had to settle for men that didn't give them a fair shake. I understand that. My knock on Kate is that she acted all high and mightly about it saying that this is how she wanted it. I'm just not buying that. Now I'm not saying this means that a women has to be married to live a full life. But if one is going to have relationships no independent person would of settled for what Kate settled for. That is the myth of Kate Tracy.

>

> But the funny part of all this is that for most people Kate Tracy is one of the great Hollywood love stories. To me it is a somewhat tragic story especially from the point of view of Tracy's wife. Most people pretent she didn't even exist.

 

 

I've read in several bios that one reason she may have fallen in love with Tracy was that he acted a lot like her father. Don't know if that's true, but it would make sense--he was a lot like her father, without her father's self-discipline--so maybe a flawed or broken version of her dad that she wanted to fix?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that clearly looks like a make up call to me, but his role is a strange one since I assume he had just as much if not more screen time than Grant but the movie centers around the Grant Hepburn relationship. Thus Stewart's role is a lead role but the movie isn't a Stewart movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can never decide between Phila Story & Baby as my favorite Hepburn/Grant. Baby is absolutely hilarious but I love the sophisticated wit in Phila Story & it has Stewart. Ah it's so tough for me to decide.

 

Holiday is wonderful too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holiday is my favorite but because it has a message about live and it really moved me when I first saw it just starting out in the business world. At the time I was all business and thus making good but I also was missing out on life. This movie helped me balance. I also find it the most romantic.

 

Phily Story is the most well constructed of the three but Kate is a turn off since her character is so cold. I find it interesting that that booze is key to the story; Grant needs to stay off of it and Kate needs to have a drink or two to become a human being!

 

Baby is screwball all the way. Funny of course but lacking in terms of being moving like the other two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love Holiday because I find it quite charming in its message and simplicity. However one negative thing I can say about it is I found the sister and father somewhat one dimensional. It's probably the sweetest of the three films.

 

Phila Story I love except for Kate's father telling her it is her fault he had an affair. That scene always bothered me. Of course the classic scene with Grant & a drunk Stewart is hilarious. I also think the film has the best dialog of the three. And I just love sophisticated romantic comedies, the type we really no longer have.

 

As for Bringing up Baby yes it isn't moving necessarily but I don't consider that a fault. It makes me laugh which is what it sets out to do. Mind you BUB seems to be a very polarizing where many people think it is too zany or Katharine's character too over the top but I adore that aspect of it. For me pretty much every scene gets a laugh and I love that all the characters are a bit loony. Just thinking about the movie makes me laugh. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree that in Holiday the father and sister one dimensional. In fact it is hard to believe Grant's character would of fallen for her. i.e. what did he see in her since in the film there is nothing of substance in her. (now my wife says she understands why the sister, even being shallow, fell for Grant: HE WAS GRANT!!!).

 

We also see eye to eye on the Philly story. That father is just a cad. How his daughter has major issues but to me those are more the fault of the father than the other way around.

 

With regards to Baby; yea I don't find it not being very moving a fault since it is a screwball comedy. Hawk directed it for laughs and on that level it is very successfull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my own theory, about Holiday as the title implies, he met her on vacation. Didn't he even go to the back door thinking she worked there? Maybe while she was away from her family's influence she was a different person. As in the movies of that era Having Wonderful Time Ginger Roger's character acted rich.People sometimes behave differently while on vacation, than they normally do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are right that Grant wasn't told that her family was very, very rich and he did come to the side door because he felt that she must of been one of the servants.

 

So that implies that she withheld the fact she was part of the super rich from him and I have to assume she did this because she didn't wish to scare him off. i.e. get him to fall in love with her first and then spring the truth on him. Hey, her plan worked but of course backfired.

 

Now one important point; It isn't necessary to tell someone one meets on a holiday that they are part of the super rich (or other personal details) IF that doesn't impact the basic nature of their character. But in her case being rich and spoiled DEFINES her. It is what she is all about. Thus the deception was only going to blow up in her face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to jamesjazzguitar:

 

Hepburn said that she liked living an independent life. She said that she didn't want to be married to anyone because that would require her to fulfill the role of a wife (including having children) with all that requires. She also said that one of the great appeals of the relationship with Tracy was that he was available while not being available. It seems pretty clear that the relationship with Tracy suited her quite well. If they had been married, could she have gone off to Australia for six months to do a Shakespeare tour and spends months away from him while touring in plays? Would she have instead, as a married woman, been restrained by her responsibilities? I think so. She really did have it both ways and she had, what she described, as a delightful companion. What you want to do is apply your conventional ideas about what makes people happy to Katharine Hepburn. Your ideas about what makes someone happy are irrelevant in this case.

 

As for Louise Tracy, ask yourself why knowing, as she must have, that he was rampantly unfaithful to her and that he wasn't living with her for years, why did she not divorce him? The answer isn't because of their son or the Clinic. She would have got most of Tracy's assets in a divorce. She wasn't going to lose out financially and there was certainly no religious prohibition from her end. So what was Louise thinking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Gellar47 wrote:}{quote}

> In response to jamesjazzguitar:

>

 

> As for Louise Tracy, ask yourself why knowing, as she must have, that he was rampantly unfaithful to her and that he wasn't living with her for years, why did she not divorce him? The answer isn't because of their son or the Clinic. She would have got most of Tracy's assets in a divorce. She wasn't going to lose out financially and there was certainly no religious prohibition from her end. So what was Louise thinking?

 

 

You know that is a very good point. Ive read several books about both Hepburn and Tracy and all of them seem content to settle for the Catholic/Clinic explanation. The only thing I think of is that either she was reflecting the attitudes of her time (That men were bound to stray and women just had to put up with it--see The Women, The Philadelphia Story , etc) or she was stopped from doing so by MGM, which had a lot of power in LA at the time. They wouldn't have wanted their "wholesome" Father Falnnagan involved in a messy divorce, especially if the infidelities and drinking came out. It could also be that she was too proud (or possibly in serious denial) While it was humiliating enough to have her husband cheating on her, it would have been far worse to have it become public knowledge beyond Hollywood. As long as it wasn't being splashed all over the tabloids (which came in in the late 40's and early 50's I believe) she could say it wasn't true, it was just rumors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you didn't read the many prior posts where I state that I was NOT talking about marriage. I was talking about having a solid and fullfilling relationship with another human being. Thus you assume, incorrectly, that I have conventional ideas with regards to marriage. This is not the case. I'm agnostic so I do NOT view marriage from a religious POV (it is a legal contract only in my view) and I don't care if people get married or not, but I do admit that I don't support living a lie.

 

My point (again), is that if Kate ONLY had a relationship with Tracy all those years that she can NOT claim to be the independent type of person she claimed to be. Take your example about going off to Australia for six months: Well an independent person would be meeting other interesting and attactive people and they would of had relationships with those people. To me this is just natural. But it appears Kate just waited around for Tracy. I don't see how anyone can say this is how an independent person would act.

 

With regards to Louise, well she doesn't appear any stronger or independent than Kate: i.e. like Kate, just another women doing what is in the best interest of Tracy, but at least she didn't go around pretending she was something she wasn't.

 

Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Sep 15, 2010 12:51 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to jamesjazzguitar:

 

I guess you are assuming that Hepburn's only romantic relationship during the Tracy years was with him and that may well be true. But you are again, making assumptions that what makes an "independent" woman happy is to have romantic relationships with different people instead of just one. I simply see no evidence for that rather broad conclusion. I don't think "independence" necessarily equates to promiscuity. You're making lots of conclusions about what "independent" woman want based on some stereotype you've concocted.

 

Louise Tracy went around pretending that she and Tracy were happily married to each other. She did that until the day she died. I think she was a bit delusional. That aside, I'm sure she was a very strong, intelligent woman who made a substantial contribution to the benefit of many people.

 

When it comes to the heart, people don't always act rationally. So it goes.

 

Edited by: Gellar47 on Sep 15, 2010 9:50 PM

 

Edited by: Gellar47 on Sep 15, 2010 9:57 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...