Glitterbag, it's good to see you on A2K. KH had, for lack of a better word, class.
Although she was 96 years old and had been in failing health for several years, I was nevertheless shocked to hear that Katharine Hepburn had died. The idea that there might some day be a world without Katharine Hepburn in it had never occurred to me as a possibility, until I woke up this morning and found that I was living in that world. It feels like a smaller, and much less interesting, place. Who else could have put such conviction into the immortal line, "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above"?
I grew up watching old movies almost exclusively. She was one of my favorites.
I have to rewatch her, it's been a while.
Did anyone read the writeup in the current New Yorker? (July 14&21 issue.) "Born for the Part" by Claudia Roth Pierpont paints a rather different image from the one we're used to, i.e. that of the brash no-nonsense woman-of-the-year feminist. Seems she made herself rather a doormat for Spencer Tracy, according to this. A lot of insights here, if the analysis is credible. Any comments?
Haven't read it. Got a link?
She turned in, among others, the greatest female performance of the decade in "The Philadelphia Story" as was instrumental in even getting it onto film. Her performance in "The African Queen" was the best of that decade. What can anyone say? As far as her and Tracy, it is from her own lips that she declared she could never live with the man. Actually, the perfect relationship!
I always loved Katie, a true Yankee!
Thanks Caramel. I'll read it in the morning and be back with my thoughts about it.
Thanx for probviding that link, butrfrynet. I was uncommon slow in looking for it. Read my magazines the old-fashioned way, never on the 'net, so I didn't have a link handy. THanks again.
Oh, my, I just read that article; what an eye-opener! If the author is indeed correct, it appears Ms. Hepburn lived a life of contradictions, had a family replete with denial and ultimately appears to me to be quite a sad individual. I pretty much bought the 'Hollywood line' on her, so this article was very interesting to me indeed. Thank you so much for the link!
Oh my. I'm sorry, Caramel. It's you who posted the link not butfrynet. My abject apologies for getting that wrong and slighting you. Thank you.
<grovel, grovel>
Merry Andrew wrote:Did anyone read the writeup in the current New Yorker? (July 14&21 issue.) "Born for the Part" by Claudia Roth Pierpont paints a rather different image from the one we're used to, i.e. that of the brash no-nonsense woman-of-the-year feminist. Seems she made herself rather a doormat for Spencer Tracy, according to this. A lot of insights here, if the analysis is credible. Any comments?
It's an interesting article for the biographical information, but I wonder about the accuracy some of this. I've always admired Ms. Hepburn, so maybe I'm just reluctant to change my opinion of her.
Anyone here lead a perfect life? Stars are just under so much scrutiny and, yes, there is the tendency to embellish the bad parts and not the good parts by some journalistic writers. She always seemed entirely straighforward and glib to me, but we all have our rough edges.
LW and Mac: you are both quite right - cognitive dissonance here!
And me under cognitive therepy!
(Just kidding, but my cats do provide cognitive excercises -- try to keep track of them!)
