The Day: “Hosting Miss Hepburn”

July 1st, 2003 § 2 comments § permalink

Katharine Hepburn, with Henry Fonda, in “On Golden Pond” in 1981

Upon hearing of Katharine Hepburn’s death in June 2003, I wrote this piece, hurriedly, as an op-ed for The Day, New London CT’s newspaper, while I was executive director of the Eugene O’Neill Theatre Center in adjacent Waterford. They accepted it and ran it almost immediately, as Miss Hepburn’s home in Fenwick was part of the paper’s distribution area on the eastern Connecticut shoreline and her passing, while international news, held special meaning for those who lived near her for so many years.

By the winter of 1991, six years into my tenure as the public relations director at Hartford Stage, the prospect of meeting a celebrity had lost its allure.  Starting when I was in college, I had many opportunities to pass in and out of the celebrity sphere – interviewing Ian McKellen for the school paper, attending small readings by Isaac Asimov and Jerzy Kosinski, exchanging pleasantries with Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly at a fundraiser.  At Hartford, we had famous people in our shows and other famous people attending our shows.

Proximity had brought a realization: while I might stop a conversation by saying, truthfully, “Grace Kelly put her hand on this shoulder,” the story really had nowhere to go after that.  These encounters were so fleeting, that I know I didn’t register with these idols, nor could I claim any knowledge of them beyond what I knew before.  Simply meeting someone for a moment meant very little.

So I was nonplussed – if not mildly put out – when my bosses summoned me to ask a favor.

Sam Waterston (pre-Law and Order) and Cynthia Nixon (pre-Sex and the City) were appearing in Ibsen’s The Master Builder and Sam had a special request.  He had a guest coming to the Saturday matinee whom he wanted to have “looked after,” but both of my bosses had immovable prior commitments.  So would I come in on my day off and attend to the needs of Katharine Hepburn?

In light of her passing this week, it is perhaps inconceivable to that I viewed this as an imposition.  Mind you, I admired Miss Hepburn as much as any self-respecting film buff would, particularly for The African Queen and The Lion in Winter.  But the fact remained that I was going to give up a whole day to say hello as she breezed into the theater, offer her a drink at intermission and make sure she got to see Sam after the matinee.  What a way to waste a Saturday.  And after all, this was the famously blunt and aristocratic Katharine Hepburn; one wrong word and she’d probably take my head off. Nonetheless, I agreed.

On the designated day, my first surprise came at 1:30, a full hour before the performance, when a member of the house staff rushed up to me to say, “She’s here.” I  hustled out to the box office just as Miss Hepburn – alone – advanced to the box office.  I quickly introduced myself.

“Who do I pay for these?” she demanded.  “I insist on paying.”

In a moment of consummate tact, I responded, “That’s fine.  We’re happy to take your money.”  So much for savoir faire in the face of celebrity.

I offered to escort her directly into the theater, where the seats were comfortable and she would not be on display for everyone who entered.  A companion joined her, and I took her to her seat.

Once she was seated, I expected our perfunctory tete-a-tete to be at an end.  But no: could I tell her about the production?  Could I tell her about how Hartford Stage was doing? What other shows would we be doing this season? And thus three-quarters of an hour went by, with her questions and my answers ending only once it was clear I was blocking seat access for other patrons.

Well, that was pleasant enough, I thought.  Now I’ve got to kill three hours until the show is over.

But at the first intermission, when I went to offer her a drink, the questions began again, specifically about Cynthia.  Who was she?  Where did we find her?  Isn’t she marvelous? Doesn’t Sam respond to her so well?

Now, to be honest, I’m charmed.  Here is this 83-year-old icon of cinema, and she enthusiastically wants to hear whatever I can tell her.  She’s oblivious to the audience around her – she’s simply a consummate fan, and we spoke until the lights went down again.

At the second intermission, she was content to chat with her guest.  Since I noticed that the audience members were leaving her alone (giving her the same respect and distance I had seen people give to John Houseman a few years earlier), I let her be.

At the play’s conclusion, the plan was to let the theater empty out, and Sam would come down from his dressing room to see her.  “Nonsense,” said Miss Hepburn, “Let’s go see him.”  And she insisted I lead her immediately to her friend.

When they connected, I watched Sam, who had been very reserved with me throughout his time in Hartford, light up with what could only be joy.  He leaned down and she kissed him, like an aunt, or even a parent.  He glowed with evident delight as she praised him and the production.  I watched as a patrician icon and an imposing actor of a younger generation basked in the pleasure of seeing each other.

For all her famous candor, her single-mindedness, her independence, her privacy, Katharine Hepburn revealed in those few short hours her vitality, her intellect and her capacity to take pleasure in plays and people.  She transformed my afternoon into a great experience, a singular encounter. And how did she insure that?

As she parted from Sam, and I walked her back to her waiting car, she was quiet, moving slowly.  But as we approached, this legend suddenly turned, took my hand, and said, “Well, you’ve been pretty goddamn nice, haven’t you?”  I imagine I smiled, beamed, grinned, just as Sam had minutes before, absorbing the full effect of her warmth. I can’t even remember replying.

Tough, feisty Katharine Hepburn thought I had been nice.  Well, who would have thought it?  So was she.  So was she.

The Daily Pennsylvanian: “From Amadeus to D.H. Lawrence”

October 22nd, 1981 § 0 comments § permalink

The following article was my first effort at writing journalism and the first celebrity interview I ever conducted; I reproduce it intact, save for addressing some non-existent copy editing and failed proofing. After trying to break into writing for the entertainment magazine at my university’s newspaper throughout my freshman year, I was given this assignment early in my sophomore year by the entertainment editor because, in his words, “We’ve been offered an interview with Ian McKellen and nobody here knows who he is.”  Obviously that is unimaginable now, but this was 1981, years before The Lord of The Rings and the X-Men films. Given the path of my theatrical career in the 30 years that followed, there’s tremendous irony in many of my subject’s comments in the first part of the interview; I had completely forgotten them. The thrill of this interview came full circle in 2010, when I recorded an hour-long podcast with Sir Ian in London, even referencing this interview during that conversation.

“As an actor I certainly learn as much from bad acting as I do from good acting, perhaps rather more. It’s easier to see what’s gone wrong when it’s bad,” muses Ian McKellen, discussing the Broadway season which he dominated with his performance in Amadeus. He pauses, thinking. “There must’ve been something I really enjoyed…I think it was a rather lean year and it’s difficult to recommend for most of the people. It seems as usual that as far as plays go, Off-Broadway is more productive than Broadway.” So how does McKellen react to the fame he garnered through his Best Actor in a Play Tony Award for Amadeus while aware of his lack of competition?

“Well, it’s very nice, isn’t it? I try not to believe it,” chuckles McKellen, “because it doesn’t really make any sense. The best dressed man, the most beautiful baby, the most glamorous grandmother…The Best Actor. There is such determination that through The Tony Awards, seen by 250 million people throughout the world, that New York should be advertising its pre-eminence in the show biz stakes. It is a sort of publicity event to publicize New York. And as New York’s fortunes have dipped in the past few years, so the Tonys’ have come up. When one understands that one is caught up in that, it’s easier to keep a sense of proportion.”

Countering this critical view, McKellen continues, “However, everyone is so pleased on your behalf, in England, in the press, the people I meet in the streets. Everyone in New York concerned with getting on seems to see Broadway and anyone who’s on Broadway as a symbol of their own success. It’s wonderful; they’re terribly pleased for you. They’re not envious, they just want to come shake your hand. I think it sort of confirms that they’re on the right lines, that the American Dream won’t die if you work hard enough and, with a bit of luck, you’ll make it.”

McKellen can afford such ideals. A six-year fixture in the Royal Shakespeare Company, a Broadway star in Amadeus and now a film star in Priest of Love (portraying novelist D.H. Lawrence), it would seem that McKellen could well be the next Olivier or Scofield. But he retains a certain humility, casually observing the newfound glitter in his life and the actions of others in the same situation.

“I was backstage with Elizabeth Taylor at The Tony Awards and she was drinking a glass of champagne. She was the only person there who was and I asked her for a sip and she said, ‘You’re going to share a glass with a loser?’ She felt she had lost. It really won’t do if you’re in the business.”

McKellen, coming from a mining town in northern England, began his love of theatre early, acting in amateur productions and going to all the shows he could. But English Lit at Cambridge interfered and McKellen avoided Drama out of insecurity. “I’d seen far too many good actors and I didn’t think I was good enough to be a pro. But one or two people said I was, so I thought I’d give it a whirl. And I’m still whirling.”

That whirling spun McKellen into the Royal Shakespeare Company and then into the London production of Bent, originating the role of Max, the homosexual concentration camp victim made famous in the U.S. by Richard Gere. From Bent he whirled in Amadeus. As Antonio Salieri, the embittered rival of Wolfgang Mozart, McKellen carved a theatrical figure which remains permanently etched on one’s memory. And yet, “It’s the kind of performance which at home I’ve really tried to stop giving,” he notes. Elaborating, McKellen compares the part to 19thcentury British drama where “reality was more displayed. It was safe to say,” and he bellows, “’The bells, the bells, the bells!’ It was absolutely alright. You know, ‘God’s in his heaven and he’s an Englishman.’ Now we’re not quite so certain about things. It’s a bit more neurotic.” And McKellen prefers the latter style, “this other level of reality.”

This reality is easier to portray in films and that is McKellen’s new direction. Though no plans or contracts are on the horizon, he hopes to work more in movies, since Priest of Love is his first film in 13 years and his first starring role.

“It was a bit unnerving to get up each morning, touch up the beard, dye the hair red, put on the 1920s clothes, look in the mirror and say, ‘Well, good morning D.H. Lawrence.’ But it also feels quite good to walk onto a set and people refer to you as Lawrence rather than as Ian. It’s a bit of a compliment.”

Clearly enamored of the character of D.H. Lawrence, McKellen expresses many views on Lawrence’s life, his portrayal and his own life.

“I can understand all the constrictions which he felt in that small northern community. The puritanicalism which he kept throughout his life, which I’ve got inside of me, which I keep measuring myself up against.”

“There was another strand of his character that was very appealing to me, for me to be understandable of course, is that he loved acting. He loved the music hall, the red-nosed comics, vaudeville. He was obviously often aware of the effect he was having. He wasn’t the retired little actor.”

“There was evidence that Lawrence’s heterosexuality wasn’t as secure as he presented it. There were many young men in his life that he was obviously attracted by, not saying that he slept with them. I don’t think he ever admitted to himself that he could be a homosexual, but I think he was. Or maybe bisexual, but  not practicing.” More personally, he adds, “I don’t see much difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. They seem to be about the same. If you’re in love, you’re in love. If you’re having sex, you’re having sex.”

Despite his fame and brilliance, Ian McKellen remains personable and direct. In discussing Lawrence’s attraction to his wife and hers to him, he remarks, eyes sparkling, “Oh well, maybe they just liked fucking.”