Where Is Our Modern Katharine Hepburn?
I have a friend, an aspiring actress, who bears an uncanny resemblance to the young Katharine Hepburn.
This resemblance is not merely physical. Like Hepburn, my friend is sharp-witted, intellectual, opinionated, highly independent and at times slightly mannish. I find her very attractive.
But I’m left wondering: could this constellation of personal traits make for a major movie star today? My hunch is that if Hepburn were starting out now, she would have little chance of becoming the box office and Oscar phenomenon that she ultimately became. And I’m inclined to wonder if actors like Hepburn’s sometime screen partners Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart could be popular male romantic leads today either.
Yet in 2000, Hepburn and Bogart were voted the two greatest screen actors of all time in a Library of Congress-sponsored poll, while Hepburn and Tracy were perhaps the greatest male-female comedy team in screen history. Why have the signal qualities that these actors possessed — maturity and intelligence — become faults today?
Consider Hollywood’s latest flavors of the month — Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Anniston, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson, Chris O’Donnell, Vin Diesel, Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Garner — and it’s clear that brainiacs need not apply.
Hollywood film executives have apparently concluded that audiences out in the heartland multiplexes aren’t comfortable anymore with intelligent actors like Bogart or Tracy. Would any studio today cast Claude Raines as the lead in a special effects-driven feature like "The Invisible Man"? The male leads today must be either young and pretty (think Leonardo DiCaprio, Pitt or Tobey Maguire) or, for action films, physically powerful and bluff (Russell Crowe or Vin Diesel).
For female roles, the Julia Roberts template has become the mould for most every actresses who seeks to be a star. Women today like to watch spunky everywoman types that they can relate to — slender, graceful fantasy versions of themselves.
The values of the 1930’s and, for that matter, the 1950’s, a time when Hollywood was still in the business of selling male stars who projected adulthood and responsibility — like William Holden and Gregory Peck — are obviously in abeyance, if not decline.
Some of this change, of course, reflects the declining average age of film audiences. But this isn’t the whole explanation. For Hollywood is as much reflecting the public moods and desires as it is shaping them.
So, if American women want to know where all that sober "husband material" they once sought has gone, maybe they should ask themselves if they’ve adequately sought for and respected it. Likewise, if women resent being reduced in male eyes to the position of tarts like Britney Spears, then maybe they need to learn to root again for stars with dignity and smarts: actresses like Kate the Great was. What we herald and applaud, we become.
This resemblance is not merely physical. Like Hepburn, my friend is sharp-witted, intellectual, opinionated, highly independent and at times slightly mannish. I find her very attractive.
But I’m left wondering: could this constellation of personal traits make for a major movie star today? My hunch is that if Hepburn were starting out now, she would have little chance of becoming the box office and Oscar phenomenon that she ultimately became. And I’m inclined to wonder if actors like Hepburn’s sometime screen partners Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart could be popular male romantic leads today either.
Yet in 2000, Hepburn and Bogart were voted the two greatest screen actors of all time in a Library of Congress-sponsored poll, while Hepburn and Tracy were perhaps the greatest male-female comedy team in screen history. Why have the signal qualities that these actors possessed — maturity and intelligence — become faults today?
Consider Hollywood’s latest flavors of the month — Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Anniston, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson, Chris O’Donnell, Vin Diesel, Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Garner — and it’s clear that brainiacs need not apply.
Hollywood film executives have apparently concluded that audiences out in the heartland multiplexes aren’t comfortable anymore with intelligent actors like Bogart or Tracy. Would any studio today cast Claude Raines as the lead in a special effects-driven feature like "The Invisible Man"? The male leads today must be either young and pretty (think Leonardo DiCaprio, Pitt or Tobey Maguire) or, for action films, physically powerful and bluff (Russell Crowe or Vin Diesel).
For female roles, the Julia Roberts template has become the mould for most every actresses who seeks to be a star. Women today like to watch spunky everywoman types that they can relate to — slender, graceful fantasy versions of themselves.
The values of the 1930’s and, for that matter, the 1950’s, a time when Hollywood was still in the business of selling male stars who projected adulthood and responsibility — like William Holden and Gregory Peck — are obviously in abeyance, if not decline.
Some of this change, of course, reflects the declining average age of film audiences. But this isn’t the whole explanation. For Hollywood is as much reflecting the public moods and desires as it is shaping them.
So, if American women want to know where all that sober "husband material" they once sought has gone, maybe they should ask themselves if they’ve adequately sought for and respected it. Likewise, if women resent being reduced in male eyes to the position of tarts like Britney Spears, then maybe they need to learn to root again for stars with dignity and smarts: actresses like Kate the Great was. What we herald and applaud, we become.
A.R.Brook Lynn’s reply to Leaf’s essay can be found here, and Agnes Peterson’s take on Hepburn is here.
—The Eds.
Copyright 2002-2006, New Partisan and its contributors. All rights reserved. RSS


Well, really, only women can be mothers, right? And we all know everything's the mother's fault.
How old are you?
Did Rebecca even read Leaf's article -- "And I'm inclined to wonder if actors like Hepburn's sometime screen partners Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart could be popular male romantic leads today either." His point is the infantilization of our popular culture and the popularization of depravity. How she reads woman bashing into that is beyond me, unless she prefers Britney Spears to the fabulous Hepburn.
Just my two cents.
Why doesn't the article end like this:
So, if men want to know where all the fabulous women they're looking for are, maybe they should ask themselves if they've adequately sought for and respected them. Likewise, if men resent being reduced in female eyes to brainless action heroes, maybe they should learn to to root again for stars with dignity and smarts: actors like Humphrey Bogart. What we herald and applaud, we become.
Andrew: I agree with you. Admittedly, I was making sweeping generalizations. I think in the broad sense though that they're telling.
Everyone: thanks for the comments and criticisms. I'm appreciative.
Know yourself, and work towards becoming the best self you can. Often criticisms of others reveal personal weaknesses, and may serve as a trajectory for recognition, contrition, and improvement.
What I mean is, while playing the tart in life, you come to blame others for your transgressions, and belittle others, because it feels sexier than owning up to it.
Zadie Smith is wildly famous, and what about Stewart O'Nan who completed a Masters in fiction at Cornell, or Ethan Canin who finished an MFA at the University of Iowa and an MD at Harvard? Surely these are some of the most powerful voices today. (Re: Mr. Leaf's attack on MFAs)
--TM
Senior Editor
Please also read our A.R. Brook Lynn's article on the hunt for our modern Hepburn, which takes a different tact entirely.
A year or so ago I happened to overhear a conversation among a group of young men (elite university students) that involved one of them bragging to the others about how he was lying to his girlfriend. It bothered me not so much that he was lying to his girlfriend as that all three of them tacitly agreed that this was something worthy of bragging about. The suspicion this raises is an old one: that when men (some men, anyway) get together and think women aren't listening, they let themselves get into a lazy way of thinking, or talking, in which only men really count as humans. Sometimes the internet (I hate the term "blogosphere," but I suppose this is what I'm talking about) seems like this kind of space -- one where men can relax in the assumption that their readership is male. Just as, in other contexts, white people relax in the assumption that their readership is white. Or whatever -- the behavior is not exclusive to those in positions of privilege. (Though the effects may be disproportionate depending upon privilege.)
Which is not to say that "Jonathan Leaf thinks women aren't humans"! In fact, I doubt you were assuming your readership didn't include women. I'm just inclined to vigilance about certain specific kinds of intellectual laziness that tend in the direction of creating male-only conversations, or the impression thereof....