Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
LucyDesiJunieKate

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

Recommended Posts

Some of my source was her book By Myself but a lot did come from the interview she did with Bob that was shown a few weeks back on her 'summer under the stars' day. Anyhow to me Bacall is more of the 'I did it my way' type of women than Kate Hepburn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bacall was a very young beautiful girl, a model really, with no acting talent, who got into the movies by latching on to a middle-age married man. Truth be told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I should of been more clear about my Bacall comment, since I was refering to her career after Bogie died and how she made it on the stage and really grew as an actress after getting off to what many will say was an easy start. But she did get the role in To Have and Have Not without the help of Bogie (ok another older man, Howard Hawks helped her!).

 

As you pointed out Kate was indeed very much her own women during her live. I know you don't agree with me but I just feel after she fell for Tracy she decided to settled for being the mistress in waiting.

 

If we are to believe Bacall she didn't settle for being Frank's wife since she knew that he would stray and that isn't what she wanted in a marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James--Spencer was involved with the ladies before he met Kate and was still, very much a married man. He had a simply torrid affair with Loretta Young after they made *A Man's Castle*.

 

And Kate was living with George Stevens, the director of *Woman of the Year*, when she met Tracy. She had already had long-term affairs with Howard Hughes and Leland Hayward. Plus she was a divorced woman.

 

Point I'm trying to make is that both parties had been around the block repeatedly and were not naive kids --They probably knew what they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any women that had an affair with Hughes clearly didn't know what she wanted! (and there were many that made that mistake!).

 

I find this line funny ", very much a married man"; to me Tracy was never 'very much a married man' but only a married man in name only and thus he was a complete phony and not the type of man an independent women would fall for. Oh but the poor guy had all that Catholic guilt! ha ha.

 

With regards to Bacall what you imply isn't my understanding. She was a model and Hawks' wife saw her picture and told Howard Hawks that she had a 'look' that might be useful to him. What she didn't anticipate is that Hawks would also fall for Bacall. But Hawks hired her for the movie To Have and Have Not before Bogie had even meet Bacall. Thus Bacall getting into movies was NOT because of Bogie. Of course Bogie helped her after that and it wasn't until they stopped making movies togethere that she did her best work (in my view she was only OK in her 4 bogie movies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good question is whether Bacall would have made as much impact in TO HAVE OR HAVE NOT if there were another actor besides Bogart starring opposite her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bacall was fairly well known and successful model in New York. She was seen by Slim Hawks who recommended her to her husband, Howard Hawks. Hawks put Bacall under contract and gave her the part in To Have and Have Not. Credit for starting Bacall's film career goes to Hawks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chemistry between Bogart and Bacall in To Have and Have Not undoubtedly enhanced Bacall's career and, obviously, wouldn't have been there if she'd starred with someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kate got involved with Hughes, apparently, as a rebound from her failed relationship with Leland Hayward (who dumped her to marry Margaret Sullavan) and her brief, apparently, non-sexual dalliance with John Ford. Hughes had been pursuing Kate for over a year and KH finally gave in.

 

Whether Tracy was a 'phony' or not, he was hardly alone. Married men philandering was epidemic then, and now I expect. There's something so weirdly puritanical now about gossip. You would think that in this 'modern' age we'd be past all this hand wringing. But I guess not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure we view Tracy's actions in the same way. To me what is good about the 'modern' age is that people can get a divorce and it the parties are marture the impact to the children can be minimized. Also in this 'modren' age men or women can remain single and have open love affairs and have children with no one will make a fuss (well expect for politicians). While they might make the cover of People et all, their isn't any negative impact on their careers (often for those on the "D" list there is a positive impact!).

 

So today since there is little need to remained married OR to have to get married, I do admit I have a negaitve view of spouses that cheat. If it isn't working just get a divorce OR if don't get married in the first place. I also laugh when someone says they cannot because of their religion; Well any religion that is against divorce is also against having lovers while married. Thus a religious excuse is just a crock.

 

But I do understand that in Tracy's era it was more difficult and since the media as well as the ladies in his life were so willing to "play ball" how he lived his life made sence and as you noted appeared to 'work' for all of them.

 

PS: Being a 'phony' isn't as bad as it sound. Most of us have been phony during our lives (I know I have), but I don't see how anyone can say that Tracy's actions were not phony. He clearly acted one way while projecting something else to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then and today some people have what is commonly called "An Open Marriage". Cheating is a moot question. I thought of this recently while reading about one of Bette Davis' marriages. Her word for it was a "European Marriage". She said that suited her very well.

 

 

To Fi--did I use the legal word moot correctly?

 

Edited by: cujas on Sep 23, 2010 4:40 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with the "open marriage" concept as long as all parties agree with the concept. But it is funny that many of these 'open marriages' are not very open about admiting they have such a marriage. Tracy clearly wanted to hid the fact he had an open marriage. Also I don't see how anyone that claims to be a Catholic can be part of an open marriage. Last time I checked the RCC doesn't sanction the concept of an open marriage. Of course now we get into that phony concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt very seriously that the Tracy's had an "open marriage". I'm very sure that Louise Tracy, for whatever reason and as many women did, simply looked the other way. Very little has been heard from Louise about all this. Kate had her say but Louise never said much of anything. James Curtis' new Tracy biography should be very interesting on this topic. Why didn't Louise kick Spencer out for good say in 1933 when he had a very open (much more so than with Hepburn) affair with Loretta Young. The Tracy's separated for over a year at that time but reconciled. Louise has always been a bit of a mystery to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can call Tracy a "phony" if you want. It's a nice loaded word.

 

As for him being a bad Catholic for cheating on his wife, well he probably was a bad Catholic. However, that didn't make him any less a Catholic. Being a sinner, as far as I know, does not disqualify you from being a member of a religious group. If being sinless was the criteria for being a Catholic I can think of only one person who qualified.

 

Plenty of Catholics have and will continue to have extra-marital affairs. Most men (and some women) are not by nature monogamous. It's the way humans are. Most religions consider the family unit to be all important. Keeping that unit intact is important. As long as the parties keep the unit together, society, religions (and wives) are willing to look the other way when men philander (not so much women, of course). That's certainly the way things were then. If you think that Tracy was the only Catholic man in or out of Hollywood who was playing around, you will be very mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very different view than you about belonging to a group (e.g. being a self defined Catholic), and what is required to NOT be a phony member of said group.

 

Of course, being human, people make mistakes (what religion likes to call 'sin'), but there is a big difference between committing a sin on an occasional basis and deciding to live ia life of sin (i.e. a specific lifestyle choice where one knows that will continue to commit the same sin, over and over and over again).

 

For example, a Catholic that uses birth control on a consistant basis or sex outside of marriage (again on a fairly regular basis) This is NOT the same as just making a mistake. This is making a specific choice on a consistant basis that is contrary to those of the religion group.

 

Of course one can solve this situation very quickly; Stop pretending to be a member of said group OR change your behavior to confrom to the teaching of the group. Even the current Pope has told members to leave the church if they wish to violate the teachings on a consistant basis.

 

Your point that there are many phonies is very valid. But hey I didn't make these rules. I made the choice to not belong to any specific groups. Others, at least in this country, have the same freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Center of Disease Control and Prevention 2002 National Survey of Family Growth revealed that 97% of American Catholic women over age 18 have used a banned form of contraception, which is the same percentage as the general population."

 

Your conclusions are logical and totally unworkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the stat but how is my conclusions totally unworkable? I guess you are staying it is insane to ask these women to break from the RCC. Ok, granted that from a practical POV it is very difficult to get someone to change their religion. How about this: until the RCC accepts birth control Catholic women that are using it or support the use of it do not donate any money to the RCC. Of course I also feel women should do the same with regards to being allowed to be a priest (a topic that made the news this week since the RCC said they would ex-communiate the women and nuns that are protesting).

 

Ok, that isn't practical either!!. I do admit to having an agenda here. The RCC uses its political power to influence elections in this country because they feel they have the backing of so many loyal Catholics (i.e. the media will say there are millions of them). But as your stat points out there are few American Catholic that follow the actual teaching of the RCC. Thus the true political power of the RCC here is way overstated but the media still gives the RCC a forum. I just feel that women should be respected and treated as equals. One can what the RCC is trying to do in Mexico and Latin America and I just cannot support that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into a discussion about the Catholic church or any religion. My only point is that people can and do practice religions without obeying all of their rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for getting so far off topic. My only point is that these people you say "can and do practice religions without obeying all of their rules" are people I define as phony (when a 'rule' is a core belief of said religion). But you appeared to take offense to the term 'phony' and I still don't see why. How would you descripe someone that claims to belong to the Chess club but mostly plays checkers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the guy who belongs to the chess club likes to play both chess and checkers. Maybe he joins to learn how to play chess. Maybe he thinks playing chess makes him sound cooler than being a checkers player. Who knows? Humans are inexplicable and quite endearing in their inconsistencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching Suddenly Last Summer last night and hearing that Kate didn't like making this picture (based on what Bob said), I now have a different question: Why? Yea the story is intense but Kate's acting was great and it was a very easy role for her to do. Kate only has two scene locations (mostly at her house and then briefly at the hospital), and the first scene at her house is very long and mostly all with Monty; thus with pros like this it must of only taken days for them to film these scenes (compare that to the African Queen!).

 

Kate and Liz did great jobs in that movie. Monty was somewhat stiff like he often was but even more so since he had an illness as a result of that accident. Either way stange but intense movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

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