Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
756 views
Skip to first unread message
Bobby
Apr 21, 2010, 10:40:54 AM4/21/10
to The Internet Film Club
Now I'm not trying to be a misanthrope, I know I'm in the minority
category when it comes to this subject but I got to ask what is
everyone else's opinion on Miss Hepburn's acting. But my opinion is
Audrey Hepburn is one horrible actress, she is pretty bad in my eyes,
She comes off so unnatural and it never plays out with a realistic
touch to it. In all the movies i have seen her in so far, she is
either way too dramatic over the top or too giddy and unbelievable.
Her acting has become a annoyance to me as I watch her films. So I
mean no harm in my opinion i just want to hear from both sides why
people like her so much or the few people that dislike her, (her
acting that is!, I'm not sure any of us has every met her in person).
Lol. So I have seen four of her films thus far and plan on watching
one more which is My Fair Lady. But what I have seen so far, the only
one i truly enjoyed was Breakfast At Tiffanys, she wasnt all that bad
in this film and I loved the story to this and it made me want to read
Truman Capote's novella. So my ratings thus far for her films are
Breakfast At Tiffanys - 8/10
Wait Until Dark - 7/10
Roman Holiday - 6/10
Sabrina - 5/10
I'm very stingy with my ratings, I very rarely give 9's and 10's
unless they are truly deserving and Im not a big fan of the American
classics, I much more prefer foreign classics such as Bergman,
Kurosawa, Melville, etc. Thats where most of my 10 ratings go to.
Although I really enjoyed the Chaplin month and it gave me a brand new
perspective on silent cinema and slapstick comedy that was greatly
entertaining.But to the subject at hand, I would very much like
anybody's feedback if they are willing to give it on Audrey Hepburn's
acting skills.
--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/film-club/subscribe?hl=en
category when it comes to this subject but I got to ask what is
everyone else's opinion on Miss Hepburn's acting. But my opinion is
Audrey Hepburn is one horrible actress, she is pretty bad in my eyes,
She comes off so unnatural and it never plays out with a realistic
touch to it. In all the movies i have seen her in so far, she is
either way too dramatic over the top or too giddy and unbelievable.
Her acting has become a annoyance to me as I watch her films. So I
mean no harm in my opinion i just want to hear from both sides why
people like her so much or the few people that dislike her, (her
acting that is!, I'm not sure any of us has every met her in person).
Lol. So I have seen four of her films thus far and plan on watching
one more which is My Fair Lady. But what I have seen so far, the only
one i truly enjoyed was Breakfast At Tiffanys, she wasnt all that bad
in this film and I loved the story to this and it made me want to read
Truman Capote's novella. So my ratings thus far for her films are
Breakfast At Tiffanys - 8/10
Wait Until Dark - 7/10
Roman Holiday - 6/10
Sabrina - 5/10
I'm very stingy with my ratings, I very rarely give 9's and 10's
unless they are truly deserving and Im not a big fan of the American
classics, I much more prefer foreign classics such as Bergman,
Kurosawa, Melville, etc. Thats where most of my 10 ratings go to.
Although I really enjoyed the Chaplin month and it gave me a brand new
perspective on silent cinema and slapstick comedy that was greatly
entertaining.But to the subject at hand, I would very much like
anybody's feedback if they are willing to give it on Audrey Hepburn's
acting skills.
--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/film-club/subscribe?hl=en
Thorkell A. Ottarsson
Apr 21, 2010, 11:08:50 AM4/21/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
I had actually planed to write something along your lines once the
month was over. I would not say that she is a horrible actress but yes
she is often too dramatic or too giddy. And seeing her films so close
to each other does not help her at all. One really starts to see her
weaknesses. Her best part (and best) film IMO is The Nun's Story.
There she really shines but most of the time she is just cute.
I am shocked over your low rating for Sabrina! You must have been
suicidal when you saw it!
All the best
Thorkell
--
Með kærri kveðju,
Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson
_____________________________________________
Sokkaveien 1
Drammen 3018
Norway
Tel: 00-47-32835774 & 00-47-45859097
month was over. I would not say that she is a horrible actress but yes
she is often too dramatic or too giddy. And seeing her films so close
to each other does not help her at all. One really starts to see her
weaknesses. Her best part (and best) film IMO is The Nun's Story.
There she really shines but most of the time she is just cute.
I am shocked over your low rating for Sabrina! You must have been
suicidal when you saw it!
All the best
Thorkell
Með kærri kveðju,
Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson
_____________________________________________
Sokkaveien 1
Drammen 3018
Norway
Tel: 00-47-32835774 & 00-47-45859097
Zelia Trueb
Apr 21, 2010, 11:09:15 AM4/21/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
I believe some of the issue with her acting is that, partially, she had to
deal with what she was given. It seems that when she was given more
demanding roles, she rose to the occasion. You know, she was a dancer
before she was an actress.
Zelia
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5047 (20100421) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5047 (20100421) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5047 (20100421) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
deal with what she was given. It seems that when she was given more
demanding roles, she rose to the occasion. You know, she was a dancer
before she was an actress.
Zelia
database 5047 (20100421) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5047 (20100421) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5047 (20100421) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Bobby
Apr 21, 2010, 11:34:04 AM4/21/10
to The Internet Film Club
Lol, No I was not suicidal. I just really didnt enjoy it, It was just
bad in my opinion and I like Billy Wilder as a director. It was the
fifth film I saw of his and first one I disliked. And my 5/10 isnt
that low in the way i rate my movies, im just stingy. a 10/10 is
perfection, a 9/10 is greatness, a 8/10 I really liked it and it had
very good qualities to the film with minor flaws, a 7/10 is I liked
the film overall but its flaws are more noticeable, a 6/10 is a ok
film, my dislikes might outweigh my likes for a movie now, and 5 and
below is just dislike but it ranges from 5 being the best of the worst
and a 1 being the worst of the worst.
> http://www.eset.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bad in my opinion and I like Billy Wilder as a director. It was the
fifth film I saw of his and first one I disliked. And my 5/10 isnt
that low in the way i rate my movies, im just stingy. a 10/10 is
perfection, a 9/10 is greatness, a 8/10 I really liked it and it had
very good qualities to the film with minor flaws, a 7/10 is I liked
the film overall but its flaws are more noticeable, a 6/10 is a ok
film, my dislikes might outweigh my likes for a movie now, and 5 and
below is just dislike but it ranges from 5 being the best of the worst
and a 1 being the worst of the worst.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Linda Key
Apr 21, 2010, 12:40:29 PM4/21/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
I did find Sabrina to be fairly weak as well. Even though Billy Wilder is one of my favorite directors. Thorkell, I think you nailed it when you said most of the time she's just cute. I think that's why people like her - she's TOO CUTE!! and she's always so classy, so ladylike. I have not watched The Nun's Story, but out of everything I've seen, I think she was best in Wait Until Dark.
-linda
-linda
Nick Faust
Apr 21, 2010, 6:11:26 PM4/21/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
Bobby, I've not addressed it directly, but in some of my comments on specific movies I've tried to share not just my opinion, but why I feel the way I do.
I can read your comment here and just as easily go down the list and say: Audrey Hepburn is a brilliant actress; she comes off as terrifically natural with a sublime realistic touch in all the roles; her dramatic moments are always subtle and her giddy comic moments are vivid examples of high style, sophisticated comedy. Her actions are primarily what appeals to me in movies that I would otherwise find annoying.
Some of what I've written above is my genuine opinion, but not all. Am making a point only.
Your minority opinion draws our attention and could in fact be fascinating if we could understand it. Beyond your judgement, you haven't said anything to help me see though your eyes this actress who's over animated, cutesy, and unbelievable.
I would genuinely like to know more.
If I understood the core of your impression, I could indeed respond.
Nick
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:40:54 -0700
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:40:54 -0700
> Subject: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
Bobby
Apr 21, 2010, 8:01:20 PM4/21/10
to The Internet Film Club
Well Nick, I'm not sure how else to put it, I'm no acting expert by
far. Im just a simple film lover. And after viewing well over a
thousand films, I guess I cant critique the technical aspect of acting
in general, but I know what makes a good movie and a good performance
for me. I'm not totally sure what your point was, I know everyone has
differing opinions and that is fine, that is why i wrote this topic to
find out everyone's opinion and start a discussion. But for me, a good
movie is like a good story and you get drawn in by this and its as if
you are no longer watching a movie but watching these events unfold as
if you are there with them. Same goes for a good performance, it no
longer becomes a performance anymore, you are watching this character
as if they were a real individual and you are following the events
happening in their lives and you get attached to them and feel emotion
for them. Now that said, that goes for the best of the best, only
certain movies can do that to a person. When watching a mediocre or
better movie with mediocre or better performances, the movie kind of
flows along, goes through a step by step process, at points it can
grasp your interest tightly and others let you go and you know you are
just watching a movie, the performances are usually still good enough
to where you still dont look at the person acting but at the character
and his or her story. It's only when you have a bad performance which
in some cases can make a bad movie too, not always though, it is
possible to have a decent movie with horrible performances. But with
bad performances that you never meet the character, you are just
watching a actor or actress struggling on screen to be someone else
that they are not. The emotions of the actor and actress feel fake and
"acted" which is why i said something about hepburn's acting being
unrealistic or unbelievable. But with this you never get attached to
the character and dont feel the same emotion they are trying to
portray. And then it's almost as if you are no longer watching a film
but rather a bad rehearsal pratice. Now there can be other flaws in a
film to make a person feel this way but any ordinary film lover would
be able to tell wether it was the script that ruined the movie, or the
directing, etc. In most cases with me while viewing Audrey Hepburn's
films, it was her performance. All except Breakfast At Tiffanys, which
she finally became believable in my eyes as the character of Holly
Golightly but still even that performance IMO wasnt deserving of any
award nominations such as the oscar nod she recieved. Well I'm not
sure if I did a good job of clarifing my judgement of Miss Hepburn's
acting, like I said earlier, i'm no acting expert and could not point
out any technical flaws if there is any acting lingo and techniques
because i am not aware of them, it's just with me, she is not a
believable actress, I agree with others that she is classy and full of
charm and actually very pretty but Im just not a fan of her acting
On Apr 21, 6:11 pm, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bobby, I've not addressed it directly, but in some of my comments on specific movies I've tried to share not just my opinion, but why I feel the way I do.
> I can read your comment here and just as easily go down the list and say: Audrey Hepburn is a brilliant actress; she comes off as terrifically natural with a sublime realistic touch in all the roles; her dramatic moments are always subtle and her giddy comic moments are vivid examples of high style, sophisticated comedy. Her actions are primarily what appeals to me in movies that I would otherwise find annoying.
> Some of what I've written above is my genuine opinion, but not all. Am making a point only.
> Your minority opinion draws our attention and could in fact be fascinating if we could understand it. Beyond your judgement, you haven't said anything to help me see though your eyes this actress who's over animated, cutesy, and unbelievable.
> I would genuinely like to know more.
> If I understood the core of your impression, I could indeed respond.
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:40:54 -0700
> > Subject: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
> > From: BBeksin...@hotmail.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid...- Hide quoted text -
far. Im just a simple film lover. And after viewing well over a
thousand films, I guess I cant critique the technical aspect of acting
in general, but I know what makes a good movie and a good performance
for me. I'm not totally sure what your point was, I know everyone has
differing opinions and that is fine, that is why i wrote this topic to
find out everyone's opinion and start a discussion. But for me, a good
movie is like a good story and you get drawn in by this and its as if
you are no longer watching a movie but watching these events unfold as
if you are there with them. Same goes for a good performance, it no
longer becomes a performance anymore, you are watching this character
as if they were a real individual and you are following the events
happening in their lives and you get attached to them and feel emotion
for them. Now that said, that goes for the best of the best, only
certain movies can do that to a person. When watching a mediocre or
better movie with mediocre or better performances, the movie kind of
flows along, goes through a step by step process, at points it can
grasp your interest tightly and others let you go and you know you are
just watching a movie, the performances are usually still good enough
to where you still dont look at the person acting but at the character
and his or her story. It's only when you have a bad performance which
in some cases can make a bad movie too, not always though, it is
possible to have a decent movie with horrible performances. But with
bad performances that you never meet the character, you are just
watching a actor or actress struggling on screen to be someone else
that they are not. The emotions of the actor and actress feel fake and
"acted" which is why i said something about hepburn's acting being
unrealistic or unbelievable. But with this you never get attached to
the character and dont feel the same emotion they are trying to
portray. And then it's almost as if you are no longer watching a film
but rather a bad rehearsal pratice. Now there can be other flaws in a
film to make a person feel this way but any ordinary film lover would
be able to tell wether it was the script that ruined the movie, or the
directing, etc. In most cases with me while viewing Audrey Hepburn's
films, it was her performance. All except Breakfast At Tiffanys, which
she finally became believable in my eyes as the character of Holly
Golightly but still even that performance IMO wasnt deserving of any
award nominations such as the oscar nod she recieved. Well I'm not
sure if I did a good job of clarifing my judgement of Miss Hepburn's
acting, like I said earlier, i'm no acting expert and could not point
out any technical flaws if there is any acting lingo and techniques
because i am not aware of them, it's just with me, she is not a
believable actress, I agree with others that she is classy and full of
charm and actually very pretty but Im just not a fan of her acting
On Apr 21, 6:11 pm, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bobby, I've not addressed it directly, but in some of my comments on specific movies I've tried to share not just my opinion, but why I feel the way I do.
> I can read your comment here and just as easily go down the list and say: Audrey Hepburn is a brilliant actress; she comes off as terrifically natural with a sublime realistic touch in all the roles; her dramatic moments are always subtle and her giddy comic moments are vivid examples of high style, sophisticated comedy. Her actions are primarily what appeals to me in movies that I would otherwise find annoying.
> Some of what I've written above is my genuine opinion, but not all. Am making a point only.
> Your minority opinion draws our attention and could in fact be fascinating if we could understand it. Beyond your judgement, you haven't said anything to help me see though your eyes this actress who's over animated, cutesy, and unbelievable.
> I would genuinely like to know more.
> If I understood the core of your impression, I could indeed respond.
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:40:54 -0700
> > Subject: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid...- Hide quoted text -
Nick Faust
Apr 21, 2010, 8:02:53 PM4/21/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
Do you feel the same about Cary Grant? Nick
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:01:20 -0700
> Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
> From: BBeks...@hotmail.com
> To: film...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:01:20 -0700
> Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
> From: BBeks...@hotmail.com
> To: film...@googlegroups.com
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn more.
Bobby
Apr 21, 2010, 8:23:08 PM4/21/10
to The Internet Film Club
LOL, well I wonder if I am walking into a trap here. But I do find
Cary Grant a little dull, now with judging him it is only based on two
films I have saw of his. They were North By Northwest which he wasnt
bad in, I enjoyed his performance in this movie. And Notorious which I
really did not like his performance in that one causing me not to like
the film as much as I would have. In Notorious it seemed as though he
had the same expression on his face throughtout the entire movie, a
complete robotic performance. In NBNW though, He did have some comedic
moments in which he pulled off well and showed more promise than in
Notorious.
On Apr 21, 8:02 pm, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do you feel the same about Cary Grant? Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:01:20 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
> > From: BBeksin...@hotmail.com
> > > The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid...Hide quoted text -
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTA...- Hide quoted text -
Cary Grant a little dull, now with judging him it is only based on two
films I have saw of his. They were North By Northwest which he wasnt
bad in, I enjoyed his performance in this movie. And Notorious which I
really did not like his performance in that one causing me not to like
the film as much as I would have. In Notorious it seemed as though he
had the same expression on his face throughtout the entire movie, a
complete robotic performance. In NBNW though, He did have some comedic
moments in which he pulled off well and showed more promise than in
Notorious.
On Apr 21, 8:02 pm, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do you feel the same about Cary Grant? Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:01:20 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTA...- Hide quoted text -
Jake Fredel
Apr 21, 2010, 11:09:55 PM4/21/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
I'm going to have to interject here, by saying that I am leaning toward Bobby's side somewhat, in that I don't think Audrey Hepburn was that great of an actress. Of course she was a very iconic figure, and had some great roles such as in Wait Until Dark, but I just can't really get into any of her other performances. She's not at all a horrible actress in my opinion, just not all that good of one. And Thorkell, I would also give Sabrina a 5/10, and when I watched it I was definitely not suicidal.
Plus, about Cary Grant, I enjoy watching him in most of his films, but sometimes his whole attitude in his more screwball films like His Girl Friday and Bringing Up Baby tend to grate on my nerves a little if I'm in the wrong mood. I think he's great in the Hitchcock films though - North by Northwest is a brilliant performance, and I'm also a fan of his work in Suspicion. I would honestly say however, that I find Grant to be a better actor than Hepburn, and the whole 'class act' works a lot better for me with him than her. Well, I guess in the end it all comes down to personal preference.
Which reminds me, it appears that our host for the month hasn't been participating. I'm sure that if she gets the urge, she could share some very intriguing opinions......
-Jake
Plus, about Cary Grant, I enjoy watching him in most of his films, but sometimes his whole attitude in his more screwball films like His Girl Friday and Bringing Up Baby tend to grate on my nerves a little if I'm in the wrong mood. I think he's great in the Hitchcock films though - North by Northwest is a brilliant performance, and I'm also a fan of his work in Suspicion. I would honestly say however, that I find Grant to be a better actor than Hepburn, and the whole 'class act' works a lot better for me with him than her. Well, I guess in the end it all comes down to personal preference.
Which reminds me, it appears that our host for the month hasn't been participating. I'm sure that if she gets the urge, she could share some very intriguing opinions......
-Jake
Nick Faust
Apr 21, 2010, 11:21:50 PM4/21/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
I love BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, too, and love Hepburn in it, but I wouldn't call the movie realistic in any sense of the word. Blake Edwards' screenplay of Truman Capote's book turns a quirky, bittersweet character study into a sophisticated comedy of manners, an adult fairy tale. By comparison, the book has a grittier point of view, without the happy ending. Hepburn walks an interesting tightrope in that part. She's adept at the comic bits of role playing and play acting that makes up much of the character's persona, but she also brings a pathos to Holly that supports the action without ever losing the film's comic edge. By the time we get to the stuff with Buddy Ebsen, we can easily imagine Holly/Hepburn as the hillbilly girl he married even though we never actually see any vestige of that girl in her performance.
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:23:08 -0700
What's interesting to me about BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S is that Hepburn's love interest is not a man old enough to be her grandfather. George Peppard and Audrey Hepburn were about the same age, and, after watching it again, it strikes me that part of the film's affect may have something to do with this unique coupling.
I asked you about Cary Grant because his stock in trade is not that different from Hepburn's. There's definitely a Grant style that's smooth, sophisticated, and playful. We take Grant's ability as an actor for granted because he makes that screen persona appear so effortless. Like Steve McQueen, you never catch Cary Grant "acting," he just is. Now, with that said, I propose to you the notion that this kind of performance is not easy. Only a good, good actor can pull it off. It takes great skill, tremendous effort, and a lot of rehearsal to play this kind of sophisticated comedy.
I also propose that none of these movies are meant to be taken as realistic; all of them stylize reality, in true Hollywood fashion, and are, in the words of Alfred Hitchcock, not slices of life, but slices of cake!
Put LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON, CHARADE, and FUNNY FACE in that category, too. Even WAIT UNTIL DARK, as I've already written about, has a built in sense of stylization in the way we suspend disbelief over Susy's blindness. Am partly agreeing with your argument when I say Hepburn's performance in WAIT UNTIL DARK may be my favorite, possibly one of her best, because she's using her acting skill in the service of this blind woman character, without any trace of brittle, sophisticated comedy in the result. Is WAIT UNTIL DARK a realistic examination of a blind woman in peril? Absolutely not. It's a Fredrick Knott suspense piece, a mechanical melodrama, that was created to put the viewer through a puzzle like story, with an emotional punch. In a piece like this, it's really up to the actors to bring character traits to the roles they play that are recognizable, unified, and empathetic.
Listen Bobby, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, or that you shouldn't take the time to scrutinize a sacred icon like Audrey. That's not my point.
A digression: I am often accused by my friends of being deliberately perverse in my likes and dislikes. Just yesterday, I was with some people who were making fun of the HAROLD AND KUMAR movies (a third sequel is in the works). After sitting quietly for a while, I stopped traffic with the statement: I think the HAROLD AND KUMAR movies are pretty good and definitely funny.
This resulting in a prolonged period of abuse. Being deliberately contrary was the nicest accusation; telling me that the only reason I liked the movies is because I think Kal Penn is cute, was the worst, especially since I do think he's cute. Getting a word in edgewise, I explained how the movies' absolutely nuclear attack on all things politically correct, including all manner of excess, racial stereotyping, programmed sexism, and American consumerism. I compared the films to the Marx Brothers (more derision from the group over THAT), supporting my statement with a few examples. (Think of it: what would the Marx Brothers be doing if they were making movies today?) And I justified the two movies by saying that comedy is meant to bring the worst of our culture/natures/instincts out into the open so we can laugh at it all. The HAROLD AND KUMAR movies do just that, in my opinion.
Am sure I didn't really change anyone's mind, but I might have lodged a few subtle doubts. In any event, the discussion of those films became animated and, in some instances, revelatory, which is the reason we discuss these things, isn't it?
Nick
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:23:08 -0700
> Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
Bobby
Apr 22, 2010, 9:45:29 AM4/22/10
to The Internet Film Club
Great reply Nick, and that is the reason we discuss things. And back
to Hepburn, I didnt mean for my reply to come off as the film itself
needing to be realistic, things that happen in movies do not happen in
everyday life but they can still entertain us and grab hold and drag
us into their stories. But rather the actor NEEDS to be realistic in
almost all ocassions unless its a screwball comedy or something like
that. But if it is a scene in which the actor needs to cry and feel
emotional dragged down to their bottom point or laugh with excitement
or feel afraid and nervous, well the actor needs to act out those
emotions as genuinely and realisticly as possible. Otherwise it wont
feel right to the audience, and just come across fake. But everyone
has changed my opinion to an extent about Audrey Hepburn. It is pretty
harsh of me to say she is a horrible actress, I still dont think she
is a very good one though, but it takes alot of work and effort that
not too many people can do to be a actor or actress and she was able
to do it. I dont agree with the others about her performance in Wait
Until Dark being her best, she did fairly well acting blind, it was
convincing and i could imagine very hard to do for a person who isnt
blind. But her emotions in that film seemed so fake, When she got
scared or screamed, it wasnt convincing for me. Now this is also a
personal preference, it is with anybody's judgement. Her performance
as Holly Golightly was my favorite and her best in my eyes, while
watching Breakfast At Tiffanys I felt I was no longer watching Audrey
Hepburn on screen but the character herself and her troubles and
problems. I know the movie is unrealistic but it is IMO a good movie,
and I did hear the novella was alot different and alot darker and
grittier, I think i heard she was a prostitute in the novella, I could
be wrong.
On Apr 21, 11:21 pm, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I love BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, too, and love Hepburn in it, but I wouldn't call the movie realistic in any sense of the word. Blake Edwards' screenplay of Truman Capote's book turns a quirky, bittersweet character study into a sophisticated comedy of manners, an adult fairy tale. By comparison, the book has a grittier point of view, without the happy ending. Hepburn walks an interesting tightrope in that part. She's adept at the comic bits of role playing and play acting that makes up much of the character's persona, but she also brings a pathos to Holly that supports the action without ever losing the film's comic edge. By the time we get to the stuff with Buddy Ebsen, we can easily imagine Holly/Hepburn as the hillbilly girl he married even though we never actually see any vestige of that girl in her performance.
> What's interesting to me about BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S is that Hepburn's love interest is not a man old enough to be her grandfather. George Peppard and Audrey Hepburn were about the same age, and, after watching it again, it strikes me that part of the film's affect may have something to do with this unique coupling.
> I asked you about Cary Grant because his stock in trade is not that different from Hepburn's. There's definitely a Grant style that's smooth, sophisticated, and playful. We take Grant's ability as an actor for granted because he makes that screen persona appear so effortless. Like Steve McQueen, you never catch Cary Grant "acting," he just is. Now, with that said, I propose to you the notion that this kind of performance is not easy. Only a good, good actor can pull it off. It takes great skill, tremendous effort, and a lot of rehearsal to play this kind of sophisticated comedy.
> I also propose that none of these movies are meant to be taken as realistic; all of them stylize reality, in true Hollywood fashion, and are, in the words of Alfred Hitchcock, not slices of life, but slices of cake!
> Put LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON, CHARADE, and FUNNY FACE in that category, too. Even WAIT UNTIL DARK, as I've already written about, has a built in sense of stylization in the way we suspend disbelief over Susy's blindness. Am partly agreeing with your argument when I say Hepburn's performance in WAIT UNTIL DARK may be my favorite, possibly one of her best, because she's using her acting skill in the service of this blind woman character, without any trace of brittle, sophisticated comedy in the result. Is WAIT UNTIL DARK a realistic examination of a blind woman in peril? Absolutely not. It's a Fredrick Knott suspense piece, a mechanical melodrama, that was created to put the viewer through a puzzle like story, with an emotional punch. In a piece like this, it's really up to the actors to bring character traits to the roles they play that are recognizable, unified, and empathetic.
> Listen Bobby, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, or that you shouldn't take the time to scrutinize a sacred icon like Audrey. That's not my point.
> A digression: I am often accused by my friends of being deliberately perverse in my likes and dislikes. Just yesterday, I was with some people who were making fun of the HAROLD AND KUMAR movies (a third sequel is in the works). After sitting quietly for a while, I stopped traffic with the statement: I think the HAROLD AND KUMAR movies are pretty good and definitely funny.
> This resulting in a prolonged period of abuse. Being deliberately contrary was the nicest accusation; telling me that the only reason I liked the movies is because I think Kal Penn is cute, was the worst, especially since I do think he's cute. Getting a word in edgewise, I explained how the movies' absolutely nuclear attack on all things politically correct, including all manner of excess, racial stereotyping, programmed sexism, and American consumerism. I compared the films to the Marx Brothers (more derision from the group over THAT), supporting my statement with a few examples. (Think of it: what would the Marx Brothers be doing if they were making movies today?) And I justified the two movies by saying that comedy is meant to bring the worst of our culture/natures/instincts out into the open so we can laugh at it all. The HAROLD AND KUMAR movies do just that, in my opinion.
> Am sure I didn't really change anyone's mind, but I might have lodged a few subtle doubts. In any event, the discussion of those films became animated and, in some instances, revelatory, which is the reason we discuss these things, isn't it?
> Nick
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:23:08 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
> > From: BBeksin...@hotmail.com
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
to Hepburn, I didnt mean for my reply to come off as the film itself
needing to be realistic, things that happen in movies do not happen in
everyday life but they can still entertain us and grab hold and drag
us into their stories. But rather the actor NEEDS to be realistic in
almost all ocassions unless its a screwball comedy or something like
that. But if it is a scene in which the actor needs to cry and feel
emotional dragged down to their bottom point or laugh with excitement
or feel afraid and nervous, well the actor needs to act out those
emotions as genuinely and realisticly as possible. Otherwise it wont
feel right to the audience, and just come across fake. But everyone
has changed my opinion to an extent about Audrey Hepburn. It is pretty
harsh of me to say she is a horrible actress, I still dont think she
is a very good one though, but it takes alot of work and effort that
not too many people can do to be a actor or actress and she was able
to do it. I dont agree with the others about her performance in Wait
Until Dark being her best, she did fairly well acting blind, it was
convincing and i could imagine very hard to do for a person who isnt
blind. But her emotions in that film seemed so fake, When she got
scared or screamed, it wasnt convincing for me. Now this is also a
personal preference, it is with anybody's judgement. Her performance
as Holly Golightly was my favorite and her best in my eyes, while
watching Breakfast At Tiffanys I felt I was no longer watching Audrey
Hepburn on screen but the character herself and her troubles and
problems. I know the movie is unrealistic but it is IMO a good movie,
and I did hear the novella was alot different and alot darker and
grittier, I think i heard she was a prostitute in the novella, I could
be wrong.
On Apr 21, 11:21 pm, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I love BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, too, and love Hepburn in it, but I wouldn't call the movie realistic in any sense of the word. Blake Edwards' screenplay of Truman Capote's book turns a quirky, bittersweet character study into a sophisticated comedy of manners, an adult fairy tale. By comparison, the book has a grittier point of view, without the happy ending. Hepburn walks an interesting tightrope in that part. She's adept at the comic bits of role playing and play acting that makes up much of the character's persona, but she also brings a pathos to Holly that supports the action without ever losing the film's comic edge. By the time we get to the stuff with Buddy Ebsen, we can easily imagine Holly/Hepburn as the hillbilly girl he married even though we never actually see any vestige of that girl in her performance.
> What's interesting to me about BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S is that Hepburn's love interest is not a man old enough to be her grandfather. George Peppard and Audrey Hepburn were about the same age, and, after watching it again, it strikes me that part of the film's affect may have something to do with this unique coupling.
> I asked you about Cary Grant because his stock in trade is not that different from Hepburn's. There's definitely a Grant style that's smooth, sophisticated, and playful. We take Grant's ability as an actor for granted because he makes that screen persona appear so effortless. Like Steve McQueen, you never catch Cary Grant "acting," he just is. Now, with that said, I propose to you the notion that this kind of performance is not easy. Only a good, good actor can pull it off. It takes great skill, tremendous effort, and a lot of rehearsal to play this kind of sophisticated comedy.
> I also propose that none of these movies are meant to be taken as realistic; all of them stylize reality, in true Hollywood fashion, and are, in the words of Alfred Hitchcock, not slices of life, but slices of cake!
> Put LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON, CHARADE, and FUNNY FACE in that category, too. Even WAIT UNTIL DARK, as I've already written about, has a built in sense of stylization in the way we suspend disbelief over Susy's blindness. Am partly agreeing with your argument when I say Hepburn's performance in WAIT UNTIL DARK may be my favorite, possibly one of her best, because she's using her acting skill in the service of this blind woman character, without any trace of brittle, sophisticated comedy in the result. Is WAIT UNTIL DARK a realistic examination of a blind woman in peril? Absolutely not. It's a Fredrick Knott suspense piece, a mechanical melodrama, that was created to put the viewer through a puzzle like story, with an emotional punch. In a piece like this, it's really up to the actors to bring character traits to the roles they play that are recognizable, unified, and empathetic.
> Listen Bobby, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, or that you shouldn't take the time to scrutinize a sacred icon like Audrey. That's not my point.
> A digression: I am often accused by my friends of being deliberately perverse in my likes and dislikes. Just yesterday, I was with some people who were making fun of the HAROLD AND KUMAR movies (a third sequel is in the works). After sitting quietly for a while, I stopped traffic with the statement: I think the HAROLD AND KUMAR movies are pretty good and definitely funny.
> This resulting in a prolonged period of abuse. Being deliberately contrary was the nicest accusation; telling me that the only reason I liked the movies is because I think Kal Penn is cute, was the worst, especially since I do think he's cute. Getting a word in edgewise, I explained how the movies' absolutely nuclear attack on all things politically correct, including all manner of excess, racial stereotyping, programmed sexism, and American consumerism. I compared the films to the Marx Brothers (more derision from the group over THAT), supporting my statement with a few examples. (Think of it: what would the Marx Brothers be doing if they were making movies today?) And I justified the two movies by saying that comedy is meant to bring the worst of our culture/natures/instincts out into the open so we can laugh at it all. The HAROLD AND KUMAR movies do just that, in my opinion.
> Am sure I didn't really change anyone's mind, but I might have lodged a few subtle doubts. In any event, the discussion of those films became animated and, in some instances, revelatory, which is the reason we discuss these things, isn't it?
> Nick
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:23:08 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Nick Faust
Apr 22, 2010, 5:45:18 PM4/22/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
In the book, Holly and the guy are both prostitutes. He sleeps with older men.
Even so, the book is still funny, in its own way, just not Hollywood, Blake Edwards funny. (For the record: Edwards may be the last direct link we have to the great comic traditions that began in the silent era; an uneven but always provocative director who knows how to set a joke up, and is peerless in how he will pay off a single set-up three, four, or even five times in a row: see THE PINK PANTHER, SHOT IN THE DARK, THE PARTY, SOB, VICTOR/VICTORIA, among others.)
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:45:29 -0700
Bobby, Thorkell, and Jake, here's the college professor part of me (an annoying and uncontrollable part, I have no doubt): When you consider an overall negative response to an actress like Hepburn, how do you account for decades worth of praise, honor, accolades, and respect from both her public and peers? Where they blinded by her beauty, and just wrong?
This is not an idle question. Our line of discussion began when you, Bobby, first said that Audrey Hepburn is a horrible actress. Your verb, "is," does not automatically embrace the possibility that any other estimation rightfully exists. Perhaps it's a given that "is" means "to you" Audrey is a horrible actress, but the negative context of your statement rings loud and clear in a world where many, many will contradict you - with impunity.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying you, any of you, should change your opinion. What I am saying, though, is that your opinion does not correspond with literally the rest of the worlds. My question to you, then, is why the disparity? What was it that particular audiences at particular times got from this actress that you don't? Or put in another way, what magic did she played on these other, past audiences that does not work on you?
I consider this kind of thing all the time. For instance, Clark Gable, we know, was the undisputed image of MAN from the thirties though the fifties, actually. Undisputed, yes: when Gable took his shirt off in IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, it has been said that men all over the world started buying the same kind of undershirt he revealed. Men wanted to be like Gable, and, I assume, they thought being like Gable would be attractive to women. Considering the decades Gable held the crown, there must have been women out there who concurred.
I look at Clark Gable and get none of the MAN persona, none at all. There's nothing in Gable that I'd remotely want to emulate, or would search for in a partner. In fact, I don't really think of him as an actor. Of course, in 1937 millions of people obviously thought he was a good actor, otherwise why the overwhelming support for him to play Rhett Butler?
Now, here's the thing: is Clark Gable a horrible actor? Is his past reputation a lie, a myth, or .... what? If I wrote here that Clark Gable was a horrible actor am I right because that's what I think? Do I qualify that by saying he's okay in IN HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, GONE WITH THE WIND, and THE MISFITS?
If I make such a statement, do I have any responsibility to acknowledge the attitude that overwhelmingly contradicts my statement?
I can go down a list of actors like this. Gary Cooper, revered by many today, seems like a big zero to me, even in HIGH NOON. Seriously, I've never understood the reverence paid to Cooper. He has high cheek bones, combined with all the rest, the camera loves him; he knows how to stand still and think, but that's about all I get from his performances. Capra sort of squeezed a few extra looks out of him, as did Wilder, but in both instances he was paired with expressive, energetic co-stars. In Hawks' SERGEANT YORK, same thing.
Tyrone Power, good in WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, and that's about as far as my appreciation goes. (I once wrote a one line review for THE PRINCE OF FOXES: Too much Power and not enough Wells.)
Joan Crawford's iconic stature baffles me. In the long run, BABY JANE and Christina's book both contributed to her legend's longevity; without the two, I'm convinced she would be known as the star of MILDRED PIERCE, and that's about it.
Errol Flynn, in the words of Bette Davis, was not much of an actor. I agree with Bette. But in the thirties and forties, most of the public did not.
In today's world, what do we make of Mae West, Shirley Temple, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Fred Astaire, Fred MacMurray, Monroe, Kim Novak, Grace Kelly, and even Bert Lancaster? All these actors emerged out of a particular time achieving an iconic status, but would they all translate into what we consider this year's best?
Mae West's brand of sexual comedy/liberation comes packaged in a rather heavyset, curvy, constantly undulating woman, the antithesis of what we consider attractive today? Monroe's kind of heavy set, too, and doesn't fit the 2000 figure of sexy, either. Amazingly enough, when they were working, Marlene, Novak, and Lancaster were all considered personalities more than actors; Dietrich, particularly, was thought of as a model who reads lines. (Of course, watch her go one on one with Laughton in WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION and win, then tell me that woman is not an actress!)
It's not just that times change, and trends along with it. There are many actors who worked during the second world war who we can still arguably point to without reservation. Bogart, Cagney, Bette Davis, Edward G. Robinson, Stanwyck, Fonda, Karloff, John Wayne, William Powell, Myrna Loy: and after the war there's William Holden, Natalie Wood, James Dean, Rod Steiger, Sidney Pointier, Dennis Hopper, in some cases, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart; certainly Brando; and that's just the American list.
If we are talking to film enthusiasts, is our unbridled opinion enough?
If I write, Alfred Hitchcock was a horrible director, how much of my opinion would anyone take seriously?
Nick
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:45:29 -0700
> Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
Nick Faust
Apr 22, 2010, 5:49:09 PM4/22/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
Of course, it's also possible that my wide ranging and rather creative typos render just about all I have to say moot!
From: talkm...@hotmail.com
To: film...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:45:18 -0700
From: talkm...@hotmail.com
To: film...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:45:18 -0700
Thorkell A. Ottarsson
Apr 22, 2010, 6:55:58 PM4/22/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
LOL!!!. No the typos do not render everything you said moot :) I think
you have some very good points there. I guess some acting is like
fashion. It becomes dated as time passes. And then there is acting
which is timeless. Chaplin, Keaton, Louise Brooks, to name just few
from the over acted silent era. And lets not forget Maria Falconetti
in The Passion of Joan of Arc. I guess I'm a sucker for restrain, when
it comes to acting, which is why I sometimes have trouble with great
actors like Toshiro Mifune. Yes he is great but sometimes he just
gives it a little too much. Now Setsuko Hara on the other hand is
another story, never too broad and always convincing. I do think this
has something to do with time and something to do with taste. You
talked about Betty Davis and her comments on Errol Flynn. Well, she
might be right but I don't think she was always that great either. I
really did not care for her in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and
Essex. She was all over the place. Still, I see that many think that
her performance was monumental. I guess their taste differs from mine.
I would like to point out that I don't think Hepburn is a bad actress,
I just don't think she is one of the great and yes I do think that the
beauty does blind many. But that is not the only thing she has going
though. She does have a great presence, and that is half the battle.
All the best
Thorkell
you have some very good points there. I guess some acting is like
fashion. It becomes dated as time passes. And then there is acting
which is timeless. Chaplin, Keaton, Louise Brooks, to name just few
from the over acted silent era. And lets not forget Maria Falconetti
in The Passion of Joan of Arc. I guess I'm a sucker for restrain, when
it comes to acting, which is why I sometimes have trouble with great
actors like Toshiro Mifune. Yes he is great but sometimes he just
gives it a little too much. Now Setsuko Hara on the other hand is
another story, never too broad and always convincing. I do think this
has something to do with time and something to do with taste. You
talked about Betty Davis and her comments on Errol Flynn. Well, she
might be right but I don't think she was always that great either. I
really did not care for her in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and
Essex. She was all over the place. Still, I see that many think that
her performance was monumental. I guess their taste differs from mine.
I would like to point out that I don't think Hepburn is a bad actress,
I just don't think she is one of the great and yes I do think that the
beauty does blind many. But that is not the only thing she has going
though. She does have a great presence, and that is half the battle.
All the best
Thorkell
Bobby
Apr 22, 2010, 9:41:00 PM4/22/10
to The Internet Film Club
Nick, you are convincing. LOL, Of course with anybody's opinion it is
always based on preference, So no one's opinion holds more weight than
the other person. But it is fascinating to think especially when its
your own opinion why the general public loves a actress or anybody of
that matter and you view them and dont see what all the fuss is about.
I already knew i was in the minority when it came to Audrey Hepburn
and thats why i wanted to ask of other peoples opinion. But yeah it's
all about a person's personal taste, you can't be offended at a person
if he or she doesnt like something you do. We are all different. But I
do agree that over time things change, obviously, including acting.
The way movie stars acted on screen back then has greatly changed
now.
On Apr 22, 6:55 pm, "Thorkell A. Ottarsson" <thork...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > From: talkmovi...@hotmail.com
> >> From: BBeksin...@hotmail.com
always based on preference, So no one's opinion holds more weight than
the other person. But it is fascinating to think especially when its
your own opinion why the general public loves a actress or anybody of
that matter and you view them and dont see what all the fuss is about.
I already knew i was in the minority when it came to Audrey Hepburn
and thats why i wanted to ask of other peoples opinion. But yeah it's
all about a person's personal taste, you can't be offended at a person
if he or she doesnt like something you do. We are all different. But I
do agree that over time things change, obviously, including acting.
The way movie stars acted on screen back then has greatly changed
now.
On Apr 22, 6:55 pm, "Thorkell A. Ottarsson" <thork...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nick Faust
Apr 23, 2010, 3:08:06 AM4/23/10
to film...@googlegroups.com
Well, yes, Bette's Elizabeth I may be an iffy prospect for you both times she played the character, but her reputation does not rest on that role alone. I don't mind her as Liz, but am more appreciative of the extraordinary immediacy she brings to NOW, VOYAGER and DARK VICTORY. That final scene in DARK VICTORY where she's blind but has to act like she can see so her husband won't worry is one remarkable bit of acting. And in THE LETTER, my god, his stillness draws you in, and her dramatic moments are played go-for-broke big; no actress today could do what she does in that movie and make it work. I don't even think Meryl Streep or Isabel Huppert could pull it off.
> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:55:58 +0200
In the past, when I've taught acting, I've used clips from THE LETTER to begin a dialogue with the class about the craft of acting. Believe it or not, I have often juxtaposed Bette's opening moment in that film with a Marlon Brando moment in ON THE WATERFRONT (with Eva Marie Saint and the glove) and a scene with Clint Eastwood in UNFORGIVEN ("we've all got it coming, kid"). This juxtaposition shows that great screen acting, no matter what school of acting the performer comes from, is arrived at in ways that are more similar than different. Watching the three of them, they're closer in manner and style and even result than you might automatically imagine. Bette, Marlon, and Clint are really soul mates on the screen. And Eastwood, who has become more supple and outwardly expressive as he's gotten older, gets closer to the expressiveness of Davis in roles like the one he played in GRAN TORINO; an all or nothing, externally expressive performance that I don't think anyone else could have nailed or even gotten away with.
After writing the other piece today, I started thinking about Mae West.
We can call the transitory nature of Mae's career fashion, and to some extent the term fits. Certainly, what was attractive in a woman in the early 30s does not translate beyond the period. But is that all there is to Mae West? I don't think so. Look beyond the cloths and even West's zoftig figure and her swinging hips and you find an actress who's entire persona challenged just about every middle class notion of female sexual aggression, female equality and even superiority, and, amazingly enough, she got away with making dick jokes and picking a different man to sleep with every night! Yes, the movies are dated, but what she did in them is important. We can forget that Paramount was about to go bankrupt before one of her first staring vehicles hit the screen and turned the whole studio around. (There's still an entire section on the Paramount lot named after her.) That's studio history. For us, though, Mae West was the first of many who challenged the prescribed order of things, from the way woman were supposed to behave to what was considered acceptable on the screen (and on stage before that). West was not a young woman when she enter films, and quickly became one of Hollywood's most iconic and controversial stars.
As film enthusiast, I think these thing matter, possibly more than the films themselves.
Nick
> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:55:58 +0200
> Subject: Re: Audrey Hepburn's Acting Skills
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages