|
Post by Karina on Apr 17, 2005 10:25:36 GMT -5
Isn't it great to know that despite her independence, her close family ties and her intimate relationships with men, Katharine also realised the importance of and the need to confide in her female friends? The strong and lasting friendships with Laura Harding, Phyllis Wilbourn and in later life Cynthia McFadden are all examples of her devotion, loyalty and generosity.
But what do you think she meant when referring to the painting of 2 gulls on a rock as depicting her & Phyllis? And why do you think it was the favourite of all her works of art?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Apr 17, 2005 15:07:26 GMT -5
Katharine was a person that made friends for life - another one of her friends was Alice Palache - when Alice died Katharine was involved in a ceromony at Bryn Mawr to commemorate her life .
Its unfortunate that those relationships have been so misrepresented in certain books .
Have to think about the gulls picture
|
|
|
Post by Catherine on May 4, 2005 12:37:07 GMT -5
Hmm... I don't think there is some deep profound meaning of the gulls painting. What I love about Kate is that she was so devoted to her relationships, especially the females. Because it is important to have friends and she worked to keep those friendships. And it IS unfortunate that certain relationships have been misrepresented although from what many people who worked with Katharine Hepburn have said, she wasn't just into men. And it's not surprising with her liberal point-of-view. I think a lot of Kate fans are quick to jump on anyone who suggests she was bisexual. Maybe because she's their beloved Kate and they don't want to think that she was capable of such "sin" even though she was an atheist. OH well... Her birthday is in 9 days!
|
|
|
Post by Smith on May 4, 2005 14:51:41 GMT -5
I think that one of the reasons that people react to any suggestion that Katharine might be gay/bisexual is that some of the people who have claimed that seem to be exploiting her after she is gone . Having said that, there is no evidence that I have ever come across that Katharine was bisexual/gay and your claim that she wasn't just into men is incorrect . I have not read anything from Katharine's friends that made that claim . I don't count Irene because I think Berg made the point that she had an axe to grind . Katharine also denied the rumours
|
|
|
Post by Judy on May 4, 2005 23:05:23 GMT -5
Hi, Smith - I couldn't agree with you more....It's not asking the question that I mind: Was she gay/bisexual? It's when the answer is given and still not believed. She specificaly addressed these rumors in ALL ABOUT ME...and a bit in her book, ME. She certainly did not have to do that. It wasn't exactly the topic on everyone's mind when they thought about her. Yet she did - in a very subtle and typically humorous, provocative way. Still there are people who don't seem to want to take no for an answer. And if one argues the case, one is in danger of being accused of being homophobic. I am anything but. And I wouldn't care one way or the other, since whatever she was made her the person we adore. But I choose to believe what Kate said about herself.....And I also get annoyed when strong female friendships are winked at with that insufferable "we know better" attitude. I think Kate adored women, and she knew some great ones. But she denied the rumors when she didn't even have to address them, and that's good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Catherine on May 5, 2005 20:37:28 GMT -5
It's not out of disrespect that I keep an open mind with the suggestion that she was bisexual. In those days it wasn't something that you admitted to publicly. Did Cary Grant ever come out? I don't remember ever reading about it but I do know that it's not a well-known fact although it's quite obvious now. As for Kate denying being bisexual, she never did. She denied that anything happened between her and Laura Harding by saying "we always thought that was funny." I'm just saying, from the point-of-view of someone who is bisexual, that the ways in which she "denied" the suggestion is somewhat indicative of a closeted bisexual. I agree that she just loved women and had many close relationships and if she was bisexual, it is hard to believe because she was so open about everything else. I'm not trying to exploit... or disrespect Kate. She's nothing short of an idol for me. It is just something that I have noticed after reading several of her biographies. Sorry to agitate anyone. 
|
|
|
Post by Smith on May 5, 2005 21:34:59 GMT -5
I don't think anybody is being exploitative by saying that Katharine might have been bisexual although I think certain authors most certainly have been . I guess you have to ask the question if Katharine was bisexual who could she possibly have been having a relationship with and since she denied it was with Laura that doesn't leave many possibilities . I recently had the opportunity to see a collection of letters that Katharine wrote over a period of 40 years and her descriptions of Spencer leave us in no doubt that he was the love of her life - the letters written after his death are especially sad .
Something that also gets forgotten is that Katharine as a young woman worked on Broadway and she knew many women whom were gay/bisexual . So the opportunites were there. Apparently as well she knew about it because in later life she was asked about Eva La Galliene and she said her sexual preferences were well known and that it was a perfectly normal way to be . So she was accepting .
Katharine denied she was gay - could she really say any more ?
|
|
|
Post by Judy on May 5, 2005 21:52:20 GMT -5
I don't think your posts are designed to agitate. Not in the least. And since they obviously come from a place of respect for KH, as do mine, I'm all for the conversation. We all look at things from our own life experience. It's all good conversation.
My personal view about her comments about Laura Harding (which I don't suggest is the truth, just my understanding of it) is that rather than being indicative of a closeted bisexual, they were tantamount to denial. In the most broad (you should pardon the expression) way possible, I'll agree.
But that was typical of her. She was not one to speak in detail about the things deep inside that made her tick - at least not for public consumption. Which is why my feeling is that her making that comment - we thought it was funny and so did our beaus - or words to that effect - to me, is about as much of a denial as one could ever expect of her. More, in fact. Again, I don't think she had to address this at all, and the fact that she did makes me believe her....
Now, I suppose one could argue that this was her way of "testing the waters"...teasing just enough to confuse us all. Forever playing with perceptions of herself. But I don't think so. So that's just my view.
Also the line in her book about Spencer - something like "I think you thought I was a lesbian. Not for long. Did you" - was a gorgeously subtle way of telling most of us what we wanted to know about her and about the two of them (and anyone who says they were not curious about that part of their relationship is...well, probably lying).
My feeling, too, is that she was just exactly the type of personality who would purposely set out to play with her image in the public's mind - or rather the press's - as if to say, you believe THIS about me? Well, get a load of this - to taunt them and play up to the rumors, just as she did with her mode of dress and her pronouncements about having mothered a couple of black kids.
It's probably more her own doing than anything that the rumors persist to this day. Just as their different residences seem to perpetuate the myth that her relationship with Spencer Tracy was platonic.
Anyway - to borrow from your last line - I ALSO no intention of agitating anyone. And I wish to heck (I wasn't gonna say heck but not sure what one is free to say on these forums) I knew how to add a smiley face so that this post would be so gosh darn (there I go again) serious.
|
|
|
Post by George on May 6, 2005 2:07:48 GMT -5
Wassup Guys, Interesting post. Must put my two or three cents in. Being a known fan of Kate's to my freinds and others that know me..that question comes up from time to time. Was she? Wasn't she? I tell them that I honestly don't think that she was gay/bisexual. I agree with Judy that she states in her autobiography and the documentary "all about me" that she wasn't. Given the intense relationship with Spencer and her relationships with Hughes, Leland Hayward, and Luddy..I just don't think the gay claim holds much water. One thing that always puzzled me though was that Kate claims to not even know what homosexuality was. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I do remeber reading that in some biography. I doubt that since she worked in the entertainment industry and the Hepburn clan discussed almost anything and everything. Peace George
|
|
|
Post by Smith on May 6, 2005 2:25:02 GMT -5
The claim was by Garson that she didn't know about male homosexuality which I find pretty dubious . In the Cukor biography there is a small section in the notes . When the author asked her about George she said didn't know that much about his homosexuality and the subject in general . But they then talked about it in quite a casual way - because of the times she had apparently never discussed the subject in great detail . Katharine went to a women's university and she worked with all types of people so I assume she knew a fair few gay women . When asked about Evan La Galliene she said , I knew that she was queer and I didn't think it was queer that she was" . A typical Katharine quip .
|
|
|
Post by Catherine on May 6, 2005 13:03:11 GMT -5
I have to agree with Judy... and to make a smiley, just do the colon and parenthese... (is that the singular word for parentheses?). and i think you can just click on the smiley you want as well ;D yeah, you can. there isn't a doubt in my mind that her relationship with spencer tracy was the most important in her life and that he was probably her only true love... i really really didn't want to bring up the darwin porter "biography" because i think it is, for the most part, the biggest pile of manure i've ever (partially) read. but there's just this little curiosity that i have that makes me wonder about all the people he claims to have interviewed over twenty years. could he have made all of that up and could all of those people have been lying? yes, i'm sure it's possible. but still, my gullible mind wonders. kate's denial of being a lesbian is true. she obviously wasn't a lesbian... hello? BUT as you have mentioned before, she was surrounded by many lesbians while in New York in her earlier years. i remember reading somewhere -- i thought it was in her autobiography -- that her first crush was on her gym teacher when she was about 10 years old. her gym teacher's name was cathy i believe. but, i have issues with memory. anyway, if kate could read this conversation, i'm sure she'd be laughing her ass off. ciao!  ps out of curiosity because i have noticed there are a lot of young kate fans out there... how old is everyone here? i'm 24.
|
|
|
Post by smith on May 6, 2005 14:47:49 GMT -5
Darwin Porter is a liar from start to finish and many of the people he claimed to have interviewed were dead before he was born or he was way to young to have interviewed them . I have a policy of never discussing the book in detail so I will stick to general stuff - I guess you know why the honeymoon story is not true so I will skip that story . What Porter has done is use other people's biographies take the words to make them more salacious and then claim them as his own ( without credit) This often results in hilarious mistakes . The book is a complete fabrication.
I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Katharine's crush on her teacher . Its a normal part of growing up and I don't think it indicates anything but yes its in Katharine's autobiography . At the same time Katharine also had a crush on the local fisherman - she later told Kanin about it
|
|
|
Post by Judy on May 6, 2005 15:34:17 GMT -5
To Smith: Once again, I agree with you. Porter's book is salacious nonsense.
To Catherine: See....here's the thing about lies. People can say or apparently write anything about anyone (especially if the poor soul is dead) and even though the stuff they say is trash, it plants a seed. And the lies get sent out into the ether, they're given a voice. So that even someone like yourself, who realizes it's nonsense, still has lingering questions. So I think one must use research and common sense to ferret out the truth or at least to be able to challenge the lies.
Could everything in that Porter book be a lie? Is the Pope Catholic? :-) (I may be one of the few Mac users out there and clicking on those silly faces does nothing.)
PS Catherine, I'm old enough to be your mother....or at least your incredibly well-preserved older sister :-(
|
|
|
Post by Judy on May 6, 2005 15:36:06 GMT -5
Oops. I just saw my message - and there are the smiley faces! Success.
|
|
|
Post by George on May 8, 2005 12:00:56 GMT -5
sup, Kate has a lot of young fans it seems. She just seems to strike a chord. Don't really know how to explain it. But I'm 22 and have loved her since I was like 11 or 12. so there ya go. Peace George
|
|