MovieChat Forums > Now, Voyager (1942) Discussion > Kate Vs. Bette? No contest

Kate Vs. Bette? No contest

posted 11 years ago by aciolino
16 replies | jump to latest

I laughed heartily when several years ago, Kate Hepburn was voted (by some anonymous body of idiots) to have been the greatest screen actress. Well, she was still alive at the time and Bette wasn't, so. . . okay.

But really, if you look at their respective roles, I'm sorry, Kate had one "note," which she played in every film. Her range as an actress (and she was terrific) ran the gamut from "A" to "B" (yes, I stole that, but it's true).

Can you imagine Hepburn in the role of Charlotte Vale? Can you imagine her undergoing the changes, the mental anguish, etc. that Davis displays?

Please.

Unthinkable.

[–] mcornett 11 years ago

As much as I've enjoyed many of Kate's movies...I agree 100%. She would have been miscast as Charlotte.

Davis played Charlotte's fear and insecurity brilliantly; it rang true for me, and that's speaking as someone who had three years of therapy and often felt as Charlotte seemed to feel. And even after her makeover and taking control of her life, you still see bits and pieces, because it's something that never goes away completely.

"Value your education. It's something nobody can ever take away from you." My mom.

[–] ModernAudrey 11 years ago

I love them both, and don't see that there should be a competition.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

I happen to think Bette Davis the better actress than Kate Hepburn, but the test of whether Kate could play Charlotte is an unfair one. I might have difficulty seeing Davis in some of Hepburn's roles, too. Philadelphia Story? Hm, that does seem rather like a role Bette had in Mr. Skeffington, I suppose, but not that close. Perhaps The Lion in Winter is a role Hepburn won the Oscar for and I really can't see Bette Davis even being considered for it.

On the other hand it would have been quite interesting to see Bette Davis in The African Queen. Heh.

[–] apriceaboverubies29 11 years ago

Davis' versatility in her roles during her peak years at WB (1938-1945) is astonishing. Hepburn really didn't show the true depth of her versatility until she in her '50's with Suddenly Last Summer.

Hepburn in Now Voyager? No. Davis in African Queen? Yes (and it would have made for a more interesting film).

"The flip side of fear is understanding."

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Hm. I wonder why you picked 1938 as the beginning of Davis's "peak years" at WB. Her first role for WB was in 1932, and her great performance, for WB, in Of Human Bondage (love the Eleanor Parker version as well, ftr) was in 1934. Her first Oscar was in '35, for Dangerous, also a Warner's film. One of my favorites, The Petrified Forest, also for Warner, was the next year, and in 1937 came Marked Woman.

I suppose then that by peak you mean box office, not necessarily quality (not that the quality of her work went down, by any means).

And yes, I agree Davis in African Queen would have probably made for a better film, as good as Queen is. Interesting that since both were WB properties, I think she was in three or four films with Bogie, but never with both as the leads. Probably despite the Warner connection that is timing, since it was really the breakout film Maltese Falcon that turned Bogie's career, and if anything else we can see after playing that opposite Mary Astor, two years older than Davis, Bogie played opposite even younger women - Ingrid Bergman nearly sixteen years his junior, and of course there was Lauren Bacall and THAT age difference. The same is true for almost all the others, like Lisabeth Scott, Gloria Grahame and Jennifer Jones, all significantly younger than him. The exception of course was African Queen.

(Not to digress but some see High Sierra, done before Falcon, as his breakout film. But of course there Ida Lupino was nearly twenty years younger, so actually playing opposite Mary Astor was even then an exception of sorts.)

So, I am guessing WB casting decisions for Bogart effectively precluded casting female leads nearer in age to him, although for the record Davis was nearly nine years younger. Imo that was a shame.

[–] Harold_Robbins 10 years ago

The 1934 OF HUMAN BONDAGE was made on loan-out to RKO, the first of only two times Davis was loaned-out in her 18 years at Warner Bros. - the other was THE LITTLE FOXES (1941) for Sam Goldwyn.

At one time THE AFRICAN QUEEN was considered for Davis.

In my case, self-absorption is completely justified.

[–] clairus99-1 10 years ago

No one better than bette!

[–] nozomiheiwa 10 years ago

Katherine Hepburn essayed a similar role in Summertime where she was a lonely, single older woman who falls deeply in love during a trip. Her performance was more evocative, in my opinion, and I could feel the ache in her heart and the longing.

[–] aciolino 10 years ago

A similar role? A SIMILAR ROLE?? What drugs are you on? A single older woman. . . is that what Davis did in "Now, Voyager," how many EXTREME changes did that character undertake?

And don't forget we also saw her as a teen-ager in that film!

Kate would have been thrown off the set. What a joke.

[–] joeparkson 10 years ago

In 1942, Hepburn still looked good. She might have pulled it off.

Soy 'un hijo de la playa'

[–] USAFmedicVET 10 years ago

"Can you imagine Hepburn in the role of Charlotte Vale?"

Can you imagine Bette Davis in the role of Ethel Thayer (thounds like I'm listing) in "On Golden Pond"?

Katherine Hepburn had more than one note in her repertoire from a career lasting some 50 years. No actress could come close to either of them today! And they did it on PURE TALENT, no plastic surgery.

"We in it shall be remembered;
We few, we happy few,
We Band of Brothers" ~W.S

[–] aciolino 10 years ago

There are very few roles that Kate did that Davis couldn't do and/or do MUCH better. Kate had ONE role, one character, which she played beautifully. But it was only one. This is why it is said she had no range.

And yes, Davis would have kicked the living snot out of that Thayer role. Of course. Not even a doubt. Gimme a hard one.

I'll give you a hard one: Kate in "Pat and Mike." Great performance and a great athlete which Davis was not.

So she had more than one note? Well you are in opposition not only to me but to the general opinion of critics and writers and purveyors of Hollywood's history.

Name ONE film where she's not playing that same character. One. I'll take ONE.

I hate this kind of conversation because I come off as not respecting or even LOVING Kate which I do for what she did well. I could watch, "Bringing Up Baby," a million times and enjoy it. Or, "African Queen." Brilliant. No one like her for those roles.

But a comparison to Davis is just absurdly not fair to Kate. Even Kate would admit it. There were probably dozens of actresses with a wider range. But what Kate did well. .. it was beautiful. "The calalillies are in bloom again. . ."

PS - loved her on Broadway in "Coco." She did not get NEARLY enough credit for that. Wonderful work. Was lucky to see her in person.

[–] rancencolt 10 years ago

I never post - but this got me thinking.

I LOVE Kate, and I love her in "On Golden Pond," but the incredible amount of meta that would've been Bette as Jane Fonda's mother is fun to think about. Not only were Bette and Jane friends, BUT Bette went on dates with Henry as a teenager in New England AND Jane was born when they were filming "Jezebel." Bette playing her mother would've been incredibly special.

That said, Kate is a large part of the reason I love OGP - so… it's a Sophie's Choice situation that history decided for us.

[–] dollvalley 9 years ago

I love the OP's description of Kate's output: "ran the gamut from A to B"! hahahaha
I actually agree, Kate's roles were always quite similar, and to think that she basically always played a variation of herself.

[–] elena-28 8 years ago

I love the OP's description of Kate's output: "ran the gamut from A to B"! hahahaha
I actually agree, Kate's roles were always quite similar, and to think that she basically always played a variation of herself.

Backing up the reminder that this comment was from Dorothy Parker; as much as I love Dorothy Parker, just because she said it doesn't make the statement true.

For example, Hepburn was capable of showing wonderfully tremulous vulnerability, for example, at the party scene of "Alice Adams", or, in "Stage Door", in the dressing room on opening night, when Ginger Rogers throws Kay's suicide in Terry's face, and how that affects Terry's performance and aftermath. There's also her brittle strength and defenses in "The Rain Maker".

It is true, off the top of my head, that Hepburn's range of characterization was smaller than Davis'; however, to me, that isn't always the test of greatness: you can be great "laterally", like Davis; you can be great "longitudinally", which is how I characterize Hepburn (you can be both, too....). Hepburn arguably had a narrower range than Davis, but she dug that range deep and struck riches. If, too me, a test of great acting is whether I came away moved, in whatever fashion the writer, director and actor wanted me moved. With Davis and Hepburn, that is almost always the case with me. I have an innate negativity toward Crawford, but I can't deny she also often has me where she wants me by the end of a movie. If they've done that, to me, that's greatness, however they manage it.

So, for me, there's no contest between Kate and Bette because they were two very different actresses, and I appreciate them both.

[–] lynnrnsd 9 years ago

"Ran the gamut from A to B"-- that was Dorothy Parker's opinion of Katherine Hepburn, wasn't it? Love Dorothy Parker.
What fresh hell is this?