This page is referenced by:

• 1 2018-03-09T14:14:36-08:00 Androgyny and Negotiating Queerness in Sylvia Scarlett 8 Androgynous Kate plain 2018-03-09T20:05:13-08:00 During the 1930s, Kate had a clear preference for films where her character was more masculine or androgynous.  This preference included short hair but should come as no surprise to anyone who knew her as a child. Kate told biographer Charlotte Chandler that, "she had shaved her head and wore her older brother's clothes as a child,"insisting she be called "Jimmy.  
  
  Despite enjoying this masculine construction of identity,  Hepburn also explained that she never felt like a "Jimmy" inside (I Know where I'm Going: Katharine Hepburn: A Personal Biography).  But, in a 1981 interview with Barbara Walters, Hepburn concede that: “I have not lived as a woman. I have lived as a man.”
   
  Therefore, while she may have embraced sexual or gender ambiguity, it is ambiguous if she intended for heterosexual audiences to blatantly see her as a bisexual or lesbian character in any of these films.  Moreover, my position for purposes of a star's image and this book is that Hepburn's private self (and Hepburn was very private) is irrelevant. It is the construction of the various texts and cultural norms surrounding the star that determine identity. Here, even if she had bisexual relationships herself, they did not become part of the public texts.
  
  
  However, the cultural norms of a 1935 largely white heterosexual audience likely found this text highly troubling. Moreover, although not known by the public in 1935, Cukor was gay, cast a masculine lead actress in the role,  and the film has become a popular text for Feminist and Queer Film theory studies, makes it highly likely that a 1935 audience would have been equally sensitized the code words and images used in this text. 
  
  Putting aside Sylvia's rapid embrace of the freedoms boys have, her inability when she puts on a dress to return to and part of the "silly girl" we saw at the beginning is telling. There is also the first scene with Michael Fane (the Artist), where he is oddly attracted to the beautiful young boy. And, then later, when he discovers Sylvester's true gender, his hysterical laughter and relief that he was not having queer feelings. Yet, given how much Hepburn looks like a young boy, it is difficult to draw the line. An argument can also be made that the jail scene of Sylvester (Sylvia) and Michael is a metaphor for two characters being imprisoned by their sexuality. Monkley is also problematic when he calls Sylvia a “proper little hot water bottle” when he believes she is a boy and wants to snuggle with him.  I also wonder if this film was Kate's attempt to see if her public would accept her no matter what her sexuality was--something that was more of a concern in the 1930s than at the end of the 20th century. But, as Dyer has stated repeatedly in his text, the "real" Kate we will never know.
  
  
  
  Hepburn's reluctance to be a woman is a critical clash with contemporary cultural norms that cannot be easily resolved for most heterosexual men and women. Hepburn failed to address this question in the construction of her star image, and by not proffering alternative images to the public, this failure led to her  box office downfall in 1938.
  
  Some images of Kate with shorn hair include: