Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn

She did admire her beauty. She was asked who she thought was beautiful and she said " miss Hepburn." I wasn't sure which Miss Hepburn she meant but then made a reference to her cheekbones so I knew she was referring to Katherine.

I didn't know Katharine Hepburn made a Mary Queen of Scotts movie too. That story has really been told a lot.

Liz and Mary never met in what is laughingly known as "real life."

Wasn't there a film project called "Olly Olly Oxenfree" that was supposed to star the two actresses? Or was that in fact made with Kate?

Bette would have been so shocked if upon meeting her, the Great Kate dove straight at her muff.

Davis twice played Elizabeth. A third time might have typecast her.

in which movies r5? who played Liz opposite Katharine?

Florence Eldridge, wife of Frederic March, who was also in the film (1935?).

r6, Bette played Elizabeth opposite Errol Flynn in "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" and again in "The Virgin Queen" opposite Joan Collins. Honestly I don't even recall the Hepburn movie.

Related thread, neither of which get KATHARINE right:

No, R3, the project to star Davis and Hepburn was from a book, Whitewater.

Olly Olly, Oxen Free did get made with Hepburn, turned out to be one of her worst flops/

I bet they would have driven each other nuts.

Thanks, R9. That thread is a hoot! I miss DL from ten years ago. So much more civilized and fun.

Dick Cavett once asked Davis if Hepburn had the same New England / Puritanical discipline as she, and she replied in the affirmative.

Mary of Scotland is a 1936 RKO film starring Katharine Hepburn as the 16th century ruler, Mary, Queen of Scots. ... Ginger Rogers wanted to play this role and made a convincing screen test, but RKO rejected her request to be cast in the part feeling that the role was not suitable to Miss Rogers' image.

Well, Ginger certainly was believable as Dolly Madison in "The Magnificent Doll!"

Davis was a great actress. Hepburn wasn't.

What else is new?

More importantly -- did either of them work with Helen Lawson?

I've never seen a photo of them together. Neither Davis or Hepburn were very social among the Hollywood crowd, so it's likely they never met.

Davis was known to be somewhat difficult, but if she respected you she was all professionalism and kindness. I don't know if Hepburn was intimidated by Davis at that time, but it's possible. I've seen Hepburn's Mary, Queen of Scots and it isn't terribly good. Hepburn was quite young--and very beautiful--but not yet a very good actress. I have a feeling she feared she'd be blown off the screen by Davis' tempestuousness.

Kate was smart to have never had children. Bette should've done the same.

In The Great Movie Stars, Shipman said Davis vetoed Hepburn and Leigh for Hush, Hush....

That isn't true, at least according to Vivien Leigh who wrote she'd been offered the part but turned it down.

And Hepburn would never have done Charlotte.

Hepburn is (occasionally) great. But in some of those '70's interview clips on Youtube she comes across as a sanctimonious phoney. Davis, for all her flaws appears far more appealing.

Just a period girl be I!

Yes, once Crawford left the production Leigh was the first choice but turned it down. I don't know if her rejection it is apocryphal. Hepburn wouldn't have worked in the role -- did she work in any? -- but Leigh would've been interesting. Maybe we'd today regard it as being the third in a trifecta of Southern belles.

R24 True. Katharine preferred a much classier kind of schlock.

No, thank you. I can just about stand looking at Joan Crawford's face at six o'clock in the morning, but not Bette Davis.

Cannibalism is much, much more interesting than mere decapitation.

They were supposed to be do a back cover together for some big magazine in the 80's. The front had all current actresses like Streisand, Jessica Lange, and the back was supposed to feature the reigning two queens of the Golden Age of Cinema. Bette was all for it, but Hepburn turned them down. It hurt Bette's feelings.

Katharine had much more fondness for her RKO peers Lucille Ball and Ginger Rogers, both of whom she wrote about glowingly in her book.

This is ALL VERY AMUSING. Let's get down to business. WHO WAS THE BIGGER BITCH ?

I love both, but I'd much rather be chums with Bette. I'd trust her to shake some sense in me!

I read that Bette wrote Kate a letter right after Spencer died, saying that she knew what she was going through because she had loved him first. Kate understandably did not respond.

Spence really drove the ladies wild, for some reason.

He also had a flingydingy with Loretta and Joan.

Say what you will. I've got more of those little golden statues than any other actor in Hollywood history. Four, baby....FOUR! NEXT!

Wait a minute.....I forgot something.....

Hepburn would have been fabulous in the DeHaviland role in Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte opposite Bette.

No, she would've been awful.

Kate deserved only one of those Oscars.

r36 Fuck her. I've got SIX Tonys, bitch!

Hepburn deserved Oscars for Alice Adams, The Philadelphia Story, and Long Day's Journey Into Night. Instead, she won four Oscars for roles that others (with the exception of Lion In Winter) could have done.

Hepburn admitted that she had a huge ego...and she seldom acknowledged accolades from her peers. Barbara Stanwyck sent her a congratulatory telegram after the premiere of THE PHILADELPHIA STORY...went unacknowledged by Kate. She was just like that.

Walter fuckin' Brennan won three Oscars.....

Brennan deserved NONE of them either...one note hack that he was.

She deserved none of them.

I'd have to disagree. I think Brennan gives some very fine performances indeed. Importantly, he always managed to inject some humanity in his portrayals.

I'd have given Davis Oscars for Jezebel, Now Voyager, All About Eve, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.

Oh my sides, r16!

Davis deserved the Oscar for Baby Jane. That was a fucking fearless performance, and a huge risk. No other A-List actress at that time would've dared do what Davis did in that role, and looking so grotesque. Even Hepburn.

I'm bracing for the backlash - Bette Davis was a fine actress, but as far as she being the absolute apex of her contemporaries is debatable. It was just part of her own hype, IMO.

I don't think so. Davis, as noted above, was fearless, and she was the only one of her contemporaries who was so. She didn't care how she looked on film, she just wanted the best performance she could get out of herself. Even her less celebrated performances are better than many Oscar-winning turns from other actresses.

I think Aldrich didn't get Hepburn or Leigh for Hush Hush was because he didn't have an A list male star. Hepburn's Broadway Philadelphia Story costar wasn't enough. I always thought James Mason would have been perfect in that role.

To the people in the above thread who say that Bette Davis deserved the Oscar for What Ever Happened to Baby Jane are Wrong, Anne Bancroft got it and rightly deserved it.

R54, Yeah, after fine tuning her performance on Broadway night after night.

Bette Davis absolutely deserved the Oscars for all about eve, baby jane, and of human bondage. it would've been a hard pick for me for the '50s Oscars, though, because Gloria Swanson was excellent in sunset blvd. She was also snubbed.

Ill tell you who didn't deserve an Oscar though, crawfish in mildred pierce. Watched the film to see what the hooplah was about, and was underwhelmed. Who did she f*ck to win that year with that sh*t performance? Lucille, per usual, can not act, but the actress playing her daughter stole the film. If anyone should've got nominated and won an Oscar for Mildred Pierce it should've been her.

Hepburn did not deserve for Lion in Winter. She was clearly miscast. The British actors in the movie acted circles around her.

Davis and Bancroft, for a tie. As others have said, Davis did something that one can't imagine from anyone else.

Trivia: Fonda played opposite Hepburn in one of her Oscar films (On Golden Pond) and Davis in one of hers (Jezebel ). And Richard Cromwell, later to be briefly married to Lansbury, as a young swain in Jezebel.

R58, you neglected to mention the reason for the brevity of Cromwell's marriage to Ms. Lansbury.

But everyone knows that already! Thanks for the pic. They were pretty together. I think Dick became a talented ceramics. Was only 50 when he died.

Ceramist. fucking autocorrect

Katherine was terrific in Guess Whose Coming to Dinner and On Golden Pond. Both were worthy Oscar wins.

Who gives a shit if they're sentimental? Kate's reaction to Spencer's last speech is one of the most touching and honest moments ever captured on film.

meh. I'm glad you like them but my point is she gave better performances in other films IMO.

Well, "To Each His Own" won Livvie her first Oscar.

In the final minutes of "The Old Maid", Bette Davis shows what a fine actress she was. During her Legendary Ladies night at Town Hall, host John Springer offered that "The Old Maid" was one of his favorite Bette Davis films. Bette responded incredulously, "Really?".

I don't think Bancroft even comes close to the brilliance of Davis in WHTBJ.

Missed opportunities: Hepburn and Davis in Stage Door, Davis and Hepburn in Old Acquaintance, Hepburn and Davis in The Whales of August.

r55 is paraphrasing Bette Davis about why she should have won over Bancroft, which she should not have, and did not.

People who speculate on Hepburn with Davis are completely misunderstanding the way Hepburn saw herself and her career. She said herself she would never consent to appearing in a horror film, because she thought they were beneath her and she was right.

Hepburn as any kind of bitchy rival to Davis in a film would have made no sense.

Hepburn's force of personality and Davis's drive to dominate would have canceled each other out. I can't think of two great actresses less suited to appear together. It was also unheard of for two huge female stars to have a vehicle for them as equal co-stars, at least way back when.

Crawford and Garson in When Ladies Meet, Shearer and Crawford in The Women, Hepburn and Rogers belie that last statement. I can see Hepburn and Davis together if their calamitous egos were somehow kept in check by a Wyler or Cukor. Not that it would be easy or even surmountable.

r71, the personalities of those other actors simply aren't as dominating as those of Hepburn or Davis. Less dominating (and less interesting) actresses like the ones you mention allow for appearing together. And Crawford played a very supporting role to Shearer in THE WOMEN. Again--what movie has there been two Margot Channings or two Tracy Lords?

We need more of their films on bluray, but sadly the people at the WarnerArchive are mostly releasing blurays of Cinemascope films from the mid-fifties and beyond.

The above-referenced magazine was the revived Life Magazine. I have 2 copies of that issue somewhere. Sally Field and Goldie Hawn were also on the cover.

R72, exactly why I think Stage Door and Old Acquaintance would have been the right vehicles for them as rivals. Obviously Davis' star eclipsed Hopkins', but Hepburn and Rogers were roughly equal in stature in '37. So I'll stick to my fantasy of Davis and Hepburn together as two Margos in A Stolen Eve. No harm, no foul.

I don't see any of those movies with Hepburn and Davis. And Rogers' part was definitely supporting. The reason none of this makes sense is that one of them would always have to be the first lead and that wasn't possible. That said, Davis wanted to make ETHAN FROME with Hepburn and Hepburn wanted to do MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA with Garbo. Imagine that!

^ Needless to say those were fantasy projects that never got made, like Streisand wanting to play Bernhardt or Camille.

The African Queen was originally bought as a vehicle for Davis and David Niven.

R68 = B. D. Hyman

The urbane Niven as a rummy boat runner? Patently absurd.

Another interesting thread about the two ladies here:

Why didn't they appear together? Because the opportunity never came up, for starters. But what if it had? It still wouldn't happen: Davis would be up for it, but not Hepburn. She'd be afraid of appearing next to a real actress. She was very smart in picking her roles (which helped divert attention from her total lack of talent) like Crawford she was more interested in being a star than an actress.

The most notable film of that generation for two actresses is BABY JANE. But can anyone imagine Hepburn agreeing to play Blanche? She would've known it would've been a dent to stature, which -- unlike Davis whose reputation rests on her performance -- could've shattered her reputation.

To say nothing of how bad she would've been in the role. We would've been wishing Jane just pushed her down the stairs in the first five minutes. Anything to spare us from that voice and the inevitable gulp-reaction before she opened the serving dish like she did in every role.

Every single role.

It's refreshing that the snobbery regarding horror films, TV work, cosmetic surgery, ethnic background, and having to pay bills washed away significantly... if not among our elderg*ys.

Unsurprisingly, Hepburn's stature has washed away with it.

There was a rising tide of interesting work in the '60s, but Hepburn never seemed to take advantage of it. Preferring to play in things like DINNER and GOLDEN POND than Baby Jane Hudson. Those actresses who did try to challenge themselves had now held in higher regard than her. I mean, why didn't she do an appearance on BATMAN? If she was such a great actress she could've really elevated the material, couldn't she?

It's silly to talk about in the same breath as Davis anyway. She's more like Garson or Shearer -- the difference being the star treatment that hid the lack of ability continued until she had enough Oscar wins to guarantee it would never go away. Or so she thought! Now it is. Sad.

[quote]She said herself she would never consent to appearing in a horror film, because she thought they were beneath her and she was right.

No, she was beneath them. They're classics she would've ruined.

[quote]Hepburn as any kind of bitchy rival to Davis in a film would have made no sense.

Yes, because Davis would've finished her off in a second.

R81 laments that Katherine Hepburn "was more interested in being a star than an actress." WTF?!! NO, NO, NO! Hepburn didn't give two fucks about all the hype of Hollywood and playing the Hollywood game. She was NEVER there to collect any one of her four Academy Awards, and NEVER attended the ceremony except to PRESENT an award to her friend, George Cukor. Your statement clearly demonstrates that you know very, very little about this woman and her career. What's worse is that those who also don't know much might be inclined to believe anything you type.

Face and truth, dude. Without it you have nothing.

^FACT and truth

[quote]The most notable film of that generation for two actresses is BABY JANE. But can anyone imagine Hepburn agreeing to play Blanche?

She wouldn't have agreed because she didn't need to. Although the film turned out to be a great success, it was considered a risky undertaking at the time. The main difference between Davis/Crawford and Hepburn at that time was that Hepburn was still getting great roles and didn't need to take on such a risky project. Davis and Crawford, on the other hand, were all but washed up and they each desperately needed a star vehicle; otherwise they probably would never have done the picture either, never mind appear together in the same film.

R86 makes a good point

r81 is some sad anti-Hepburn troll, making all sorts of ludicrous claims. Oh, dear. Poor troll. So embarrassing.

r81/r83=Bette Davis troll.

R84 the only reason Hepburn didn’t show up at the Oscars was that she hated to lose. She has said this in interviews. In fact she was working when she won two of them in 1968 and 1982. She was highly competitive and understood by not showing up it only added to the mystery of her charisma and star persona. She actively campaigned for her performance in LDJIN in 1963 behind the scenes when she lost to Bancroft. Another reason Davis lost I believe when some her votes were taken by Hepburn for the more prestigious film.

[quote]Hepburn didn't give two fucks about all the hype of Hollywood and playing the Hollywood game. She was NEVER there to collect any one of her four Academy Awards, and NEVER attended the ceremony

That was her shtick: Pretending she was above it. It caught on briefly in '60s (Hollywood's peak of non-commercialism) which other winning actors choosing not to attend because they had a 'theater engagement' or were 'working on location' as if they couldn't get a single night off. Her comments to Jane Fonda, "you'll never catch me now", show what her real thoughts were.

[quote]except to PRESENT an award to her friend, George Cukor.

What was it she said: "I'm proof that someone can wait forty years to be unselfish"? That was a rare revealing moment.

[quote]Your statement clearly demonstrates that you know very, very little about this woman and her career.

No, I'm quite familiar with her life and career. We've just drawn difference conclusions. In fact, the more one learns about her personal life the more one sees that her image -- that independent, strong New England feminist -- wasn't totally accurate. And the bits of her that seem to fit in with that image -- the competitiveness, the belligerent, the feigning of irreverence -- actually come from a different place.

It did inform her career choices: she turned down various interesting and challenging roles because they were supporting or antagonists. She had no problem relying on her family money to allow her to turn down work. She deliberately sought out Oscar-bait over clearly better quality but less AMPAS-friendly films.

But I'm most familiar with her perfomance -- though I now try to avoid it. I've seen it enough times now.

[quote]What's worse is that those who also don't know much might be inclined to believe anything you type.

Yes, one the mystique of Hepburn is shattered and it comes down to the actual performances someone might realize she wasn't a good actress.

Which you don't like.

Hence why fear the impressionable might read my post. I don't care one way or the other.

Katharine Hepburn could afford to pick and choose her projects because she was independently wealthy and never had a family to support. Davis couldn't afford to be picky because she had leeching relatives and husbands who depended on her financially. That's why Davis appeared in a lot of shit movies in her career.

Davis's daughter BD Hyman and Hyman's husband were real pieces of work. They both refused to work for a living and Bette supported them financially for many years.

And the better performance of Hepburn in LDJIN, r90.

As for the rant @ r91--she seems to think that "one the mystique of Hepburn is shattered" (by r91 herself!) we'll all see the light. Delusional queen! LMFAO!!!

Whaddya mean it's a cheap publicity stunt!

Of course KH was ambitious, no one gets to be a star of her stature with ambition, drive, determination. Her stardom "didn't just happen."

[quote]She wouldn't have agreed because she didn't need to. Although the film turned out to be a great success, it was considered a risky undertaking at the time.

Yes, and she wouldn't have been able to rise to the challenge. Hepburn probably could've had Crawford's role in SWEET CHARLOTTE if she wanted it, but she knew she wouldn't have been up to it.

[quote]The main difference between Davis/Crawford and Hepburn at that time was that Hepburn was still getting great roles and didn't need to take on such a risky project. Davis and Crawford, on the other hand, were all but washed up and they each desperately needed a star vehicle

Crawford wasn't held in the same regard as Davis. But Hepburn and Davis' careers were in a similar place in 1962. Slowing with age, but still respected in part because of age. It was only after the release of BABY JANE that Davis was increasingly forced to take whatever came her way and Hepburn was able to not taint her reputation and enjoy some of the spoils of being the respectable grand old lady of screen.

Crawford probably needed a vehicle more for ego than anything.

[quote]otherwise they probably would never have done the picture either, never mind appear together in the same film.

Well, contrary to FEUD, there wasn't animosity between the two prior to filming. They barely knew each other.

But I can imagine Davis wanting to take it on because Jane was such a plum role. Unlike some of the stuff after that which was purely to keep BD in hairspray.

Did Bette and Katharine ever meet one another?

r95 seems to think a cheap horror flick like HUSH HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE was beyond Hepburn's grasp as an actress, yet she was magnificent in the three-hour film version of Eugene O'Neill's Long Day's Journey Into Night. Really, r95--do stop. Or are you just too stupid and deluded to realize how ridiculous you sound?

BD Hyman now looks uncannily like her mother as Baby Jane. Serves the bitch right!

R96 they might’ve crossed paths. Especially in the 1930s.

[quote]Of course KH was ambitious, no one gets to be a star of her stature with ambition, drive, determination. Her stardom "didn't just happen."

That's not what she'd want you to think.

But you're correct.

No one wins three and a half Oscars by accident. But Davis admitted it; Hepburn liked to pretend she wasn't like those low-class narcissists who kept trying to be movie stars and that it simply happened for her. But she was like. A lot.

"I think you should pretend you don't care but it's the most outrageous pretense. I said to Garbo once, 'I bet it takes us longer to look as if we hadn't made any effort than it does someone else to come in beautifully dressed.' . . . I enjoy line. I am very aware . . . although I dress in rags."

KH

Really, [R95]--do stop. Or are you just too stupid and deluded to realize how ridiculous you sound?

'Just stop. Or people might be forced to judge Hepburn's performances without multi-Oscar prejudice.'

Hepburn did star vehicles even more than Crawford actually.

Hepburn would never had done THE WOMEN or THE BEST OF EVERYTHING. Or Mary Astor's role in RETURN IN PEYTON PLACE, which Crawford turned down. There was a lot an actress could've with that role -- and Astor did it -- but Hepburn would've thought it beneath her. She chose roles based not on their quality but on what they could do for her.

That monkey pic with Hepburn was part of a publicity campaign for a movie, in her days at RKO. Fortunately for her the movie didn't go ahead. Unfortunately for us.

BABY JANE and SWEET CHARLOTTE are both excellent films. -- not cheapie B-pictures at all -- in fact bigger budget (and more skillful) than LONG DAY'S.

I'm glad Davis did both of them.

Although this thread compares Davis with Hepburn -- and the comparisons between Davis and Crawford are well-trodden -- I think it's Crawford and Hepburn who have more in common with each other than either do with Davis.

Can't you imagine Hepburn trying to sabotage Davis' chance at winning an Oscar (even if it meant reduced profits for a film in which she owned a back-end!) out of a petty envy that she didn't get a nom for a far less challenging role? Or backing out of a great film in which she'd have to share the spotlight with Davis to do a silly potboiler in which she could be the star?

Both were more interested in being movie stars than actresses. However, when things got tough for Crawford and she *had* to act (MILDRED PIERCE), she proved she could. Hepburn was smarter, though, and simply cruised on her Serious Actress reputation without ever acting. She got good mileage from it too. Then again, it's a virtuous circle.

The only really big difference between them was their background: Lucille grew up in poverty; Hepburn was wealthy. It defined them both, and their careers.

Still, I think it's Stanwyck whose the most underrated (and mentally sound).

Stanwyck and Crawford both had horrific childhoods. It's amazing what they both accomplished, given their wretched backgrounds.

It's hard to even imagine the poverty Crawford and Stanwyck grew up in nowadays. Some say Crawford made an early nudie, she scraped a few years off her age. So what? It was tough. You have to admire them.

Less so Hepburn obviously. She was lucky in every way really.

These raving anti-Hepburn trolls are hilarious! Their delusions are delicious!

What gets me is that after Kate’s comeback because of THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, save for WOMAN OF THE YEAR, she made few memorable films in the 1940s. The bulk of her quality work seemed to occur in the 50s and 60s. But her 40s stuff she did for MGM was far from memorable.

Yes... most of her films without a name male lead flopped.

In contrast Davis, Crawford and Stanwyck were at their peak at that time.

She only did seven films in the '50s and six in the '60s.

Jee-zus....must EVERYTHING be a competition????

It's true that Hepburn took very few risks outside her range until SLS and LDJIN, which were probably her most successful displays of versatility. Most of her other attempts fell flat: Spitfire, Dragon Seed, The Iron Petticoat were all resoundingly bad performances. I can't even watch her in The Rainmaker. Sylvia Scarlett is fascinating more due to its gender-bending. Her last two attempts, The Madwoman of Chaillot and The Trojan Women, were disastrous financially; after that, Hepburn just reinforced her stereotype.

That's not to discount Hepburn's effectiveness in a particular vein. I could watch Holiday, The Philadelphia Story, State of the Union, Adam's Rib, and Summertime in an endless loop.

Davis I can watch in everything, good, bad or indifferent. Her "inimitable intensity" is endlessly fascinating, even when she hams it up into high camp. She took roles to prove her range. Who else took on such a wide spectrum? Maybe Stanwyck.

Notice how r116 conveniently fails to mention THE LION IN WINTER.

Btw, Hepburn took plenty of risks and they were often on stage: Shaw, Shakespeare. Risks in the studio system of the 30s, 40s and 50s weren't done. The fact that she got those movies made at all is a testament to her stature and her desire to push herself. And she was far from terrible in them. r116 is so biased against her he's a parody.

Once Bette became successful in film, she lost much of her stage discipline. Kate kept hers in spades. However you felt about her, she soldiered on and didn't leave the producers in a lurch.

[quote] Notice how [R116] conveniently fails to mention THE LION IN WINTER.

Oh, I don't like her in that. Or anything. I find it tiresome to discuss individual performances when it comes to Hepburn, however; going along with the pretense that's it's not just one.

[quote]Btw, Hepburn took plenty of risks and they were often on stage: Shaw, Shakespeare.

She did some theater, yes, but any reasonably respected Hollywood star who does that gets good reviews. A real risk would've been playing Baby Jane, indelibly onscreen.

[quote]Risks in the studio system of the 30s, 40s and 50s weren't done.

...by Hepburn. Davis took them. She routinely challenged herself. She wasn't afraid to play ugly or nasty.

[quote]The fact that she got those movies made at all is a testament to her stature

Ah!

[quote]and her desire to push herself.

She doesn't push herself in them. Or if she did, she failed.

[quote]And she was far from terrible in them. [R116] is so biased against her he's a parody.

On the contrary, R116 gives a very fair critique, even saying there are films in which he can watch her 'in an endless loop'.

Why would anyone trying to cast Hepburn in a positive light post a clip of her in COCO?

R56 is Bette Davis from the grave.

But r119, Hepburn did take those risks in movies in the 30s and 40s and 50s. Your over-the-top hate is actually quite amusing. Your long screeds, which are no more than half-baked opinions ("Oh, I don't like her" in THE LION IN WINTER) really don't jive with any intelligent person's analysis. And yet you go on, proving nothing. I can't wait for the next rant!

Hepburn actually humbled herself and reigned her persona in a bit. She developed a reputation for being arrogant and difficult to interview. What made the comeback fils work was the humbling her characters Tracy Lord and Tess Harding appeal to audiences. She even glammed herself up after years of being derided for her appearance and perceived lack of femininity. She she wasn’t quite the rebel folks like to think that she is.

[quote]Hepburn did take those risks in movies in the 30s and 40s and 50s.

Hmm. Like what?

Most of her fans know she didn't take risks -- or even actually act at all -- and like her *because* of that.

Both actresses went on record as admiring each other. If they could each admire the other, then one can't love one or the other and say the other sucks. Davis went on record praising Hepburn. If you value Davis you should respect and value her opinion of another actress. Apparently r124 knows more actors than Bette Davis.

[quote]"Oh, I don't like her"

It's moreso having to go along with the blatantly untrue idea that she performances (plural). She gave one.

It's a take it or leave thing, I suppose.

Bette did manage to immortalize on screen a moment each and every one here on DL experiences each morning.

r124 also claims to know what's in the heart of Hepburn fans. His stupidity and arrogance far exceeds his intellectual grasp.

Love Davis, but a lot of the renewed interest is due to FEUD, which doesn't tell the whole story. You don't get the post stroke years where she started becoming a rather grotesque caricature of what she once was. Spitting out Faye Dunaway and Crawford stories to a giggling audience while dressed in an outfit that wouldn't be out of place in a Greenwich Village Drag Ball. Then the indignity of having to drop out of her last movie only to be replaced by a cat. Debra Winger said on The View once that while she adored Bette Davis' work, she didn't want to wind up on the Tonight Show in a pillbox hat. Voted the second greatest screen legend of all time, and deservedly so. But it's a shame that an actress of her esteem and stature finished her career in such a garish manner. I wonder if Bette would have done it differently.

Hepburn wisely avoided all of that. She may have been limited in her acting, and was not the rebel that people thought she was. But she cultivated a career and an image that still holds up eighty years later. There were no roles for the money, or appearances mired in camp. Beloved without having to do anything. Actresses today can't get that. Streep has to do every show out there to remind you she's a legend. With Hepburn, it just was.

When put on the spot most actors will claim to love their contemporaries. That doesn't mean it's true. In the case of Davis and Hepburn maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

David hardly went around praising actors she didn't like.

^Davis

Most Hepburn fans reveal their own tastes: they don't want to see her act. They like imaging her as a daring, feisty, free-spirit. That's what they want and expect to see.

And by the way, neither actors were exactly chameleons who got lost in their roles.

More conjecture from r133. And you wonder why no one listens to you?

But listen--I will listen to you, r133. I'm here for you. I just have to go out for a while because I have a life, but when I return I'm sure you will have added more posts on your theories.

True, r134. But in reality, how many of them actually do?

[quote] David hardly went around praising actors she didn't like.

She knew she could get away with criticizing Celeste Holm and that the feud with Crawford paid dividends. She wouldn't try criticizing Hepburn publicly from the '60s onward though. She'd have known she'd have been called 'bitter' and 'envious'.

Perhaps they did admire each other... but take gushing appearances with Barbara Walters with a pinch of salt.

[quote]And by the way, neither actors were exactly chameleons who got lost in their roles.

I disagree. Davis had range. And at least *tried* to get lost. Hepburn couldn't. She, like Crawford, had a pathological need to remind the audience that she was there, that her name was above the title in whatever it was.

[quote]Davis I can watch in everything, good, bad or indifferent. Her "inimitable intensity" is endlessly fascinating, even when she hams it up into high camp.

I agree. Bette Davis is so interesting to watch, even in her bad movies.

Not a fan of Hepburn but I like her in "Summertime", such beautiful colour photography. She plays (yet again) a sexless, dykey spinster, discovering herself, after fucking gorgeous Rossano Brazzi. Her performance is needy, vulnerable, lonely, real. She's good. Not the usual strident patrician, barking out dialogue. (real stretch, casting her in established hit Lion in Winter)

I read in one of her bio's that she did so many tv movies in her last years for company, to alleviate loneliness. She didn't need the money.

Hepuburn and Davis both did the Corn is Green as well.

Good Lord, R117, mine was hardly an attack against Hepurn. I excluded Lion because it's perhaps Hepburn's paradigm role- regal and lofty yet flawed and fragile. Hardly a stretch for her. My only point is that Hepburn was great within her range, which was narrow in a great many of her roles. She had limited success outside that range. Nor am I attacking her stature and range on stage, Dorothy Parker notwithstanding. However, to say that she successfully assayed Spitfire, Dragon Seed or The Iron Petticoat is....kind.

Her second TV movie, LOVE AMONG THE RUINS with Laurence Olivier, was hyped and heavily advertised (in a kind of snob appeal way) as as being a sort of event. TV was derisively seen as a step down in those days so Hepburn's run at it was seen as an event (at least by the standards of DL had it existed at the time).

It bombed. Big time. Finishing something like #172 out of #173 that week.

She wasn't really popular with the public at large. Or at least Middle America.

"My only point is that Hepburn was great within her range..." A condescending and backhanded compliment from r143. The truth is, in terms of the times, the acting styles, the studio system, and what stars wanted to be seen as, both these actors were "limited." Both are easily imitated, and both played similar roles throughout their careers that added to their personas.

To add a dose of reality here--Hepburn's range was striking fro the beginning--tomboy Jo in LITTLE WOMEN, awkward social climber Alice Adams, giddy socialite in BRINGING UP BABY--all that in 4 years in the '30s. No to mention another the engaged, life-loving socialite role in the sparkling HOLIDAY. (And those roles were hardly sexless.)

Then the '40s--haughty Tracy Lord, ambitious Tess Harding, devoted politician's wife in STATE OF THE UNION, feminist careerist lawyer in ADAM'S RIB (also, none of these sexless).

The '50s--tight, puritan missionary in AFRICAN QUEEN, vulnerable and sexually yearning in SUMMERTIME, vampire mother in SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER.

The '60s--shattered drug addict Mary Tyrone, imperious queen Eleanor. The 70s--cold, distant, yet vulnerable in DELICATE BALANCE. This is all what's called range.

As for Davis, I love her, too. Tough-as-nails whore in MARKED WOMAN, spoiled southern belle in JEZEBEL, psychopathic sex-starved murderess in THE LETTER, another murderess but more controlled and ruthless in THE LITTLE FOXES, and her signature role in ALL ABOUT EVE. She was camp in BABY JANE that bordered on degrading, but she managed to make it something more than that at times.

I give Davis credit for making the most of her last years. Unlike many of her contemporaries, Davis didn't become a crazy recluse. She still went out there in those outrageous Patrick Kelly 80s outfits and lived her life and had fun. If we live long enough, we're all going to get old and frail. It doesn't mean we shouldn't get out there and enjoy life.

Hepburn did play different characters, but all the same way.

How much people like the is related to how well she coincides with them.

"Hepburn did play different characters, but all the same way."

And, r147, the same could be said for Davis.

And your last sentence makes no sense.

How much people like her performances is related to the extent her character's personality coincides with her own. That's the metric of their success.

Bette didn't like that Hepburn had three and half Oscars to her two.

Point conceded, R145, broadening from narrow to narrower than what Davis achieved. 90% of the time Hepburn played patrician women of great intelligence. Davis played slatterns and drunks and queens and heiresses, and her characters were in a wider range of sanity, brains, and moral fiber.

And, r151, Hepburn played desperate a drug addict and a sexually yearning secretary and a professional athlete and an imperious queen and a media-savvy lawyer and a political housewife and a bonkers heiress and a Japanese peasant and a Russian agent and a faded southern belle. Really, you're not winning anything here.

As for the remark made at r149 that suggests Hepburn's fan base is small and merely a cult of personality, it actually extends globally and the AFI poll crowned Hepburn the #1 actress in the history of movies. If you choose to attribute all that to personality, there's nothing I can do to persuade you. You're obviously stuck with that delusion. Enjoy it. The world doesn't share it.

"her characters were in a wider range of sanity, brains, and moral fiber."

Moral fiber, even! So Davis' characters were more moral, saner and smarter than Hepburn's?

r151 is completely off the rails.

Could Hepburn have been a better Regina than Bette in The Little Foxes?

Hepburn definitely seems to attract a certain type of fan anyway...

R155 I´d like to think of myself more like a peer.

Hepburn needs nothing more to be said in her defense because there's nothing of any substance here to defend her from. Her reputation is secure and so is her stature, along with Davis's.

Nobody could play crazy like Bette.

Too bad the great SCTV didn't do skit sitcom "starring" Baby Jane Hudson and Violet Venable. "Jane and Vi" I think Catherine O'Hara did Hepburn a few times. Andrea Martin could have had fun as Davis.

Vi: Jane, you always leave behind a trail of debris, debris, debris. If only I weren't so prone to neurasthenia.

Jane: But ya are, Vi, ya ARE!

I"m not sure why some of you feel the need to denigrate one in order to praise the other. They are different. They are both great actresses. Quibble about who was better if you like, but their place in the history of cinema is assured. I like them both although I have a personal, special love of Davis in her 1940s films for Warners. But Hepburn in Philadelphia Story or Lion In Winter is spectacular as well. We are lucky to have them both.

Exactly what I said. I'm glad, r160, you're echoing my sentiments.

Hepburn was a very stylized actress--no matter what the role, Hepburn came through. She was not an actress who disappeared into a role. I would say that Davis, who was also always Davis, was better at that--Margot Channing is a particular character in a way most of Hepburn's roles are not. So, I think you can argue that Davis was the better actor in the sense that she became her roles. Hepburn's roles became versions of the Hepburn persona. She failed in roles where she couldn't do that--so, in that sense, she was more limited than Davis. Davis pushed the envelope whenever she could.

That said, I think in some ways Hepburn was more versatile than Davis in that she could play rom-coms/comedy more easily than Davis could. Hepburn also had better chemistry with actors--first with Cary Grant and later with Spencer Tracy, though she also has it with Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen. Davis' movies are about Davis--Hepburn could partner up and play support. That's probably part of the reason she continued to get good roles later on. She did a good loving wife.

Interesting comments all around. Thanks to R129 and R160 for their accurate assessments. My own preference is for Davis, who I feel had greater range and skill, but Hepburn, so brilliant and stylish , made better choices professionally and in her personal life as well. But as has already been said, they are both Icons and deservedly so.

"I think you can argue that Davis was the better actor"

r162, you can argue that and you can be wrong.

Be my guest.

Why didn't Davis get offered prestige roles in her later career like Hepburn did?

Agreed, R160 and R161.

R152/R153, by moral fiber I mean the opposite of what you're inferring. Davis played slatterns, sluts, unfaithful viperous wives, murderers and women of sometimes low intellect. Hepburn's lot was usually of fiercely intelligent women with upstanding moral character, rarely malevolent. The only Hepburn characters against respective type that I can think of are Violet for her venality, and the royal characters for hubris. And all of them are quite intelligent.

Hepburn managed to remain more or less Hepburn: the cheekbones, the elegance, the voice, the diction. Davis, on the other hand, aged badly. Her voice, in particular, was ravaged through drinking and smoking.

I guess Davis was the better actress....but I still find Hepburn more watchable. Plus I think her films have aged better when viewed objectively. I believe movies like Stage Door,Bringing up Baby, The Philadelphia Story, Adams Rib, Summertime etc are more likely to be appreciated by today's viewers more than the melodramas Davis made like The Old Maid, The Letter, Now Voyager, Beyond The Forest, The Catered Affair etc

We have to bear in mind too that the campy over the top horror films Davis made in the 60s are not really considered classic movies beyond the gay community. They are very niche...and let's face it fun but bad too.

"I guess Davis was the better actress..."

I don't guess that, r168.

I love the film Woman of the Year. Shame it's considered sexist.

Also, playing a variety of roles doesn't give you superiority in the range department. If so, then Streep is greater than both these actresses. It's the quality of the performance from role to role, not whether you played a whore in one movie and a queen in the next.

Please have the last word, R173. We insist on it.

Thanks.

Love them both.

KH controlled her image and hid her neck with a fierce iron skill that made the shared oscar with babs,a passing of the torch moment. In private she coped with her demons by focusing on positive,and was trained ever since she found her brother strangled in the attic to shut-up and move on.Social anxious at times(if you get panick attacks and faint because a restaurant is filling up, sitting trough the oscars might make your head shake uncontollable.) Absolute taboo subject of mentall-illness in the family. So when she visited those twice in Suddendly Last Summer and Last Days Journy it was intriguing. Because it was ugly. Hepburn (like Babs) never did ugly. Sidney Lumets acount of working with her is quite the read.I also have a wicked respect for her ability,like all Divas, to be a intriguing illusionist.

Bette on the other hand.... My fav scary aunt who forced me to look at the ugly skeletons in the closet.And had a lot more different wigs and eybrows than Aunt Kate.

I thought Hepburn's brother committed suicide?

He strangled himself. According to the family becauce he tried to copy a trick they had seen before at a circus ore something.A guy could hang himself and by placement of the rope and muscelstrength did not die. Kate´s brother rtagically did.

[quote]But Hepburn and Davis' careers were in a similar place in 1962.

Wow. No, they absolutely were not. Hepburn was still getting great film roles while Davis was doing Wagon Train on TV.

Ironically, Davis' career took a nose dive after what many believe to be her most iconic role--Margo Channing in All About Eve. The only peak after that was the Baby Jane/Charlotte films. Hepburn on the other hand was still winning Oscars. I maintain that it's because Davis aged so badly and her voice became so raspy and she looked haggard and came to look like a caricature of herself. Bette, in her films from the 30s and 40s though is peerless.

Sang it, Bette. Sang it girl.

Davis had more oomph.

Actually, Ann, she had more ping.

All of these actresses we're great in my opinion.

Stanwyck, Grant and Hitchcock never won Oscars. Swank won two. They mean fuckall.

[quote]Hepburn was still getting great film roles while Davis was doing Wagon Train on TV.

Great post, r145, great thread overall. Can you like both? Both act in my favorite films (All about Eve, The philadelphia story) and both had a career of great movies and roles. I love Bette Davis but I think Hepburn suffers from a somewhat injust criticism in this thread. Her roles were varied within a certain range (there is a lot of different roles for rich intelligent women and Davis did her share of those) and (and this I didn’t see addressed here), unlike Davis she could do comedy.

Davis took more risks but also did a lot of bad movies (Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte is enjoyable but is not a good movie and does not compare to Baby Jane except for BEtte Davis being hammy in role not truly not deserving it).

Hepburn did manage her career better, probably because she could afford it.

The only ones in their league are Ingrid Bergman and Barbara Stanwick. Joan Crawford does not compare.

R81 Roaring with laughter at the remark that Hepburn “was only interested in being a star.” As a New Yorker that lived down the street from her your remarks are total fantasy. In the biggest media center of the US, the woman scorned being in the press. She wanted to be even MORE left alone than Greta Garbo who lived some blocks away. Hepburn was no recluse but wasnt sitting for interviews either. She just liked her 3 floor townhouse - cooking and entertaining. Shopping at area bodega’s. And heading up to Conn.

She had a nice life and inherited a very comfortable lifestyle, as well as the one she richly earned. She stayed out of the media more than in it.

"As a New Yorker...I'LL SAY THAT your remarks..."

Someone posted that Kate played a Japanese peasant. Wrong! She played a Chinese peasant in DRAGON SEED, and quite badly too.

As Chinese freedom fighter Jade:

The word "execrable" was made for that movie. But the mass poisoning at the banquet was fun.

The role of Jade, in “Dragon Seed” and the role of O-Lan in “The Good Earth” should have been given to Anna Mae Wong. She would have been brilliant and certainly far more appropriate than Miss Hepburn and Miss Rainer.

So wrong that they wouldn’t give the lead role in either film to a real Chinese woman. Hollywood sucks. Poor Anna May, she developed a drinking problem because of her career disappointments.

And Keye Luke should have had the Paul Muni role!

Amen, r160.

Related trivia: someone above related Dorothy Parker's famous comment that Hepburn "ran the gamut of emotions from A to B." She really did say that. But she didn't write it. It wasn't in any review she ever wrote, contrary to popular assumption. She said it verbally during intermission to the group she went with to see the show.

Anna May Wronged.

Davis and Crawford would have upstaged Hepburn had they been cast alongside her. Crawford upstaged the entire stellar cast of The Women. Hell, she even stole Grand Hotel right from underneath Greta Garbo's nose.

It's kind of a shame that Hepburn wasn't cast opposite Davis in Baby Jane, because that would have been legendary. Bette would have chewed her up and spit her out.

I don't remember the author but one said something to the effect that Hepburn has a fascinating screen presence but at times, she's the most irritating personality imaginable.

[quote]Well, contrary to FEUD, there wasn't animosity between the two prior to filming. They barely knew each other.

Much of FEUD was based on Shaun Considine's book "The Divine Feud," which alleges that Bette harbored deep-seated resentment towards Joan for stealing Franchot Tone from her, and for lording over her the few times they met, when Joan was Hollywood movie queen and Bette was still an ingenue from back east.

This thread is mostly one person, isn't is?

Katharine Hepburn was superb in a very "against-type" role opposite Robert Mitchum and Robert Taylor in Vincente Minnelli's little-known UNDERCURRENT.

[quote]Wow. No, they absolutely were not. Hepburn was still getting great film roles while Davis was doing Wagon Train on TV.

BABY JANE massively outgrossed LONG DAY'S, which actually lost money. Hepburn hadn't done a film in three years by the time she did LONG DAY'S and then only did three films for the rest of the decade. Though Davis' TV work hurt her brand critically; commercially she was still more of a draw than Hepburn, who never really was.

So both about even.

[quote]She wanted to be even MORE left alone than Greta Garbo who lived some blocks away.

Garbo made a production of being left alone. She and Hepburn could've saunaed together in rural Sweden, but both chose to live in Manhattan. Hepburn kept working and campaigning for Oscars after most of her contemporaries were dead. Wanting foremost to be a star, like Crawford, doesn't necessarily mean neither of them did no good work... just that they had other needs to be fulfilled.

On my next nomination I will tie the number of nominations Hepburn (the bitch see click click click) and Davis (my idol see my TCM tribute) had COMBINED!

[quote]Hepburn kept working and campaigning for Oscars after most of her contemporaries were dead.

She campaigned? She never even attended any of the ceremonies where she won or was nominated.

[quote] She campaigned? She never even attended any of the ceremonies where she won or was nominated.

Nor did Crawford when she won. What's your point?

Her fans are threatened less by criticism of her performance, than they are of her reputation. No one wins three and a half Oscars by accident. No one has a multi-decade career as a leading lady in film by accident. She wasn't simply walking down the street when a studio talent scout signed her.

Her image that she was 'above it all' was an image that she worked hard to cultivate.

This thread does improve with a little blocking! Good.

And it is this kind of thread I come to DL for. That, and the four-hundred plus post one on Bonnie Franklin.

R197, AMW had a substantial role in Shanghai Express, with Dietrich. The two characters have a bond due to sharing a trade.

[quote]In fact, when Hepburn made Mary, Queen of Scots, Davis was dying to play Elizabeth I opposite her even though the part was a small one. Hepburn wouldn't have it.

The old story goes, Ginger Rogers did a great screen test on her own initiative. It was shown to the higher-ups at RKO and they didn't know it was her, so unrecognizable was she in the role. But they refused to cast her, saying they'd be a laughing stock if they had Ginger Rogers play Elizabeth I.

I wonder if things would've been different had she done it...

Davis would go on to play Elizabeth I (for the first time) two years later and it's understandable why Hepburn wouldn't want her on in the film. Davis would've gotten first billing and upstaged Hepburn.

Is Undercurrent actually sinister, shocking, AND sensational?

Sinister and sensational yes.

Really R211?

r207 I'm asking. I don't have a point. Hepburn always acted like she didn't want her Oscars. She famously never even took one out of the paper bag George Cukor put it in when he accepted it for her and left it in her hall closet.

I was just wondering if she actually did want them and played the Oscar campaigning game.

R213, it's also spine-tingliing, suspenseful and soporific.

Bette Davis as Margo Channing is my favorite performance by an actress of the classic Hollywood era.

R215 that was her Lion In Winter Oscar that director Anthony Harvey accepted for her. He brought it to her and then she left it in a paper bag. As has been discussed in this thread, she was competitive and I believe she wanted to win. At this point she had two so I think she really didn’t care to put it on her mantle. It was probably the thrill of the chase type thing for her.

R218, I think it was 60 Minutes where she said she never went to the Awards because she was scared she was going to lose. The interviewer noted that no awards of any kind were displayed in her house and she said she appreciates everything she won but doesn't feel the need to look backwards, only forwards.

R219 I don’t doubt Hepburn wouldn’t display her four Oscars and one Emmy. Like I said it once the chase was done, she probably felt been there done that. By not showing up to any awards it only added to the Hepburn mystique. She was a shrewd one.

R220, I honestly don't think Hepburn didn't come because she thought anything about mystique. She didn't want to be shown in the audience applauding someone else's win. I get that totally.

R221 Many nominees have done it over the years. Hepburn knew exactly what she was doing by not showing up. She didn’t even show up to present best actor the following years after she won when she had nothing to lose. She had the Academy come to her not the other way around. They let her have her cake and eat it too when other nominees run in circles to win.

Hepburn was much different in private than her public persona, which I say is true among many celebrities. There was another thread about her when someone went to interview her after a car accident injured her leg in 1982. The interviewer saw her cry I guess in another room when she thought he wasn’t looking because she was in so much pain. The public Hepburn would never admit that. I can only imagine all the shit she went through with Spencer Tracy that we will never know about.

"By not showing up..."

R220, she was too busy munching carpet.

I just want to say that I'm deeply gratified this thread has garnered so much interest. I love both these actresses.

Playwright Arthur Laurents has NOTHING nice to say about Hepburn, and burns her repeatedly for her rotten personality, and star attitude on his book . Laurents of course was widely disliked by most who ever met or worked with him, and he gladly returned the favor, yet he regales the reader at length with his cutting observations of Hepburn.

He uses words like "insufferable", and "know-it-all" among so many others in his name-calling autobiography.

he probably hated her because she wasn't cowed by the likes of him

Does Arthur Laurents have anything nice to say about ANYBODY?

I live not too far from Hepburn's old house in Old Saybrook. It's really lovely.

Hepburn's forays into theater in the 1950s, which were mostly at the newly formed non-profit Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Connecticut, were purely for the art (playing Shakespeare and Shaw heroines), unlike movie stars today appearing on Broadway in schlock for a few months for big salaries and the hope of a Tony Award.

And then her work on Broadway in the 1970s and early 80s were in new plays, not very good ones but certainly risky propositions, not safe revivals. Even doing the musical Coco in 1969 was highly risky though it became a personal triumph.

that house is lovely indeed, r228

[quote]Hepburn's forays into theater in the 1950s, which were mostly at the newly formed non-profit Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Connecticut, were purely for the art (playing Shakespeare and Shaw heroines), unlike movie stars today appearing on Broadway in schlock for a few months for big salaries and the hope of a Tony Award.

That's not what we're talking about. Movie stars appearing doing theater to gain artistic kudos don't opt appear in schlock, and are aware that there are no big salaries. They would like a Tony Award, yes, but if it simply helps them get an Oscar nom, then it's done its job.

[quote]And then her work on Broadway in the 1970s and early 80s were in new plays, not very good ones but certainly risky propositions, not safe revivals.

Quite a few of her films were written with her in mind. Originating a character that's been tailored to suit you is less risky than doing a role that's been done by countless other actors, some of them probably good. Yes, less commercially certain too, but that's not really what she was after.

[quote]Even doing the musical Coco in 1969 was highly risky though it became a personal triumph.

We've seen it. Cecil Beaton sums her performance nicely.

Cecil Beaton was the worst kind of fawning queen; his treatment by Peter Morgan in The Crown is beyond appropriate and overdue.j

[quote]Cecil Beaton was the worst kind of fawning queen

Probably. I'm sure his ghost his ghost is posting on DL. Anyway, here's what he said to say about Hepburn:

[quote]"Katharine Hepburn is the egomaniac of all time and her whole life is devised to receive the standing ovation that she has had at the end of her great personality performance. As the play Coco nears its end and she is sure of her success, she becomes raged, the years roll off her, and she becomes a young schoolmistress. Up till then she has, to my way of thinking, been as unlike Chanel as anyone could be. With the manners of an old sea salt, spreading her ugly piano-calved legs in the most indecent positions, even kicking her protégée with her foot in the "London" scene, standing with her huge legs wide apart and being in every gesture as unfeminine and unlike the fascinating Chanel as anyone could be. Her performance is just one long series of personal mannerisms.

[quote]I would not have thought audiences could react so admiringly, yet the first time I saw a run-through rehearsal, I was impressed and even touched. But ever since I've found her performance mechanical, inept (her timing is erratic), she stops and laughs, she falters over words, she is maladroit, and she is ugly. That beautiful bone structure of cheekbone, nose and chin goes for nothing in the surrounding flesh of the New England shopkeeper. Her skin is revolting and since she does not apply enough make-up even from the front she appears pockmarked. In life her appearance is appalling, a raddled, rash-ridden, freckled, burnt, mottled, bleached and wizened piece of decaying matter. It is unbelievable, incredible that she can still be exhibited in public.

[quote]Fred Brisson tells me that one day he will repeat the vile things she has said about me. As it is I have heard that she has complained about my being difficult, stubborn. She obviously does not trust me or have confidence in my talent. She pretends to be fairly friendly and direct, but she has never given me any friendship, never spoken to me of anything that has not direct bearing on the part that she is playing.

[quote]I have determined not to have a row with her, have put up with a great deal of double-crossing, chicanery and even deceit. She has behaved unethically in altering her clothes without telling me, asserting her "own" taste instead of mine. (On the first night she appeared in her own hat instead of the one that went with the blue on her costume. Instead of the Chanel jewelry she wears a little paste brooch chosen by her friend . . . in quiet good taste.) She is suspicious and untrustworthy.

[quote]Never has anyone been so one-tracked in their determination to succeed. She knows fundamentally that she has no great talent as an actress. This gives her great insecurity so she must expend enormous effort in overcoming this by asserting herself in as strident a manner as only she knows how. She must always be proved right, only she knows, no matter what the subject. It is extraordinary that she has not been paid out for her lack of taking advice. But even if this is her last job, and it won't be, she will have had an incredible run for incredible money. She owns $20 million. She is getting $13,000 a week. But in spite of her success, her aura of freshness and natural directness, she is a rotten, ingrained viper. She has no generosity, no heart, no grace. She is a dried-up boot. Completely lacking in feminine grace, in manners, she cannot smile except to bare her teeth to give an effect of utter youthfulness and charm. (This, one of her most valuable stage assets, is completely without feeling.) She is ungenerous, never gives a present, and miserly. She lives like a miser, bullies Phyllis [Willbourn] and thinks only of herself day and night. Garbo has magic. Garbo is a miracle with many of the same faults, but Hepburn is synthetic, lacking in the qualities that would make such an unbearable human being into a real artist.

[quote]I hope I never have to see her again."

r198's comment--"Bette would have chewed her up and spit her out"--is perhaps the single most laughable statement in a thread rife with them. It takes first place after the second most laughable statement, also uttered by r198--"Davis and Crawford would have upstaged Hepburn had they been cast alongside her." Crawford "upstaging" Hepburn! Oh, my SIDES!

From r203: "BABY JANE massively outgrossed LONG DAY'S, which actually lost money." As if this is any way means something. LDJIN is by far the superior movie experience, and Hepburn's greatest performance.

R230, It has been drastically renovated by the present owner.

Two absolute, hard as nails bitches. Both equally devoted to, and in the top of their craft. I absolutely adore them both. The world will never see their particular force of nature again.

Hepburn aged much better than Davis. Davis was really haggy-looking from the 1950s onward because of all the smoking and drinking.

Auch, r233, but that tirade says much more of Cecil Beaton than Hepburn...

[quote] Auch, [R233], but that tirade says much more of Cecil Beaton than Hepburn...

It was from one of those old-fashioned volumes of diary. The sort of which no publisher would touch these days and always read as though they've been dictated from someone holding a cigarette holder.

Hepburn, and Stanwyck for that matter, looked much better than Bette as they aged because they played sports and exercised along with smoking and drinking. Bette didn't and gained weight.

Look, no matter how Bette said she admired Hepburn as an actress, the fact is that Bette did not like lesbians. She didn't trust them.

Well whatever the differences they were both liberals and I understand both shared an intense dislike of conservative Ginger Rogers who Bette referred to as Ginger Snaps.

Beaton could be quite the miserable bitch himself. Generosity was not his long suit. Shooting Julie Andrews during My Fair Lady he did nothing but flatter her and after the shoot was over said to her 'Of course you have the most unphotographable face imaginable.' Also he was the first one in her dressing after the opening night in New Haven of MFL and angrily called her a bitch because of the way Moss Hart placed the hat on her head for the final scene. She said it was the last thing she needed to hear at that moment.

He and Cukor were mortal enemies so he was not going to be generous to one of Cukor's best friends.

Also on you tube there is a series of clips from a tribute to Michael Bennett including many who danced in his shows. The Coco clip is shown and a couple of women who played models in the show said Hepburn treated them very well. Something which does not come across in Beaton's diaries.

At the beginning of Hepburn's career in the 30s he wrote for publication about her rocking horse nostrils. She never forgot it.

True r241. Bette Davis was a lifelong liberal Democrat who campaigned for FDR and JFK. She despised Nixon and thought Reagan was an imbecile. So you gave to give her props for that.

[quote]The Coco clip is shown and a couple of women who played models in the show said Hepburn treated them very well. Something which does not come across in Beaton's diaries.

That wasn't what he was talking about.

[quote]At the beginning of Hepburn's career in the 30s he wrote for publication about her rocking horse nostrils. She never forgot it.

Ooh. She carried that grudge for forty years?

I must see how much a copy costs on Amazon...

[quote]I understand both shared an intense dislike of conservative Ginger Rogers who Bette referred to as Ginger Snaps.

I've never heard that before. Of course, Hepburn's disdain for Rogers is well known. Her treatment of Rogers during the making of STAGE DOOR verges on bullying from the sound of it.

But I didn't know Davis didn't like her. Though we imagine Davis not getting along with lots of actresses she worked with, it's more complicated than that. She didn't even *really* dislike Crawford until after BABY JANE was completed and she was pulling that Oscar campaigning stuff.

Since Rogers and Davis never worked together I wonder if Davis' gripe was her and her mother's HUAC testimonies. Obviously a lot of people in the industry would've had a problem with that.

There are a couple of photos of them together:

This:

They happen to bump into each other one night at Scotty Bowers gas station. Hepburn was there to procure; Bette Davis was flicking her cigarette and yelling, "What do you mean do you don't have any fucking gas? Is says "gas station" on the sign?"

r245: Fantastic research for FOLLIES!!!

R245, "Ginger Snaps" is completely made up by one catty DL queen. Are you new here?

i apologize in advance

It's exactly what he was talking about. He calls her the egomaniac of all time and the most ungenerous person. The people in the chorus obviously had a very different experience. People in the chorus are very sensitive to the way a star acts.

Also if somebody insults your looks for publication so that everyone can read about it(and your career depends a big part on your looks) and it's something you're sensitive about you're not going to forget it. Also My Fair Lady was comparatively only a few years before(ok six) and reading Beaton's diaries he considers Cukor some sort of ruthless monster. Cukor (obviously as a joke)when asked about Beaton said that he had picked his pocket. Beaton was so incensed he was going to sue him but wiser heads prevented him.

Beaton's diaries are a wonderful read. His eagle eye and descriptive powers are unsparing. Very entertaining but it's very clearly as he sees himself and not how others see him in the many anecdotes I've read. Surprisingly he is very appreciative of the 'jewess' Barbra working with her on Clear Day. Says she has the mind of a lawyer and nothing escapes her eye. Though he gets his digs in there too. Women in regency England did not insist on having long fingernails!

Love her but that's one shitty Kate, r250.

But the question is: Will La Meryl beat Katharine's Oscar record?

r227 yea. Arthur Laurents.

[quote]Davis was a great actress. Hepburn wasn't.

Well, that's quite the pity, you know, as Bette ended her career playing in third-rate films, while I went out on top.

Ask any of Scotty's girls: I always ended on top.

"Does Arthur Laurents have anything nice to say about ANYBODY?"

Arthur was in love with both Lena Horne and Barbra Streisand (read his memoir). He was too old for Barbra, and Lena already had a gay husband.

Davis is very painful to watch after her stroke on Johnny Carson and Letterman. On Carson Martin Short comes in after her and in a not mean way immediately impersonates her and she doesn't even notice.

R257, she had a stroke on both Carson’s and Letterman’s shows?!

R255, who knew that "fuck a duck" is the way to go out on top?

I remember that when it was on R257. She didn't "get it." Guess she was expecting "Peta Peta Peta" or "What a dump." Her entire family talked like she did, so why would she think it was an impression?

R255 You ended your career doing mainly tv drivel Kate. Don’t be a uppity cunt.

I know Bette was, at least in the Cavett interview, very complimentary about Kate, but did Kate actually ever comment on anything about Bette? I somehow doubt it.

R262 Kate said on Cavett she liked her.

R263, Actually, when pressed by Cavett who finally asked, "Do you like her?", Hepburn responded with a brusque "I think she's awfully good . . .".

R252 fucking brilliant

I have to disagree with the posters who said Davis was grotesque after the stroke. When she showed up on Carson and Letterman she could still be delightful.

What a great thread.

* Funniest thing is both Davis & Hepburn wanted to play Scarlett, unbelievable. Davis even did Jezebel to prove she could play a Southern belle. But the deal w/Warner included Errol Flynn as Rhett and Selznick wouldn't go for it. As for Kate, he didn't think Gable would chase Hepburn for 12 yrs. Despite all "search for Scarlett O'Hara" publicity, the most recent evidence is that Selznick considered Vivien Leigh almost from the beginning. He screen several of her pictures from England and considered her "the one." Unfortunately, she wasn't available until Olivier relocated to Hollywood. She tested and got it. It appeared she came out nowhere, but that is not true.

* Crawford and Davis both played Somerset Maugham heroines, in Rain and The Letter respectably. Both were very good.

* My favorite Hepburn role was Violet Venable - I saw SLS first as a child and her speech ending "Sebastian saw the face of god" terrified me.

* Leigh was an inconsistent actress. Sometimes, spectacular, others very wooden. Maybe she was miscast. In Caesar and Cleopatra, she acted like an animatronic mannequin. Even Liz did more with the part. Of course, no definitive Cleopatra has been realized. Long-dead historical figures are not impossible to portray. In a sense, a template can be created for them, like Glenda Jackson did for Elizabeth I and from which Cate Blanchette didn't deviate much. BTW, there is no definitive Ann Boleyn either. Some actresses capture her vivacity and charm (Genevieve Bujold), others her manipulative character (Natalie Dormer), others her complete disintegration during her marriage (Natalie Portman), but not all three.

Oooooh! I did not realize Undercurrent featured THE Miss Jayne Meadows!

R267, didn't Davis claim that she turned down Scarlett because she was unwilling to work with Flynn in GWTW?

Davis may have claimed that, but it was the other way around. Selznick wanted Gable for Rhett, not Flynn.

To the contrary, r271, Selznick wanted Ronald Colman, who was also the first choice of Margaret Mitchell. He simply wasn't available. Gable was under exclusive contract to Selznick's father-in-law LB Mayer at MGM and although appropriate, he was the very last person Selznick wanted to cast.

Thank you, r257. Your first point in entirely correct. Leigh was always Selnick's first choice/dark horse for Scarlett. Her last minute screen tests blew every one else out of the water, even Paulette Goddard, who had been the leading contender before the then virtually unknown Vivien actually showed up and showed what she could do.

^ Sorry, I meant R267, not R257 above.

[quote]It's exactly what he was talking about. He calls her the egomaniac of all time and the most ungenerous person. The people in the chorus obviously had a very different experience. People in the chorus are very sensitive to the way a star acts.

It's don't think that's contradictory. She'd been working as a leading for four decades at that point. You don't have a career that long without behaving in a professional manner. You can still be big-headed, and, really, it would be much more unusual for a movie star of her standing not to be.

For all of Davis' dislike of Crawford, another egomaniac, she did say that she was professional and never behaved the way Faye Dunaway did when they worked together. Which is why Dunaway's career was essentially over after a decade.

Hepburn was too smart (or at least more well-balanced and not coked up) to behave like that, but still an 'egomaniac' and 'ungenerous'. Even of Cavett, she gives the bare minimum of a compliment to Davis.

But I guess that was part of her act.

[quote]Also if somebody insults your looks for publication so that everyone can read about it(and your career depends a big part on your looks) and it's something you're sensitive about you're not going to forget it.

She was a multiple Oscar winner by that point. If she was still upset about that, she must have been remarkably petty.

[quote] But the question is: Will La Meryl beat Katharine's Oscar record?

It seems inevitable now. I don't think Hepburn's reputation will survive it.

Oh, and they better not even think of doing Glenn out of one this year.

You want petty? Davis never forgot Cukor firing her from some small company at the start of her career. She brought it up to him seriously many years later and he was for God's sake get over it I was fired from the biggest movie of all time.

It's tricky!

Beaton was correct in that Hepburn was ungenerous TO HIM.

She had strong opinions of the way she would play Chanel and the way she would look as Chanel and made no bones about expressing them to Beaton, which he couldn't bear. Does she look horrible or inapproriate in her Coco costumes? No, of course not. He just wasn't used to any actor disagreeing with him and getting their way.

I don't think it necessarily had anything to do with a long-time grudge from Beaton's comment about her. It was just a star diva (justifiably) getting what she wanted as she got what she wanted for the past 40 years of her career. She knew what was best for her and what she needed to be comfortable playing a role.

And btw, it was probably the first time in many years that she was seen in public in a short skirt, high heels and hose.

She did have fabulous legs.....

Pastor Donawho trying inquisitive journalism.Kate handled him well and at times seemed to enjoy the sparing.

She thought she was a shoo-in for a Tony for COCO, but Lauren Bacall (a friend) won it instead, which briefly caused a cool down in their friendship. They'd patched it up towards the end, however. Bacall visited Hepburn who didn't know who she was.

"It seems inevitable now. I don't think Hepburn's reputation will survive it."

Oh, r275, still on the rag over Hepburn after all these years. So sad.

I don't care what anybody says I think that Coco clip is fabulous. And I love how the moving stairs do not stop moving and the models walk off it walking onto the turntable and thereby remaining in place while still walking. That's Bennett for you.

Supposedly the fist act finale with all the models in black was supposed to be terrific as well.

It was done at Mufti a few years back with Andrea Markovicci. Anybody see it?

Don't you go forgetting little Miss Ann Reinking is in that number, r284!

I didn't see her in Coco, r284, but I did see her in Chaplin playing ALL of his wives!

[quote]I don't care what anybody says I think that Coco clip is fabulous.

Hepburn isn't though.

Do I vaguely remember hearing some old story about it... Cecil Beaton was told 'Hepburn would be playing Coco' and he assumed it was Audrey... Is that it? Or am I mixing it up with something?

I believe it was Chanel who was told it would be Hepburn and dismayed to hear it was Katherine.

"Katherine," r288?

She thought she would be played by Audrey. I guess Marni would be in the pit.

We know, r290.

[quote]I guess Marni would be in the pit.

K could've used her too.

[quote]Davis is very painful to watch after her stroke

In the 1990s, Randy Allen did a show about PS Bette Davis (Post-Stroke Bette Davis).

She had less than ten thousand dollars in her bank account when she died.

Who did, r294? It certainly wasn't Hepburn, who died quite wealthy.

So you must mean Davis? I never heard she died "penniless."

By penniless, I mean--in celebrity net worth terms, like died with only $1000.

R248 is right on time, sooner or later in every frigging thread we get to FOLLIES!!!!

Ginger Rogers left a pitiful estate as well.

Davis didn't die fabulously wealthy, but she was pretty comfortable financially. After she cut off her daughter and useless son-in-law, she didn't have to spend a ton of money anymore.

R282, Absolute rubbish. Hepburn was thrilled for Bacall when she won the Tony for Applause. She sent Bacall a sketch the very next morning along with a congratulatory note. They remained dear friends until Hepburn's death. In her updated memoir, Bacall does describe an awkward dinner at Hepburn's house near the end of her life, but Hepburn still knew Bacall. Bacall chose Hepburn to be godmother to Sam Robards, by the way.

I've said this before being that we've touched on Applause. It's always Follies or Applause.

There's talk on the theater thread about how B Harris got very quickly bored on stage just like Barbra. Bacall gets trashed a lot on DL and deservedly so. I say this because I had an unpleasant experience with her myself as a clerk trying to help her.

Anyway I have a very big 'but.' Applause opened I believe at the Palace in March of '70. I did not see it until a Wed mat in June of '71. She played that summer matinee like it was opening night with all the critics there. The energy commitment and charisma she put out in that huge theater was amazing and I will always remember her professionalism. She was not going through the motions she was giving every theatergoer the performance they deserved. So when I hear about performers letting their boredom show on stage I think of Bacall.

Bacall's performance as Margo Channing in that dreadful television production of Applause was nothing like what I saw on Broadway.

I've posted this several times before at DL, but when Hepburn left Coco, it closed in a couple of months, despite her replacement being the legendary French film actress Danielle Darrieux, who was far more appropriate in the role.

At any rate, Darrieux, although known primarily as an actress, had a strong and lovely singing voice. Listening to her rehearse, Lerner leaned over over to Previn and whispered "Why André! You wrote a musical!"

Yeah, and what did Lerner to whisper to Previn when their closed a few weeks later?

R303, Darrieux was an unknown in the States. Obviously it would fail. John Simon loved her in the role but the fans asked "who?"

La belle Danielle.....

I was available.....

Has anybody ever seen this?

Danielle also sampled Porfirio's Rubberhosa, presumably, during their few years of marriage.

CoCo Chanel should have been played by Danielle, both ladies had so much in common, since they both stayed in Paris during the war and dated Nazis.

Exactly, r310. As a collaborator, she was perfect for the part.

And thanks for posting that, r306. Do you know whether that is actually her voice? It sounds like her but she could have been dubbed, even if unnecessary.

Bette Davis died with less than $10K dollars in the bank? How the hell is that even possible?

She was a movie star for 60 plus years. Where the hell did her money go? Why do so many stars especially from old Hollywood die broke or nearly broke? What happened?

You spend your whole life in show business and at the end you have nothing to show for it? That's really sad.

After a 60 plus year career in Hollywood you should have a solid estate with millions of dollars and lots of assets to leave behind for heirs. I'll never understand how so many celebrities let so much money slip away from them.

60 years and nothing to show for it. I'm always amazed at that.

Unbelievable! But then again.......

Can you imagine a man as effete as Hepburn was dykey having her career?

Homophobic double standards.

R309 In the 1960s the giant pepper grinders brandished by waiters in fashionable trattorias were named ‘Rubirosas’. His third wife Doris Duke states that ‘he had the most magnificent penis I had ever seen’. Her godson, Pony Duke, quotes her saying, ‘There has never been anything like it … six inches in circumference … much like the last foot of a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.’ The society photographer Jerome Zerb, who followed him into the men’s room in Deauville casino, reports, ‘It looked like Yul Brynner in a black turtleneck.’ And Truman Capote wistfully eulogises about ‘that quadroon cock, a purported eleven-inch café-au-lait sinker, thick as a man’s wrist’. In the fashionable world it had the nickname and reputation toujours prêt – always ready. Yes, Rubi was phenomenally well-endowed, and certainly this formed part of his attraction but, as many hundreds of women could testify, you did not have to wed him to sample it. It was on offer to any female bidder and for the right price it was available for rent.

[quote]Bette Davis died with less than $10K dollars in the bank? How the hell is that even possible?

Sounds perfect, as long as you spent your money well, i.e., on things that made you happy. You can't take it with you, so spend it wisely while you're here, but fucking spend it. The only problem is you never know when you're gonna breathe your last.

I don't think Davis died with only $10K to her name. I remember there was a will after she died that stated her estate would not go to BD, the cunt daughter/Christian who wrote a tell-all book about Bette. Instead the money went to her other children and as I recall it was a few million. That's just my memory of it but it sure wasn't as little as $10K.

Apparently R312 never heard of Judy Garland. Or Mickey Rooney or dozens of other films stars that squandered their fortune.

In addition, you don't live off the principle, you live off the income the principle (in investments) produces. You can easily spend yourself poor if you do the former. And remember these stars did have the same steady salary income over those years.

Here we go...Davis died with a $1 million dollar estate--back in 1989.

Another bullshit rumor put to rest.

Correction to my post above:

And remember these stars did NOT have the same steady salary income over those years.

The only good thing that came out of the daughter's book was that Bette was finally able to cut the leeching daughter and son-in-law off financially. Bette really would've died broke if that hadn't happened when it did. BD and her husband nearly bled Bette dry for 20 years before the book came out.

[quote]Bette Davis died with less than $10K dollars in the bank? How the hell is that even possible?

I had to bail that fag from Baby Jane out of jail. Why the hell did he call me? Did Lucille not answer her G.D. phone?

R317 Yes I have heard about Judy garland and Mickey Rooneys financial situations. But I believe the two of them had serious drug and alcohol abuse problems. Judy for sure. Mickey I believe just alcohol.

Bette wasn't on that level of abuse I don't believe. Maybe it's because I hear the words " Movie Star" and think of enormous endless sums of money. When even they can go broke two.

Kinda like Nicolas Cage and Johnny Depp. What the hell are they doing with all of that money? But some people are just irresponsible financially.

I'm R312^^^^^^^^

I direct everyone to r319, which includes a link to an article in the LA Times from 30 years ago that said Davis left an estate worth a million dollars. Thirty years ago that would be a few million by today's standards.

She did just fine.

Did she own the apartment she stayed in or just rent. That also makes a difference.

The initial statement on her estate's value was just missing a couple of zeroes. No big whoop.

r326--she rented but it was rent stabilized.

The value of Hepburn's real estate, the Turtle Bay Manhattan townhouse and Connecticut seaside home was worth ten times Bette's entire estate.

That's right, r329--Hepburn was much richer. But Davis didn't die destitute.

We've also gone over the reasons for that discrepancy several times...

Also Hepburn came from money, Davis came from the poverty of a household headed by a single mother. Hepburn had no relatives to leech and bleed her dry, which was Davis' cross to bear for many years. Davis grew up supporting her mother and sister, whom she continued supporting until they died. This is old ground, to R331's point.

But Hepburn did have a wastrel younger brother and a "companion" named Phyllis who she did support throughout the 1960s until her death. Though I'm sure it was on her own terms and made them work work for it.

Speaking of Cynthia McFadden, is there anyone who believes the rumor she is the persistent daughter of Kate and Spence?

I haven't forgotten your shmushing cake in my face, Cynthia you little pig.

R334, what is a persistent daughter?

Who could ever figure out Hepburn? Why did she protect the meanest man in Hollywood (Tracey)?

R333 ...tell me about it.

Spencer Tracy the "meanest man in Hollywood"? Henry Fonda was a prick, too. And Gable. And the male studio heads were worse. Especially with women and gay people. Really, what could Tracy do that could compete?

Tracy was considered a mean drunk and a violent one as well.

Hepburn, slumming on TV in some long-forgotten snoozer, robbed Elizabeth Montgomery of the Emmy she deserved for "The Legend of Lizzie Borden." Poor Liz never ended up winning a single prestigious award.

When Hepburn did Grace Quigley, Robert Osborne said that it was agony to watch her.

LMFAO, r341!

Yes, sure, r341--LOVE AMONG THE RUINS was a "forgotten snoozer," but THE LEGEND OF LIZZIE BORDEN was a classic for the ages.

[quote]The initial statement on her estate's value was just missing a couple of zeroes. No big whoop.

Bank account ≠ estate.

Old dorks love Hepburn! You're welcome to her.

Old dorks, r346? Like all the young hipsters who love Davis? LMFAO!

Yes, I've noticed that too. The average Hepburn fan is definitely older.

And the average Davis fan is a millennial? LMFAO!

Bette Davis' career was over by the 1960s. She turned to tv to try and earn money. "Baby Jane" and "Sweet Charlotte" were schlock B movies. She spent the 60s, 70s and 80s bleeding money.

Even with inflation the old stars made nowhere near what contemporary stars do. A few made fortunes producing their films like Pickford and Fairbanks or in real estate like MacMurray and Garbo.

"I've got oil in Bakersfield, pumping, pumping, pumping!"

[quote]"Baby Jane" and "Sweet Charlotte" were schlock B movies.

No, they weren't.

Though STRAIT-JACKET, I SAW WHAT YOU DID, DEAD RINGER and the others mostly were.

I have three words for you, Lillian/R350: THE LOVE BOAT.

BABY JANE and CHARLOTTE were most definitely B-movies, right down to the budgets they were accorded. Just because BABY JANE was a hit does not make it an A-list movie. Be real.

That rat scene in BABY JANE--right up there with the finest scenes in the greatest films.

Said no one ever.

Grace Quigley and Olly Olly Oxen Free....budgets of $12.73 each

Yes, r356, and she was starring in those films as late as the 90s. Not bad for someone her age. Davis wasn't even alive at that point.

Mae West was another who accumulated wealth through real estate, r351.

Actually no, R357, the films I've mentioned are from 1978 and 1984, well before Davis' demise.

That might be, r359. But she lived and worked well beyond Davis. Which meant she was considered worth it by investors.

3 TV movies and "fuck a duck", not much to write home about, R360.

You're right, r361--I guess what there IS to write home about is a 60-year-career, 4 Oscars and the #1 spot on the AFI Greatest Film Actresses list.

With poison pen, no doubt...

WHY did Bette cut her retarded daughter Margo out of her will???

AFI came up with that list in 1999. Davis was second after Hepburn. I wonder if the list would be in the same order nearly 20 years later.

Well, they haven't seen the need to revise it. Classic is classic. Why move, say, Bogart behind Cagney at this point?

Margo was already well taken care of for life in an agreement that Davis and Merrill had already put in place, R364.

Oh I think it would change today, R366. Today, Audrey Hepburn will move up from three to ONE.

^^^^HAHAHAAH

Tracy had a really hateful reputation...his hatefulness was even mentioned in a movie, they don't do that to just anyone. He had a lot of haters but Hepburn supposedly loved him, why? I thought she was a lesbian.

She wasn't a lesbian, r370, she was bisexual, as apparently so was he.

Tastes do change over time regarding old stars, though. For example, Chaplin and Dean more than likely would have ranked quite a bit higher had the AFI list been created in '79 rather than '99. So today's list would probably be somewhat different compared to the one in '99.

R368, IN WHAT. THE MY MOTHER FUCKED HITLER CATEGORY ?

R371, Tracy needed a lesbian to to clean up the vomit and scrape him off the floor. And Hepburn was a lesbian. A few youthful affairs with men does not not turn a lesbian straight, I should know.

[quote]AFI came up with that list in 1999. Davis was second after Hepburn. I wonder if the list would be in the same order nearly 20 years later.

Davis was regarded as the First Lady of the American Screen up until the late sixties when the needle shifted towards Hepburn. But since Hepburn's death at least, it's shifted back to Davis. There's no doubt she'd be first today.

[quote]Tastes do change over time regarding old stars, though. For example, Chaplin and Dean more than likely would have ranked quite a bit higher had the AFI list been created in '79 rather than '99. So today's list would probably be somewhat different compared to the one in '99.

Yes. It would be interesting if there was some sort of formal list from each decade. You'd see the cultural changes over time.

More of the stars on it were alive back then. Sad, one would think, if weren't for the fact that Olivia de Havilland (102) seems to be outliving Hollywood's regard for GONE WITH THE WIND. I love it (and her). They didn't even mention it when they did at 2014 Oscars in which they did a tribute to THE WIZARD OF OZ.

Eh... anything else that year, guys?

Hepburn's star has fallen two. Even fans don't always bother to defend the second and fourth Oscars, two of the most maligned in Oscars history.

"But since Hepburn's death at least, it's shifted back to Davis. There's no doubt she'd be first today."

Any proof of that, r375? Or is this, um, YOUR opinion?

Unfortunately for him, r375 can't argue with the fact of Hepburn's #1 AFI status or her 4 Oscars.

I don't understand because neither Hepburn nor Davis were natural actors. Everything they did was mannered. Their acting is old school.

Not true, r378. Mannered maybe (given the era) but never dishonest. And not everything they did was mannered. I speak for both actresses.

Can anyone find the story that was posted on here at some point in which a Datalounger recalled how when the went to audition for a play (starring Hepburn with her in attendance for the auditions) in the early '80s she rejected him saying he wasn't masculine enough for the part? He said back 'that's something no one will ever say about you'.

Well, r380, if it was a Datalounger, it was probably true. Let's face it. By way of example, Stephen Spinella fails every time he's supposed to be straight.

[quote]I don't understand because neither Hepburn nor Davis were natural actors. Everything they did was mannered. Their acting is old school.

I don't find Davis mannered, which I take to mean falling back on insincerities or uncharacteristic... tics... of the actor not the character they're supposed to be playing.

Hepburn's performances to an appreciative viewer are mostly a celebration of her mannerisms: the artificial gulp of shock, the reaction always just a bit too soon, or those curious Doris Day Show style double takes she did in comedy.

Most people who are familiar with her reflectively know what a Hepburn performance is, less so with Davis. She always seemed more comfortable in front of the camera. More capable of abandon. Going there, rather than just suggesting it theatrically as the mannered Hepburn did.

If you're talking about mannerisms, Davis is easily (or more imitatable) than Hepburn.

R378, Davis was considered revolutionary in her comparatively natural approach. Her performances in Dangerous, Marked Woman, Bordertown, The Letter, etc., were not glamorized or mannered in the way that Arliss' or Shearer 's performances were back then. Her performances did become mannered with the wrong director at the helm, but she could still keep her mannerisms in check with a strong director and the right role.

If you want to talk about natural, unassuming, unactressy, then look no further than Barbara Stanwyck.

R385 True. Speaking of mannered acting in "Stagedoor" Hepburn is very mannered, theatrical. Fair enough, it suits the character she's playing. Her co-stars, (and "lesser" actors) Ginger Rogers and Lucille Ball are far more natural and casual. More engaging, I think. They appear very modern, even today. Katharine's acting very often looks like like acting. Hammy, even (ducks for cover)

click click click my ass

I thought Hepburn was playing Hepburn R387 but she was very good, especially during the play. Overall, I thought the acting was very stagey in Stage Door except for Lucy who was a complete delight.

Oh, dear. Nice try, r387. But in a "mannered acting" contest Davis would surely give Hepburn a run for her money.

The difference, R390, was that Davis knew how to keep the mannerisms in check, e.g. The Old Maid; All This, and Heaven Too; Watch on the Rhine, Phone Call from a Stranger, The Nanny, Strangers, White Mama, A Piano for Mrs. Cimino, Right of Way. She could do mousy and understated. How often could that be said of Hepburn?

Hepburn in Alice Adams gives one of the greatest performances ever put on film. If only for that she is one of the very best.

Bette, God love her, just wasn't good at comedy.

Oh, dear. r391 needs a list of understated/un-Hepburn-like Hepburn performances: DESK SET, SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER, LONG DAY'S JOURNEY, LION IN WINTER, GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER, THE TROJAN WOMEN, to name a few. Straightforward, honest, exiting, intelligent.

Have you sought professional help in your hatred of Hepburn?

*exciting

R394 Even people who don't like Kate give her credit for Summertime which you left out.

Understated, R394????? I love Hepburn, I'm just not delusional about her limitations. She is ALWAYS on.

I'll give you Summertime, though, which is my favorite Hepburn performance.

Anyone like r397 who accuses Hepburn of being over the top while exclaiming the virtues of Davis's subtlety must truly be on something. And for some reason, I doubt you "love" Hepburn.

Hepburn was wonderful in Little Women, Alice Adams, Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, and The African Queen as well. Obviously.

Unless of course you have some kind of irrational hatred of her, then she's "mannered," and "limited."

Right, anti-Hepburn loon?

Wait for it...

I particularly enjoyed her in Desk Set.

Who caaahs what a woman weaahs!

The callah lillies ahh in bloom. When I saw Stage Door at a revival house, most of us had no idea that this was where it originated from and it got a good laugh.

R402, Who THE DEVIL caaahs what a woman weaahs!

"When I saw Stage Door at a revival house..."

What, pray, is a "revival house" in live theatre, r403? Do they only do plays like "Stage Door"?

R405 has just blown my mind! My smelling salts!!!

It's too bad Bette Davis didn't do On Golden Pond instead of Hepburn. She would've been a riot, spitting out all the lines with a sarcastic inflection.

"Listen. To. Me. Mister. You're my knight in shiiiining arrr-mah." ***puffs cigarette while rolling her eyes***

That's the mannerisms we know from Bette Davis, r407, that the Hepburn hater won't admit to.

Hepburn was a limited actress. Can anyone imagine her in All About Eve, Now, Voyager, The Catered Affair or Baby Jane?

Bette Davis deserved the Oscar for Baby Jane. She went fucking balls-out for that role in a way that no other actress would've dared to do.

Davis was a limited actress. Can anyone imagine her in Long Day's Journey, The African Queen, or Summertime?

Fixed that for you, r409.

No, r410, Hepburn deserved it for her incredible, searing portrait of a drug addict in Long Day's Journey. Followed by Bancroft in The Miracle Worker. Davis was a distant third at best.

LOL, the Hepburn loons insists that everyone who has anything less than high praise for even her worst performances HATES her. I love Hepburn in Little Women, Alice Adams, Holiday, The Philadelphia Story, Woman of the Year, Undercurrent, State of the Union, Adam's Rib, Summertime, The Desk Set, SLS, LDJIN, and The Lion in Winter. I don't particularly like some of her other performances.

Same with Davis: She's too much in In This Our Life, Another Man's Poison, and The Anniversary, but I love to watch her in almost everything, which is also true of Hepburn. And, yes, R409, I certainly can. The African Queen was originally optioned for her.

Er, R411, not R409...

I would have loved to have heard Kate say 'With all my haaht I still love the man I killed!'

So what ultimately is your point, r413? That both are wonderful in some films and not so wonderful in others? Isn't that true of every actor who ever lived?

My point, R416, is an opinion--both are very watchable and capable of greatness.

Davis, though, displayed more range and less vanity in that she often and convincingly played a wider range of women, either in terms of morality, socioeconomics, mental acuity, or sexuality: sluts, whores, drunks, stupid women, murderesses, shrews as well as martyrs, schoolmarms, innocents, geniuses, queens, and matriarchs.

Hepburn herself acknowledged that she had a corner on "rich, arrogant girls" and that she was "too solid" to play someone like Virginia Woolf. I can't think of a single time when she played anyone who was unintelligent or slutty. Even as Mary Tyrone, Eleanor of Aquitane, Jane Hudson, or Violet Venable, she was invariably the 8:00 girl in the 9:00 town.

"Less vanity," r417? So it's a moral issue you're also raising against Hepburn?

You're absolutely right--this is all your opinion.

No, it's not a moral issue, R418, it's that Davis was fearless about being quite ugly on screen often. And she was not too proud to play a slut. Don't twist my words to fit your preconceptions.

Range does NOT have anything to do with an actor's willingness to play, for instance, a slut, any more than an actor being willing to play an explicit sex scene makes that actor more "fearless" than anther actor who chooses not to, r419. You're confusing ability and range with choice of roles.

R407 She did it the hard way with Jimmy.

No, I'm not, R420. Davis showed that she could play a wider range of characters well, thus she demonstrated more versatility. Hepburn didn't bother. It's clear in the link that she chose a particular type of character to fit her moral perspective and sense of being "solid". You and I both know that Hepburn in Of Human Bondage would have been ludicrous.

R411, Davis would have been outstanding in "Summertime".

r422, Davis did not show she could play a wider range and had more versatility. I've already addressed the question of range, which you've chosen to ignore to suit your own agenda. Hepburn would never have played a drug addict if some "moral perspective" and a desire to be "solid" were really the issue. And since we're playing the "Who Would Have Been Better?" game, while I would not have minded seeing Davis play Mary Tyrone, there was no way she could have summoned up what Hepburn brought to the role--her crowning achievement in a career full of great performances.

Sweet Charlotte was very much a B movie, r352, it does not compare to Baby Jane .

R405, did you ever hear of the movies? In fact, I saw it at the New Beverly Cinema in WeHo which is now owned by Quentin Tarantino.

I believe the term, r426, is repertory theatre.

Again, R424, I'm not ignoring your point to fit my own agenda. I acknowledge that Hepburn was great in her best performances, and her range is impressive. However, Davis demonstrated that she could play a wider range of characters well. Hepburn...not so much or at least not as much--yes, she played a heroin addict and a mother whose morality and presence of mind are compromised by the proclivities of her gay son. She was not afraid to display fragility and a tenuous grip on sanity. However, she never entered the fray of moral laxity and downright evil that Davis did with her characters, nor did she ever go out of her way to make a character unattractive. Even as Mary Tyrone and Eleanor of Aquitane, she looks beautiful though fragile and aging. She was too "solid" and clearly did not want to cross the line of her own inviolate morality, as indicated in the NYT link. And, yes, in my opinion that made her a less interesting actress in that she lacked the willingness to go outside her moral code to play all sorts of characters.

Can you imagine Hepburn as Mildred Rogers, Aggie Hurley, Leslie Crosbie, Regina Giddens, Joyce Heath, Margo Channing, the other Jane Hudson, Marie Roark, Mary Dwight Stauber, or Carlota?

You're rewriting Long Day's Journey--she was a morphine addict, not a heroin addict, and Edmond was Eugene O'Neill's stand-in, and the character was not gay. Maybe that's your problem--your interpretations are so uniquely your own you can't see beyond them.

Nevertheless, I can see Hepburn playing any number of those parts--if she'd wanted to--because I believe she had the range. Whether she had the interest was entirely her choice and doesn't imply limitation. As I said, playing a drug addict blows your theory that she was held back by a moral code.

R427 What are you talking about?

Excuse me, morphine rather than heroin--what a horrible transgression. And I was referring to Violet Venable regarding the other character. You seem to see things rather polemically. We'll just agree to disagree. I think that Davis showed the greater versatility as demonstrated by the roles she chose and how well she played them. That range extended beyond Hepburn's choices. Whether Hepburn might have carried off Mildred Rogers will be something I'll never know, though I suspect she'd have been notably out of her element. But then I lack your omniscience.

Katharine Hepburn and Bette Davis are two people you could never imagine having sex with anyone.

Really, r430? A repertory theatre is a cinema that specializes in showing classic or notable older films (as opposed to first run films). I hope that helps.

Not polemical, r431--just clear. You see Davis as the greater actor, I do not.

Actually Davis was quite the sexpot early on, R432.

Not to get between you two but Davis could not do farce or sophisticated romantic comedy as Hepburn could. She had nowhere near the comic chops of Hepburn. That's a pretty big shortcoming.

They are both terrific but that throws the versatility argument out right there.

It evens out.

Excellent point, r435.

A revival house was, is and always refers to a CINEMA.

A repertory theater can refer to either a cinema or a live theater however in NY everybody has always forever used the term revival house for a theater that shows old movies.

At least in common parlance.

Well, r437, I live in NY and have for decades, and rep house is fairly common parlance.

Davis showed her comedic chops in All About Eve (the Liebestraum scene, the indecisive chocolate, the mink over Max Fabian's head), June Bride, The Man Who Came to Dinner, It's Love I'm After, and The Rich Are Always With Us. Even The Bride Came C.O.D.

Hepburn's flibbertigibbet approach to comedy has never appealed to me, maybe a smile now and then but never a real laugh.

Davis in Bringing Up, Baby? Holiday? The Philadelphia Story? And if you didn't laugh at Bringing Up, Baby all I can say is I'm sorry.

I laughed at Cary Grant and May Robson's routines. And, no, Davis couldn't out-Hepburn Hepburn. Bringing Up Baby, Holiday and The Philadelphia Story are quintessential Hepburn.

Hepburn had great comedic timing R440 I do think, however, that Davis was, by far, a superior actress.

"A repertory theater can refer to either a cinema or a live theater"

It makes no sense in relation to a cinema, r437.

Have you ever heard of revival house in terms of live theater? When the poster was speaking about Stagedoor and used revival house it was clearly without a doubt a cinema.

Repertory theater in terms of a cinema is for brochures. Revival house is where you go to see old movies when speaking or posting.

Because r444, a theatre like Film Forum shows classic movies in rep--double features, etc. This is really not a hard concept to grasp.

That's your opinion, r443.

And I quote from Wikipedia:

Film Forum presents two distinct, complementary film programs – NYC theatrical premieres of American independents and foreign art films, programmed by Karen Cooper and Mike Maggiore; and, since 1987, repertory selections including foreign and American classics, genre works, festivals and directors' retrospectives.

See the word repertory in that description?

[quote]Well, [R437], I live in NY and have for decades, and rep house is fairly common parlance.

Well, [R439], I live in NY and have for decades, and rep house is a phrase I've never heard when what they mean is a REVIVAL HOUSE!

No one EVER called Theatre 80 St. Marks. Carnegie Hall Cinema, or The Regency "repertory houses"! You must not get out much and listen to words people actually use.

I refer r448 to the link at r447.

Girls, girls! They're BOTH fabulous!

BETTER DAVIS WASN'T MANNERED??? Are you kidding me? She was the most mannered of all. And I'm sorry but although we all love Baby Jane no one but camp gays thinks Bettes performance was oscar worthy. Come on let's take the fan glasses off here.

So it is one Hepburn fan doing all the posting...

[quote]And I'm sorry but although we all love Baby Jane no one but camp gays thinks Bettes performance was oscar worthy.

Except AMPAS who gave her a nom, which she mostly would've turned into a win if Crawford hadn't campaigned against her.

[quote]Sweet Charlotte was very much a B movie, [R352], it does not compare to Baby Jane .

I actually prefer SWEET CHARLOTTE. It does everything JANE does and more; more genuinely dark, deliciously Southern Gothic. It did have the most Oscar nominations of any horror film up until SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (though I'm hesitant about saying either of them are anything more than horror by broad definition).

It's clearly well-made: beautifully photographed -- actually one of the most beautiful B&W all of time; stronger cast -- Astor and Moorehead; and a more fully developed story -- JANE relied on its 'first of its type' shock value but never ventured beyond it.

Even the last time I watched it I did so imagining it as an inverse, ghostly A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE. You can totally compare the two films. When you compare CHARLOTTE to BERSERK or STRAITJACKET the film's *A-quality* is obvious. Those films would never have been capable of, or even had the brains to write something like the road (upcoming color modernity) smashing through the last remnants of that hazy old-worldliness.

CHARLOTTE is much more haunted. It's one of the best pieces to capture that very 1964 Cold War / Twilight Zone anxiety.

And *much* better than any of Hepburn's dull Oscar-bait. It's one of the best pieces to capture that very 1964 Cold War / Twilight Zone anxiety, (just like ON GOLDEN POND captures a Reagan era PC TV movie) I disagree with assesment that Davis had the better main career, with Hepburn having the better later career. No, JANE, CHARLOTTE, THE NANNY are pillars in Davis' filmography -- in the same way the insufferable but AMPAS friendly GUESS WHO and GOLDEN POND are to Hepburn's.

Or MISS DELAFIELD WANTS AN EMMY.

Hush...

Say what you like, most people who are not gay men do not find these movies very good. You can wax lyrical all you want and attach phoney significances but the truth is they are hammy trash.

Incorrect.

Though only dykes enjoy Hepburn in the '70s, true.

On Golden Pond was what today we would call a Lifetime Movie or a Hallmark Movie. It wasn't Oscar worthy, but everybody knew Fonda had one foot in the grave and Hepburn was also ancient, so they were sympathy Oscars.

[quote]Her co-stars, (and "lesser" actors) Ginger Rogers and Lucille Ball are far more natural and casual.

I hate Lucille Ball in that movie. She's trying too hard. Of course, Lucy was never good unless she had physicality to her character, as she proved when she moved to tv and did I Love Lucy.

R456, Also, in 1981/1982 there were many Academy voters who were Fonda's and Hepburn's contemporaries.

I recall Bette telling Johnny Carson that she never met Garbo and only met Mae West late in life.

[quote]Not to get between you two but Davis could not do farce or sophisticated romantic comedy as Hepburn could.

Hepburn could never do the grand guignol comedy that Davis did in Baby Jane.

^Hardly a tragedy.

Baby Jane and certainly Charlotte, while maybe fun, are trash.

And no, there's not just one "Hepburn fan" here, r452. Because I'm not r451.

Bette and Mae

R451, who said Davis is never mannered? What was said is that she kept those mannerisms under check with the right directors.

[quote]That reminds me K. Hepburn's criticism of Streep and Close -- but praise of Julia Roberts and Melanie Griffiths. That might seem odd, but I've read someone else say it was actually a backhanded compliment: she didn't praise Streep and Close because she saw them as competition, she could afford to praise the others because they weren't a threat to her stature. Interesting theory, I thought.

Yet Hepburn praised Streisand--the biggest female star of her day at that time.

When Kate got the shakes in her dotage, cunnilingus would have been a real treat...

It sure was!

*Juts out chin, puts fist under it*

'Now *shakes* you *shakes* listen *shakes* to *shakes* me *shakes* Mistah!'

*Tosses tied sweater over shoulders*

Does anyone want to settle it once and for all: Was Hepburn a lesbian?

It's already been settled, r469. She was bisexual. Do keep up.

Comercial break

Bette Davis is B-list trash no one remembers except ancient gays. Katharine Hepburn widely acknowledged as the greatest actress ever and a major cultural icon. Her legacy and impact will live on forever.

I pwefer beer.....

Hepburn did do schlock. The Iron Petticoat with Bob Hope and Katharine Hepburn. Hepburn plays a Soviet defector.

I apologize for not taking Kate out when I had the chance.

Maria, tell Miss Hepburn and Mr Fairbanks why my breasts are not perky!

When Mommie Dearest came out, Kate must've been thanking God that she never had children.

My god R447 you are stubborn.

I said that repertory house in terms of a cinema was used for brochures and in terms of written materials but not in parlance. Everybody else I have ever heard uses REVIVAL house.

And I am not R448 so there is somebody else on DL who has gone to see old movies in NY as much as I have.

r478, your term is not everyone's term. Rep theatre is as common as revival house. Get over it.

Read R448 because you are so wrong. By definition it's not even a correct term because films don't play in repertory. As in a continuing cycle. They play maybe one or twice or for a solid week or two but that's not repertory.

Definition-the performance of various plays, operas, or ballets(ok let's add in film) by a company at regular short intervals.

This never ever happens even at Film Forum or MOMA. Films are revived but they DO NOT play in rep.

Ok, lemme cee hear..

Fill Donahew

Closs enuff!

An anecdote regarding Hepburn and money : her parents disapproved of her career choice, especially her father, and wouldn't support her financially. Her father would sometimes send her "ill-gained money" aka his betting gains, but it was out of guilt and a rarity. Hepburn was initially supported by her husband when she was still in NY doing theater. He's the one who bought the Turtle Bay townhouse at the beginning of their marriage, a place she lived in her entire life. When she came to Hollywood, she somehow got her agent Leland Hayward to get her the highest salary you'd ever seen for a newcomer (1500 dollars per week if I remember). She was so bad with the money, spending all of it at once, that her father demanded that she sends the cheques to him, which she did, and father Hepburn then would give her an allowance. It went on until her father died in 1962, when Katharine was 55 years old. I always thought it was sweet.

A fifty five year old woman still sending cheques to her father for him to give her an allowance sounds more... odd... to me.

There seems to be a faint air of homophobia to the criticism of Davis.

She's liked by us Gay Men -- unlike Hepburn (and Audrey too never took with us, is it the name) -- so she's now tacky, 'camp', and generally devoid of merit.

Hepburn's fans embrace the dykeyness, we Gay Men must love our own.

Bette was fun, Kate was a dry as a stale old piece of toast.

[quote]Yet Hepburn praised Streisand--the biggest female star of her day at that time.

A kooky Jewish girl whose main talent was singing was not a threat to Miss Hepburn.

[quote]Yet Hepburn praised Streisand--the biggest female star of her day at that time.

[quote]A kooky Jewish girl whose main talent was singing was not a threat to Miss Hepburn.

True.

Hepburn made her comments in the early '90s, when Streisand's legitimate acting career had been over for a decade. She was aware that she wasn't a threat, as Streep and Close might be.

I don't think it was so much that Hepburn viewed Streep and Close as rivals (that would have been insane at her age) but that she saw them as actresses who more or less played the same sort of leading lady roles that she once played. And therefore, Kate could be more critical of their talents.

Streisand, Roberts and Griffith were leading ladies of an entirely different cloth.

Again, I don't understand why it's either or. They are both phenomenal screen presences. I am delighted to watch either when I find them on TCM. I love the work of both of these screen icons.

[quote]I don't think it was so much that Hepburn viewed Streep and Close as rivals (that would have been insane at her age)

I don't know. She did live to see Streep match her Oscar nomination record, didn't she? Although she did have dementia. She definitely lived longed to quake at the thought that Streep would one day become regarded as *the* premiere actress. She was fiercely competitive and snobby.

Davis was warmer, and viewed it more as a passing on the torch. She viewed Streep as her successor and she's Streep's favorite actress.

Or maybe it's just bad taste.

[quote]Again, I don't understand why it's either or. They are both phenomenal screen presences. I am delighted to watch either when I find them on TCM. I love the work of both of these screen icons.

I don't find them at all similar in any way really.

Though obviously some do like both.

r480, take your pedantic issue up with Film Forum, which used the word "repertory" on its website.

"Hepburn made her comments in the early '90s, when Streisand's legitimate acting career had been over for a decade."

Really, r488? Hepburn's praise of Streisand was made in the 70s. And by the way, Streisand's acting career was still going strong well into the '90s, when she acted, directed and starred in Prince of Tides. Your revisionist nature doesn't quite jive with the facts.

r483, I believe Hepburn bought that beautiful townhouse at 244 East 49th Street herself after her initial movie successes in the '30s. At least that was my memory of what I read.

[quote]She was so bad with the money, spending all of it at once, that her father demanded that she sends the cheques to him, which she did, and father Hepburn then would give her an allowance. It went on until her father died in 1962, when Katharine was 55 years old. I always thought it was sweet.

That definitely doesn't jibe with her image as being a strong, modern feminist -- which, of course, she made up.

r494, are all feminists supposed to be great with money? Obviously it was her choice to turn over money to her father, if that was even the case. What would be the difference if she turned her money to a money manager? And how, pray, r494, did the make up being a feminist?

Any other "crimes" Hepburn is guilty of? Did she take out a schoolroom of children and kill puppies, too?

This thread has become nothing more than tired trashing of Hepburn. Truly, she doesn't defending. Her legacy is utterly intact, and she is one for the ages. Sorry haters but really, you're tired tired tired.

And yeah, Bette Davis is also one for the ages. Okay? Is everybody happy?

*Truly, she doesn't NEED defending.

"I believe Hepburn bought that beautiful townhouse at 244 East 49th Street herself after her initial movie successes in the '30s. At least that was my memory of what I read. "

No. Luddy bought it.

Well I, for one, have really been enjoying this thread. Even with all the back and forth corrections and put-downs, it's been a very illuminating read.

[quote] This thread has become nothing more than tired trashing of Hepburn.

It's because they're butthurt about the 4 Oscars. It's like the threads where Madonna and Janet fans argue endlessly throwing sales stats and charts at each other. Some people are obsessed with that shit because they believe it defines everything.

[quote]Well I, for one, have really been enjoying this thread. Even with all the back and forth corrections and put-downs, it's been a very illuminating read.

It's mostly one Hepburn fan though. Block them and things cool way down, for the better.

If, like r501, you can't handle debate.

Hepburn had a far superior range to Davis. Hepburn gave a superior performance as early as Morning Glory (1932) - way out of Davis' league, had convincing leading lady chemistry with all of her leading men, had a command of Shakespeare and the stage, and was a magnificent comic actress. Davis certainly can't compete on the comedy-tragedy axis.

So true, R503, if you like arch, stagy, self-conscious, and the same bag of tricks trotted out again and again. And the same lockjaw cadences regardless of where the character is supposed to have lived. Hepburn's attempts at accents were cringe-worthy: The Iron Petticoat, Dragon Seed, The Little Minister. She did get the Ice Cube thing down well, though, sexless as she was.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Wake up, R505.

Is The Iron Petticoat based on Ninotchka?

How the hell did that project ever come to be? Never seen it but I can't imagine worst casting for it than Hope and Hepburn. Were other stars considered? Was it made at Hope's studio Paramount or Hepburn's studio MGM? Or on some neutral territory?

FFS the word "feminist" didn't even exist back then. They were frugal Yankees who put their money away.

Shows how much you know, r508. The word "feminist" was around as far back as 1915, and I quote:

The New York Times published a more evolved characterization of feminism by women's suffrage activist Carrie Chapman Catt that same year:

WHAT is feminism? A world-wide revolt against all artificial barriers which laws and customs interpose betwen [sic] women and human freedom. It is born of the instinct within every natural woman's soul that God designed her as the equal, the co-worker, the comrade of the men of her family, and not as their slave, or servant, or dependent, or plaything.

What the hell was Kate doing here? That slow gaze up at the end with the tears in her eyes was so over the top.

R507, MGM released Silk Stockings, the musical remake of Ninotchka, the year after The Iron Petticoat polluted the theaters. Hope may have stolen some ideas from Ninotchka or even attempted a parody, but he apparently took so many liberties with the script that it became a meandering unintelligible mess. The producer was Betty E. Box, who was also responsible for Some Girls Do, Percy (a talking penis), Anyone for Sex?, and It's Not the Size That Counts. It was originally intended as a vehicle for Hepburn, who wanted Grant, Stewart or Holden as the male lead. I think we can safely state that this was the butchest Kate ever, with the possible exception of Sylvia Scarlett.

Iron Petticoat was MGM but shot on location in London and at Pinewood Studios, for the person above who asked.

It started out as a project for Hepburn with a script by Ben Hecht that everyone loved. But they couldn't get anyone they wanted to play opposite her and then Hope approached them saying he wanted to do it. He said he'd play the original script. As soon as he signed on, he brought in his gagmen and turned it into typical Hope film but a very bad one. Hecht had indeed used a lot of plot elements from Ninotchka.

The production history was dreadful and fraught with drama. Hecht got his name off of it. It received scathing reviews and Bob Hope used his influence as a producer to have the film suppressed in the US for decades.

From R168 in the 2017 Bette vs. Katharine thread:

"Let's see.

Hepburn's ability to play an understated role, a well-constructed quiet scene and an intellectual character was beyond Davis' capacity. Hepburn could play tragedy, which Davis couldn't. Hepburn could do the classics quite well. Hepburn could convey an inner life - a character's thought processes - in convincing ways that added suspense and engagement to her work. She could do slapstick comedy, comedy of manners, drawing-room comedy and physical comedy, within limits.

Davis could deliver a big star performance (an over-the-top, giddily campy but smart performance, sometimes approaching a glamor of personality) in a way Hepburn never did, despite her many successes. Davis went for broke in ways Hepburn couldn't or didn't; Hepburn in MADWOMAN OF CHAILLOT gives you her version of "out there." Davis' courage expanded her range. Where she lacked taste she made up for it with humor and dedication. But that humor did not mean she could do comedy. She couldn't. But she could draw an audience in in ways Hepburn couldn't. The barrier - maybe it's respect - that kept Hepburn at arm's length wasn't there with Davis. You could love her even in a less-than-the-best performance or vehicle.

Neither could sing. Neither could dance. But both used their bodies beautifully, in their own way. Both did what they could and what they had to do to keep working through their maturity and beyond. Hepburn was more successful at keeping her work at the "quality" end of things, partly as a result of her connections, partly as a testimony to her intellectual brand, and partly out of luck.

Both knew the camera. Both were students and then masters of film acting. Both were blessed with good relationships with top directors. Both understood their talents, limitations and screen personas.

Both were self-absorbed women who knew how to mask their egotism with social lives and savvy PR (up to a point). Both were cutthroat and yet loyal. Both were interested in the world at large, which fed their performances. Both went on too long, although Davis' very public horrors at the end of her life got more attention than did Hepburn's slow sinking into dementia, which still isn't recognized very much. Hepburn's extreme age closed the curtain while Davis practically died in front of the camera.

They're really a contrast in coolness and heat. In the end Hepburn's career hitting the skids much earlier than Davis', after a faster track to success, did afford Hepburn a crucial opportunity to reframe herself, heading to the stage and then back to movies in a more finished form. She had her ups and down after PHILADELPHIA STORY but her course was pretty much set.

Davis, after her triumph in EVE, couldn't keep the attention up, and despite the greatness of BABY JANE and her work in it, it marked a turn from which she could not return, and never did. BABY JANE was possible because of her desperation. Hepburn never took that kind of risk because she didn't have to, and pride likely would have prevented it. She would have started a garden nursery or something else.

So why can't it be a tie, with no one else in the exclusive league these two occupied? I'll take a Stanwyck performance over either of them most days of the week because of her itchy realism, but she wasn't "there" with these two. No one was. Crawford, for her own amazing career, never got the prestige roles the others had."

I winder how Maggie Smith got on with Bette when shooting "Death On The Nile?"

Maggie? Maggie, are you there?

I think they got on well. I've never heard any stories of animosity between the two in that film.

I've taken it up with you so can both be snooty and use the term incorrectly.

While both began as stage actresses in NY (Kate with far more success), Bette was never content working in the theater.

All of her forays on Broadway were short and unsuccessful runs with the exception of Night of the Iguana. But even that play was an unfortunate experience for Bette, who broke her contract and left the production early in the run, to be replaced by Shelley Winters. Among other things, the role of Maxine, which Tennessee Williams originally tailored to Bette's talents, got progressively diminished as the play rehearsed and previewed out of town and Bette saw her costar Margaret Leighton take center stage.

Bette's attempt at a late-in-life Broadway musical success was a far worse disaster. Though Miss Moffatt was based on The Corn Is Green, one of her lesser Hollywood hits, the show had all sorts of troubles out of town and finally closed down when Bette took to her bed and cited medical reasons to keep her from continuing to Broadway.

I find it interesting that Bette apparently never found much satisfaction acting on the stage. I would have thought she'd love it.

I love DEATH ON THE NILE! And Davis in it. More proof that her later career was far superior to Hepburn's.

The only thing Bette complained up when shooting Death on the Nile was that a lot of it was shot on location in Egypt. According to Mia Farrow, Bette stated "In my day that would have shot all this in Hollywood....and better".

It's sad watching her in MURDER WITH MIRRORS however, because she's so clearly unwell. I can only imagine she really needed the money to have to keep working at that point, when she so frail.

Here

R513.

I disagree with almost all of this.

Davis is great campy fun in Death On The Nile. The whole film is a hoot.

Bette turned down African Queen because they wouldn't shoot it at the studio.

It's really too bad that Davis and Henry Fonda didn't make the film of Virginia Woolf as originally conceived. Would have been spectacular.

Hepburn complimented Streisand???? I need a link to believe that!

What did Kate say about Barbra, and when did she say it? Does anybody know?

R517, Miss Moffat was given a national tour starring DL fave Ginger Rogers.

Watch Bette praise Streisand to the heavens beginning at 23:00.

Miss Moffatt had a most lovely window card......

[quote]It's really too bad that Davis and Henry Fonda didn't make the film of Virginia Woolf as originally conceived.

No, that was James Mason. Though Albee praised Taylor publicly, privately he still wished Davis did the role.

Oh, dear, r518.

Still waiting for Streisand fan to produce link to Hepburn praising her.

As God is my witness I don't know what's wrong with r518's post!!!

Bette wanted to do Virginia Woolf with Henry Fonda. Albee wanted her to do it but with James Mason, although he would have been fine with Fonda.

....

See how low key and resigned she says it?

R535 I read in my Inside Oscar book Hepburn thought Streisand had a wonderful talent . This is before they tied. After the tie Streisand wired Hepburn she was proud to be in her company or words to that effect. I’ve never heard Hepburn mentioning anything Streisand related in the early 90s like above poster said. The Streisand telegram is on pininterest I believe.

The culminating final scene with Regina looking out upon the world...

And one of the best opening sequences ever shot...

One of my favorite Bette Davis movies has her most mannered performance-IN THIS OUR LIFE. She pulled out her entire arsenal of tics and fluttering gestures. I loved every frame.

Bette as Stanley, Olivia as Roy, and this climax...

[quote]All of her forays on Broadway were short and unsuccessful runs with the exception of Night of the Iguana. But even that play was an unfortunate experience for Bette, who broke her contract and left the production early in the run, to be replaced by Shelley Winters. Among other things, the role of Maxine, which Tennessee Williams originally tailored to Bette's talents, got progressively diminished as the play rehearsed and previewed out of town and Bette saw her costar Margaret Leighton take center stage.

In Shelley Winters second bio she describes and agrees that Margaret Leighton was purposely trying to upstage the Maxine. Winters said Davis warned her that Leighton would move and try to pull attention every time Davis (and later Winters) spoke. Davis felt Leighton and Patrick O'Neal conspired to make her look bad and Winters seemed to agree.

In Feud they make Iguana look very glum for Davis. She looks all depressed taking her curtain call.

Curious that in FEUD you see Crawford hitting up every no-show nominee to offer to pick up their award if they won but Hepburn. Hepburn was clearly going to be a no-show and Crawford would have known that. I guess she didn't have the guts to go to Hepburn the way she hit up Geraldine Page and Bancroft.

I"m so happy this thread has gotten so much attention. I love these two broads.

Interesting point about Crawford and Hepburn, r548. Though I know there's correspondence that exists between the 2 of them so it's not as though Joan would have been a stranger.

I'm more surprised that schlocky Ryan Murphy didn't use the opportunity to cast some inappropriate current diva to impersonate Hepburn, as he did with de Havilland and Blondell.

Who might he have cast for Hepburn?

Has anyone else seen that Warner Cartoon that imitates all the current stars of the day? Katharine Hepburn is Little Bo Peep who says "I'm Little Bo Peep and I've lost my sheep, really, really I have." In a strong Hepburn accent of course.

Now we all can, R551.

*********

Haha, Fabulous r552!

So dramatic r546...love the closeup of the high heels pressing into the gas pedal and the tears eyed insane look on her face!

Ginger Rogers, Lucy and Kate, briefly at the very end. Ginger's mom sounds like she was Mama Rose, all the way down to starting a dramatic school. Lucy is the surprise because this is 87 and she's surprisingly charming. The clips of her early career show she always had it.

Lucy did a good Katharine Hepburn impersonation.

I love Lucy in those two clips! They're from a great multi-part documentary, btw, about the glory days of RKO, available on youtube and worth your time.

fascinating!

I think Lucy's observations of Hepburn were hilarious. "She wasn't stanoffish to us, she just ignored the whole set." Hepburn herself said she never talked to anyone because she was terrified.

Wonder if Hepburn would’ve won in 1963 if Crawford would’ve trotted out there on stage? Hepburn was overdue for a second one at this point. I also believe Crawford probably didn’t have the guts to contact her as Kate would’ve saw through her bs. Alas we will probably never know.

I'm just surprised there was no mention of Hepburn on FEUD in that Oscars episode. Murphy missed an opportunity.

[quote]I also believe Crawford probably didn’t have the guts to contact her as Kate would’ve saw through her bs.

Well, we don't know for certain. It would seem odd for her to contact all the other nominees bar one. But Hepburn wasn't favourite to win, so who knows?

And I'm sure Helen Keller could see through her BS from a mile away.

True, r563. What you say makes sense. But I doubt Geraldine Page was any kind of favorite to win, and we saw her being reached out to in the show. Anyway, it would have been fun.

I can't imagine Hepburn even taking Crawford's call, much less agreeing to allow Crawford to be her representative at the Oscars.

Joan Crawford actually was known to have corresponded with Katharine, but I don't there was any closeness. In her later years, Joan was a very dedicated letter-writer, treating it almost like a job.

I wish I could read that but her handwriting is too inscrutable to me.

R510 In "Avid Reader" Robert Gottlieb writes about taking his and Hepburn's friend Irene Selznick to a screening of that TV documentary about Tracy. Gottlieb says, "I thought Irene was going to explode with rage and mortification", and she told him "This is vile" as they left. Selznick did her best to avoid Hepburn after that. Gottlieb describes how much Hepburn changed in the 1980s, and writes in some detail about her long friendship with Selznick.

R564 Page won the golden globe and Bancroft won the nbr best actress award, so both of these actresses had some momentum. The NY film critics awards were canceled due to a newspaper strike. I don’t know what convinced Davis she was going to win. Maybe just talk from other Academy members she knew, but not enough to carry her to victory. Only Gregory Peck who was predicted to win ended up doing it.

Davis clearly underestimated the emotion and chemistry between Bancroft and Duke in TMW. When Duke won first, she should’ve realized it was not going to be her night.

r562 There was. I remember there was some humorous foreshadowing where Hedda scoffs with absolute certainty that they'll never give Hepburn an Oscar again, because she wouldn't show up to accept it.

...I hate how perfectly I just remembered that.

r568, I'm not understanding why Irene Selznick was "mortified" by the Spencer Tracy documentary. Can you please elaborate?

Actually, you've reminded me that I've always meant to read Gottlieb's memoir so maybe I'll just go ahead and buy it today.

R571, Could it have been when Kate read that letter she wrote to Spence after he died?

R571 Irene Selznick thought that Hepburn had morphed from a serious actress focussed on her work into a fame whore, seeking and lapping up any and all media and fan attention, however debasing. Gottlieb's book gives more context for Selznick's comments, and is definitely worth a read: he had a remarkable career in publishing.

R573, Including my award winning autobiography.

George Cukor was a life long friend of both Hepburn and Crawford so those ladies may have spent more time in each other's company (with George) than one might think.

Of course, Hepburn was signed by MGM in 1940, just a couple of years prior to Crawford leaving the studio. They may have shared many lunches in the commissary.

R575, Cukor was also a life long friend of Lucy and she didn't spend much time in Hepburn's company. Crawford wishes she didn't spend much time in Lucy's company.

Did Cukor write an autobiography?

Here's a letter from Hepburn to one of Joan's "twin" daughters, claiming that she hardly knew Joan.

^That is THE way to brush someone off. That's a classy way of saying, "Never knew the bitch. Don't bother me about her."

Mommie Dearest came out in 78 so was the "twin" trying to find people to tell everyone what a St. Joan she was? The last paragraph from Hepburn suggests as much.

r573 I wonder if maybe Hepburn was already starting to lose her mind by then, to some degree. I know she was completely gone by the end and accused Bacall of trying to steal her shit one time.

She worked for 20 years after that letter, if it was around the time of Mommie Dearest, r581. Hepburn was very much of sound mind.

What is this accusation Hepburn supposedly made against Bacall? I never heard of it. Link, please.

r582 I was talking about the sudden famewhoring with the Spencer documentary, etc., not the letter. Is there a kind of early stage dementia that causes personality changes? Because it really was a freaky and sudden transformation. How do you go from a private, Garbo-ish mystique, to crying on national TV while you read a letter to your dead alcoholic lover?

r583 I read it here on DL, sorry. I'm guessing it's somewhere in Bacall's autobiography.

Famewhoring? She was a lonely old woman reliving some overromanticized relationship. Famewhoring is stupidly overstating it.

Crawford's twins really were fraternal twins. They found their blood relatives many years after Joan died.

[quote]Page won the golden globe and Bancroft won the nbr best actress award, so both of these actresses had some momentum. The NY film critics awards were canceled due to a newspaper strike. I don’t know what convinced Davis she was going to win. Maybe just talk from other Academy members she knew, but not enough to carry her to victory. Only Gregory Peck who was predicted to win ended up doing it. Davis clearly underestimated the emotion and chemistry between Bancroft and Duke in TMW. When Duke won first, she should’ve realized it was not going to be her night.

That year was actually interesting because there didn't seem to be a clear favorite. It could've gone a variety of ways. If Joan hadn't actively campaigned against Davis things might've been very different.

It's hard for us to even imagine what it was like back then actually. There was a genuine chance for surprise.

Hepburn's three later wins were all (to varying degrees) surprise wins. No one expected them on the night. That's partly why she didn't turn up. That just doesn't happen now.

In fact, her last win was probably the last time there was a surprise in Best Actress. In the almost forty years since it's become a stultifying drag waiting for them to announce what Goldderby or Awardswatch called and the ever increasing precursor awards confirmed months prior.

[quote]When Duke won first, she should’ve realized it was not going to be her night.

She was more focused on watching in the wings as Angela Lansbury's head exploded.

[quote]I remember there was some humorous foreshadowing where Hedda scoffs with absolute certainty that they'll never give Hepburn an Oscar again, because she wouldn't show up to accept it.

They were a masochistic community back then. Not now, which is why it would never happen now.

On the show, Hedda Hopper's confident assertion that Hepburn would never win again was meant to be a joke on her, as Hepburn went on to win three more.

When was she diagnosed with dementia by the way?

When, indeed, r591? I never heard anything ever about her being diagnosed with dementia. Link, please. We're still waiting for the link that said she made accusations against Bacall.

I call bullshit otherwise.

....

Is that supposed to prove something, r593?

r593 That's such a weird video. I'd love to know the context. Why isn't she shaking? Where is she going? What year was this? What is she thinking? Fascinating.

I think she retired from public life affair that dreadful remake of AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER (more proof that Davis' later career was generally better).

She lived for a decade after that.

Davis kept working right up until the end. To pay bills, probably.

Okay, never mind about the dementia. I just found this article mentioning Bacall's last visit and she claims Kate was still of sound mind.

Hepburn choose to fill her later career, film and television, with syrupy awards bait. Davis' career features at least something more interesting. Her projects usually forced her out of her comfort zone, even if, perhaps, in a degrading way. But Hepburn's continued with studio era star vehicles to the end.

There's little risk there, but ample reward.

Unlike so many other divas we never saw her without her team of makeup artists, unofficially approved scripts, and kind lighting. When how truly ordinary so many of those stars were was reveal.

I mean Jesus wept when he saw Crawford trying to make TROG work.

Maybe Bacall thought no one needed to know

Bette Davis: The First Lady of the American Screen.

Hepburn pales in comparison.

/thread.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.