The New Movie Magazine (Jan-Sep 1935)

LEWIS PICKS HEPBURN English play called "The Lake," a social whoop-te-doo that was very, very British and that was right up the alley of the Bryn Mawr Katharine. It was a mess and it flopped. And to the credit of Katharine, who got no rave notices for her acting, it can be said she was a good deal better than her role. From another standpoint "The Lake" is frightfully important, for it justifies the red badge of courage I have pinned to her boyish form. This, in the event that you don't know, is the background of that production in so far as it affects Miss Hepburn. She was then, in Hollywood, gliding to Garbo heights as a box-office pay-off, an achievement won for her work in "Morning Glory" which made her. an academician; I mean she won the 1932 award for the best performance. What a curious position ! Virtually a ham on Broadway, a recognized star on the screen. I needn't remind you of the acclaim that is hers in pictures. And nobody had to remind the Broadway producers that here was a set-up to make a lot of dough. It was good show-business (and it still was justified even if "The Lake" . In a scene from "Christopher Strong." did fold), to bring back the gal who had flopped on Broadway (1), to give her the chance to justify legitimately her, if you will forgive me, reel life; (2) divert the stream of pence she was funnelling into picture palaces into the box-office of the more intimate theater. She had, I repeat, to justify herself. There is a yarn told about her; that in her stateroom on the train, en route to Washington where "The Lake" was to open, she was so nervous she could scarcely speak above a whisper. The Broadway opening that followed must have been agony to her. Any "first night" in New York is no set-up, as every actor, however iced his arteries, will tell you. Many of them take a double Scotch and soda before their entrance. Incidentally, this practice used always to make the late David Belasco furious. He told me once that "only the hams need it." And he used to tell his company, too, often shaming them into denying themselves this artificial fortification. The New Movie Magazine, January, 1935 Well, here was Katharine Hepburn, back on Broadway carrying the amazing burden of having to make good after all she had been to the picture public. And she took it in her stride. Even with hers, she couldn't leap the footlights. But, if she faltered, no arm had to catch her. Such fortitude does not appeal to Mr. Lewis alone. "Hollywood," she once said, "hasn't done a thing for me. Nor do I wish it to. Whatever comes to me I want to come through my own efforts. That attitude may seem ungrateful. But I don't mean it that way. "Just because my first appearance in 'A Bill of Divorcement' happened to be successful is no reason why I should kneel in thanks Do you agree that "Spitfire," in which Miss Hepburn is pictured below, was her best role? giving to Hollywood." You see? Head high, chin up, not out. And then she spoiled it all. "The picture had John Barrymore in it. That's why it was successful. I just tagged along." These are gracious remarks. But nobody can convince me that they were uttered from the Hepburn heart. She redeemed this in her concluding remarks which are Hepburn again and not hooey. "To me Hollywood is just another place of pavements, shops and people rushing like mad. I've done things for myself all my life. I've fought for what I wanted — and gotten most of the things. And I intend to continue doing that. I don't want Hollywood's help." This alone would justify Mr. Lewis' acclaim. I wonder if Miss Hepburn can offer him a wreath. She ought to. For I can think of no two celebrities whose characteristics merge with such delightful humanness. For despite Miss Hepburn's phony femininity in her films, she is all girl — and all youth. I don't see her as the blase type of the overwrought neurotic in "A Bill of Divorcement." There is too much of the wood-sprite in Hepburn who, I like to fancy, and I fancy Or was it as Jo in "Little Women"? Mr. Lewis does also, is waiting, just back of the barn, for a romp through the fields. That's why her best role is "Spitfire." And why her "Little Minister" provokes such a storm of controversy. I admire her studio for thus casting her. It was as brave as she is. It was difficult to imagine her in so soft a thing as the subtlety of Barrie. And how sincerely she demonstrates that she is flesh as well as bone! Almost, Mr. Lewis has picked her for me as well as himself. I can well fancy her as a character in one of the Lewis novels. For her roots, as his, are deep in the soil. Always she sways like a stalk of corn in a wind-swept field. She is that strong, that fruitful. She belies, if you will analyze her, the perfumed pet with lips smeared like a red wound. Look at her, as I like to believe Mr. Lewis does, in the sun. This is the light of Mr. Lewis's vision. Show me a page of his books that are livid with the synthetic (Please turn to page 56) 29 ifll