I hated to start a whole thread just for this question for I wasn't sure where else to put it so - here it goes.

I'm sure you have all discussed this before but I was curious about something. After Leopold and Kate have their rooftop dinner and dance, they kiss and then it cuts to the following morning. Kate is shown waking up in her bed and appears not to have any clothes on. Is it to be assumed that they slept together? I was thinking that this seems out of character for Leopold, since he's such a gentlemen. I can't see him doing that without be married first. But, they do seem very intimate after that. What do you think?

Meredith...

Yes, we've discussed this before. In fact, there is little about Hugh's career and his KNOWN life that hasn't been discussed here. LOL!
Here's my take...

Yes, they slept together that night. Some said no because Leopold was a gentleman and wouldn't compromise a 'lady' in such a way. Some said no because they felt that Leopold was in fact, still a virgin and was waiting for marriage. To those two things I say...

He may have been a gentleman, but he was past thirty and men of that time and social standing (the royals/the aristocracy) did not remain virgins until marriage. They had plenty of affairs, they were just more discreet about it than we are today. As for compromising Kate...

This was Kate's decision. No one forced or compromised her. Leopold knew he wasn't back in the 19th century. He knew that things had changed and that women had been sexually emancipated (if the woman is making her own decisions, if there's no shame in the act, if society could care less, then there's no compromising of a 'lady') AND being a 'modern' himself, might not have been as opposed to this new world as some might think. And he'd fallen in love with her and knowing how precarious their situation was (they could have been separated at any time, never to see each other again) if she was going to consent (in all probability, she made the advance) to their lovemaking, he wasn't going to turn her away (he may have been a gentleman, but he was still a MAN!). Also...

If you look at the 'morning after' scene, it's pretty obvious. Yes, she's in bed, obviously without clothes and with a kind of 'Scarlet O'Hara 'next morning' grin on her face. And where is Leopold? He's still in her apartment, with his clothes a bit dishevled, preparing her breakfast. If he hadn't spent the night with her, why would he be in her apt. (entering while she slept? now THAT is something a gentleman would not do) that early in the morning, not completely dressed and fixing her a meal? Because he woke up there.

Also...
In the original story concept, Kate became pregnant and chose not to follow him back, but rather to stay in the present and have his baby. So, them becoming lovers was always a part of the story...originally.

Did that help? I wish I could explain myself in a sentence or two, but...I cannot. I should be shot.


Barb

This message has been edited. Last edited by: luvsHugh&Rob,

One more thing...

The scene where he carries her in from the balcony, tucks her into bed and then at her invitation, joins her?

He slipped into that bed with her with ease and familiarity. Why? Because he'd already been there, that's why. Had he not, that scene would have played differently. Had they not already been intimate, being invited into to her bed, even though just to hold her while she slept, would have been an 'awkward' moment for him. At the very least, a hesitancy. There was none.

There was no awkwardness in that scene. And that's because they already 'knew' each other.

Barb

This message has been edited. Last edited by: luvsHugh&Rob,

Thanks Barb

I always hesitate to ask questions that I figure you've all beaten to death years ago...

Your explanation makes complete sense, especially considering the original plot concept of Kate becoming pregnant. Thanks for sharing that with me. I definitely never considered Leopold to be a virgin, lol. And while I do take issue with them proceeding to the bedroom quite that fast, I realize that it's only a two hour (or less) movie that is already strewn with plot holes so I'll just decide to be forgiving. One can only imagine how they got from the rooftop to the bedroom. Did he carry her perhaps? And how long did it take her to get him out of all that clothing?

Leopold - "But Kate, where I come from making love is the result of much reflection and planning."

Kate - "Oh, give it up already!"

quote:

Originally posted by luvsHugh&Rob:
Meredith...

Yes, we've discussed this before. In the original story concept, Kate became pregnant and chose not to follow him back, but rather to stay in the present and have his baby. So, them becoming lovers was always a part of the story...originally.

Did that help? I wish I could explain myself in a sentence or two, but...I cannot. I should be shot.


Barb

Thank you , Barb. I've been surprised by that too.
If I was in her shoes, I think, I'd do the same... I mean, I'd go to the past...Once a friend of mine asked me, if I only could save the one : the father or the baby, which one would I choose. So, I chosed the father. Maybe I'm wrong...dunno.

Oxana

I certainly never heard that baby concept before and never thought about if they "knew" each other or not it is just a wonderful movie and I will have to watch it again this weekend!!!

I have to disagree. Considering that the dinner on the roof was their "first date," I would find it hard to believe that Leopold would sleep with Kate even if she did suggest it. I certainly never thought that Leopold was a "virgin," but I think the upbringing of a member of the nobility at that time wouldn't have allowed him to "take advantage" of a woman he respected. As for him being in the same clothes the next morning, for all we know he found those more familiar and comfortable than the modern day clothes he had worn on the night out with Kate's brother.

As for that scene where he tucked her into bed, I'd have to watch it again, but I'm fairly certain he didn't get all the way under the covers with her.

quote:

In the original story concept, Kate became pregnant and chose not to follow him back, but rather to stay in the present and have his baby.

I've heard a lot of things about the original story concept (i.e. Stuart being a descendant of Leopold), but this is the first time I've heard this bit. I've got a copy of the script at home somewhere -- I won it in an auction on Ebay while ago; I'll have to pull it out and read it.

Just my two cents worth...

You're welcome Meredith, Oxana.

As for the 'pregnancy' concept...I don't believe it was a part of any script but rather, a concept that they toyed with and then discarded (Good thing, because how then could Stuart exist? And Stuart's gotta exsist so that he can bring them together so...he can exist. What? LOL) And I'm not sure where I read this either. Just some more usless information you pick up while perusing the internet I guess.

And I suppose it can go back and forth as to whether or not they 'did' or they 'didn't' as it wasn't 'clearly' depicted in the film. But sometimes you have to look beneath the surface of something. Especially in the realm of acting out a story. Shades, nuances, that which is not spoken or even seen, fine lines as oppose to broad strokes.

After the rooftop scene, something had changed between them. The formality was gone. He touched her without hesitancy. There was an intimacy. Perhaps that was because of the rooftop kiss they shared. But I don't think so.
And that don't make me right.

Would be an interesting question to ask Hugh.

Barb

Oh and Meredith?

Don't hesitate to ask questions. It's always fun to revisit something.

Barb

quote:

Originally posted by kec:
I've got a copy of the script at home somewhere -- I won it in an auction on Ebay while ago; I'll have to pull it out and read it.

Just my two cents worth...

wow! can you please make a scan copy of a couple of pages? (never seen original scrips esp. this one ) Thank you!

Oxana

Barb,
I agree with your assessment. (it was implied that they'd slept together) Oh, and it was in the DVD extras that Stuart was a descendant of Kate & Leopold's which they removed because it would have seemed rather incestuous for Kate to have been involved with Stuart prior to meeting Leopold.
P.S. I love this movie even with all the time travel plot holes! LOL!

Nancy

Nancy,

I deplore plot holes. When I catch them I wanna scream...'you're professional writers for hell's sake, FIX THEM!!! But I allow some leeway in a time travel story. I'm not sure why, I just do. Maybe because it's an implausible premise to begin with and therefore, you cannot wrap everything up with a neat bow. Did you ever see Somewhere In Time? The watch? Where did it come from? Elise as an old woman found Richard as young man and gave it to him in 1978. Where did she get it? He gave it to her when he traveled back in time to 1912. So...where did that watch come from? According to that narrative, it only existed for that 68 year time frame. And for some reason, that didn't drive me crazy. I accepted it. Well, if you're going to accept a story about time travel, then you can't bitch and moan about something as pesky as reality.

As for Stuart being their great, great grandson (I think)...I thought it would have made the story more complete if they'd left that in. I mean the idea of their grandchild traveling through time in order to bring them together so that he might exist, well, it's just too charming. I remember that they got squimish about it in the testing of the film. It put people off, which is ridiculous. They could have solved that problem with a few lines of dialouge...

Kate-- "You're my great, great grandson??? But we've slept together. That's sick."

Stuart-- "Kate, we are FIVE GENERATIONS removed from one another. Were barely related. Second cousins can legally marry and were a hell of alot more removed from one another than second cousins. And speaking of cousins, the royal families of Europe married their firsts for years.

Kate-- "Yeah. And look what happened to them."

That little snafu could have been fixed so easily. Why the hell do filmmakers listen to the 'people' so much anyway? The people aren't artists. Leave us out of it. It reminds me of all the negative talk about Edward Cullen being a 'stalker' because he hangs out in Bella's bedroom at night while she's sleeping and as the story unfolds, tags her like a shadow. For crap's sake, he's a predator, a friggin' vampire. What do they want from him? Everything he does is to watch over and protect her. But no...he's a stalker. And that's because we have to put our modern sensibilities into whatever we see or hear. We cannot step back from our own filters to see something in it's OWN light.

Keep the people out of artistic decision making. 'Cause we don't know sh*t from tar about it.

(don't be shy there kiddo. tell 'em what you really think )

Barb

This message has been edited. Last edited by: luvsHugh&Rob,

I've always been in the "they did" side of the "did they or didn't they?" debate, for all the reasons you mentioned, Barb. It was handled with the discretion befitting the Duke of Albany from the 19th century.

And it's funny about the relationship between Stuart and Leopold. The first time I saw the film was on my DVD. It defaults to the directors cut version of the film, which has the whole "great-great grandfather" story line in tact. When I happen upon the studio cut, it seems odd to me.

Jennifer

Yeah Jennifer, they hacked it up because of early testing response. Like I said, so stupid. Glad they put in on the DVD though.

Marketing has ruined films. The audience is waaaaaay to involved in the process. Didn't use to be so and movies were the better for it. We know too much beforehand; leaked scripts, trailers adnauseum, screenings with questionaires. And don't get me started with the internet in all of this. It's ruining the magic of movies. No, that's too kind. The internet is ruining human interaction (don't start Barb. don't start. just smile )

If they made The Wizard Of OZ today, there would be protests that the lion was a gay stereotype and I'm sure that the green movement would have protested the witch somehow. And those characters would have been changed because God forbid, we step on anyone's toes.

Somebody just kill me now.

Barb

Correction...

I maligned filmmakers. Wrong. If they had their way, 'we the people' would have nothing to do with the process of their creativity.

I meant the suits. The bean counters. The money men. The jackals from hell. They're the ones 'gummin' up the whole project.'

Just wanted to clear that up (yeah, like anyone cares you anal retentive idiot)


Barb

I read a supposed original script on the internet in the last year or so. In that version, there's a time machine of sorts (instead of the Brooklyn Bridge). A female scientist goes back in time, is discovered, and Leo accidentally is sent to the future, where he meets Kate. I believe that he and Kate exchange rings and plan to marry. However, he returns to the past to rescue the female scientist, whom, they find out from an old newspaper, is accused of witchcraft and about to be executed. Time goes by, Kate raises his child, while following events in his life in old newspapers. Leopold knows she will be looking at the old photos, so he always makes sure that his ring is in view. Eventually,an elderly Kate is able to travel back in time to be reunited with an elderly Leopold. They waltz like in the movie, and gradually change into their younger personas.

Sorry, I don't remember where I found this. I think I searched KATE AND LEOPOLD script. I think it had James Mangold's name on it.

I found the script. Here's the link. Don't know where I got the witchraft idea, LOL! Actually, Leopold goes back because the scientist is about to die in a fire. He can't stand by and let that happen.

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Kate-&-Leopold.html

Thanks for that link Kathy.

I remember Hugh talking about the original concept of Leopold and saying that basically, he was an insufferable bore (or something like that). Not an appealing character at all. I'll say. I haven't finished reading this early draft, but thus far I'd say he's a right pratt.

I also heard that once upon a time, Sandra Bullock was considered for Kate. I think she would have been great. Hopefully one day, Hugh will get a chance to work with her. Talk about a great pairing.

Barb

Barb,
Somewhere In Time is one of my favorite movies!! I too always thought the same thing--where the hell did the watch come from?! LOL!

Kate & Leopold could have been fixed if they'd only just paid more attention to what they were filming! When Leopold comes back (to the past) he should have arrived right after he originally left with Stuart (otherwise he'd run into himself!), but this is not how they showed it. I need to watch the movie again (it's been awhile!) but I do remember Kate's dress was different too, but that was a continuity error.

Nancy

Another interesting tidbit. I watched K&L again on the Encore Love cable station even though I have the DVD (autographed by Hugh, by the way). During the closing credits, I noticed that Andrew Jack, the actor who plays Roebling, the architect of that "magnificent erection" known as the Brooklyn Bridge, doubled as Hugh's dialect coach. I had erroneously presumed it was his usual dialect coach Jess Platt.

What a charming movie that was. What a shame Hugh didn't do more in that genre.

Ellen