Kinokima

I thought your Huck Finn comment was a good one as was your Shakespeare example. As for books I can also mention Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky (who I love as writers) often had anti-Semitic moments in their stories. I thought of another film example: The King and I. It is offensive to the people of Thailand for its inaccurate depiction of their king. Should that be banned too?

For me it is all about the accent so I go for guys like Cary Grant, Ronald Colman, and James Mason (swoon). I know Bogart is not traditionally handsome but he turns me on to. I think it's that voice again, it's so unique and interesting. Same with Jimmy Stewart. Although both didn't age very well. Also for foreign actors I love Jean Gabin and Toshiro Mifune. I admit I love all these guys as actors too. Does that affect my attraction? Possibly so!

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:} > > I think some people are afraid to obliterate the past, because they are still clinging to the old paradigm where it's easier to get one's power by abusing a group that may seem weaker, subordinate or less valuable. I don't think this is true at all. Look I am Jewish and a film like Triumph of the Will makes me very uncomfortable. I am not sure if I could bring myself to watch it. But I would be a hypocrite if I wanted to destroy it. Yes the film offends me but it is part of history and I think people can learn important things from these types of films. These films might also be well made despite having negative messages. As for banning Breakfast at Tiffany's as I said in the other thread do you also feel the same about Gone With the Wind? I think the depictions of blacks can definitely be seen as racist today. There are plenty of films with negative stereotypes. Should we burn them all? Have you seen the film The Awful Truth with Grant & Dunne? It is one of my favorite films but it has in my opinion a negative portrayal of an Asian in one scene. Should that film be banned too? Where do you draw the line? And who decides what films are okay and what films are not?

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=JefCostello wrote:}{quote} > > Never been one of my favorite directors > > I know what you mean. Some of my favorite John Ford films were made by Howard Hawks and Raoul Walsh... I respect Ford a lot but I am also not his biggest fan. I also don't really like John Wayne which affects my enjoyment of some of Ford's films But anyways my favorites (and I still have a lot to see). 1) Young Mr. Lincoln 2) Mr. Roberts 3) The Grapes of Wrath 4) My Darling Clementine 5) Stagecoach

I definitely wish there was a way to show people the feeling/intentions behind what we say on message boards. It is sometimes hard to judge by just words and smileys.

As far as the whole best & favorite thing I still feel it is entirely subjective when looking at an individual view point. And yes I guess there are times when you can love a film but not think it was the best thing ever made. But at least I feel the 6 films I named as Billy Wilder's best also happen to be my favorite of his. Maybe I would have put them in a slightly different order though if I was only thinking of their quality not my enjoyment as well. Now if you are talking about things like a film that has stood the test of time, is on many "best films list", influenced many films, then I think you can get closer to a best that at least is a little less subjective.

Bringing this over from the Audrey Hepburn/Emma Thompson thread since it was a bit off topic. Should a film ever be banned or destroyed because it is offensive/racist? Films talked about were Birth of Nation, Triumph of the Will, and Breakfast at Tiffany's I say definitely no but then I am against all forms of censorship. I do think you can learn something from these films even if the racist portrayals/messages are hard to watch. Also quoting Roger Ebert again "The Birth of a Nation' is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl?s Triumph of the Will, it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil." Discuss!

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > Clearly, you're exaggerating to make a point. I don't think we should feel threatened or be afraid to abolish some films. We abolished slavery, after all. We can still read about it to know its devasting effects on society, but we don't have to see it to learn from it. I am exaggerating? You are comparing films to slavery. And I am threatened by all forms of censorship. Because you censor one thing someone finds offensive then what's next. I am not exaggerating at all. Granted Birth of a Nation and Triump of the Will are probably two of the most horrible films in terms of what they represent. But yes I think you can learn much more from seeing these films than reading about them (granted I have seen neither because they make me feel uncomfortable but I understand the point of not getting rid of these films). I think seeing it is the best way to learn from it. But you think we should burn Breakfast at Tiffany's? There are plenty of films with stereotypes just as bad as that. Do you think we should get rid of Gone With the Wind too? edit: Sorry to get off topic I will start another thread.

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > I think Ebert's crazy. That quote makes no good sense. LOL > > Since we have already lost some films, why not lose these? We can keep still photographs and written histories about the productions...but we can remove them from society. I know I sound like an extremist on this, but I think these films can fall into the wrong hands and an ignorant future society can use them to substantiate renewed hatred and discrimination. The quote makes perfect sense. He is saying we can see what a powerful medium for evil a film can be. A film isn't bad or good because of the message it presents. And yes you can learn something from these films. Yes since we have already lost some films why not lose more. Why not lose all of them. Do you know how many films from the classic era might be deemed offensive today? How many films from today might be considered offensive tomorrow?

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > I am all for film preservation. > > But... > > I think BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S should be burned and should be forced into becoming a lost film. BIRTH OF A NATION is another one that should become extinct. We may argue that it's historical to keep those films, but I really don't think it serves much purpose. Why should we remind ourselves of our uglier nature, our blatant racism as human beings? Um I hardly think Breakfast at Tiffany's is as bad as Birth of Nation is terms of racism. If we are too burn Breakfast at Tiffany's for presenting unfortunate stereotypes then we would have to burn a whole lot of films. And no I don't think we should burn Birth of a Nation either. It is a part of our history as nasty as that might be and yes it does serve a purpose. What better way to understand racism then to see it first hand. Not to mention Birth of a Nation is an important film for its innovation. This is quote from Roger Ebert "'The Birth of a Nation' is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl?s Triumph of the Will, it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil."

> {quote:title=ennisdelmar2 wrote:}{quote} > great thread...made me think that , coming off of GUNGA DIN the year before, with THE PHILADELPHIA STORY and , especially HIS GIRL FRIDAY, 1940 WAS the year of Cary Grant. He solidified his place in movie history in that year alone. Boy, he was great. And Cary Grant wasn't nominated for either and two of his best performances. There's some injustice for you.

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > I don't prefer TIFFANY'S, but that's because I dislike the racism in it and I'm not a fan of Capote's writing. And I'm not exactly sure it's a good role for her. > > I think people became accustomed to her in light romantic comedies, but I really think her gift was as a dramatic actress. I also like her in Huston's UNFORGIVEN, even it's a flawed film...when she's challenged with more serious material, she seems to concentrate better as an actress. In frothy tales, she is gliding by on her personality and that's not acting to me, it's merely being present and reciting memorized dialogue. So I can see why Thompson doesn't appreciate her. But I think if Thompson and some of the nay sayers look at her dramatic roles, they will see that she did have aptitude as a thespian. I agree and disagree here. I have not seen Unforgiven but I have seen many of other Audrey Hepburn's more dramatic parts: including Wait Until Dark, The Nun's Story, Two for the Road, & The Children's Hour. I think all these roles prove she could play dramatic roles and not just the light fluffy roles that she is known for (that being said as far as movies go the only one I really love is Wait Until Dark). However I disagree with the sentiment that she is not acting (just reciting lines) in those lighter fluffy movies. As for Breakfast at Tiffany's I do love the movie but the parts with Mickey Rooney definitely bother me.

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > > You're apparently missing my point, or I'm not making it very well. Either way, nothing about my opinion of the film has anything to do with Julie Andrews. I'm still confused by your constantly mentioning her in your responses to me, as if I (or Emma) were making some comparison. Had Sally Ann Howes, Shirley Jones, or anyone who could both act and sing played Eliza AND, even more importantly, had Warner hired a director who understood the piece, I would most-likely have a different opinion of it. They didn't, he didn't and I don't. First of all I am not missing your point. I understand that your problem with the film was not just that Audrey Hepburn was cast & Julie Andrews was not. You seem to be missing my point. I never said once that Emma Thompson compared Audrey Hepburn to Julie Andrews. And no my response was not implying that. All I am saying is if Emma is complaining about Audrey's singing then she better get someone like Julie Andrews who can sing those high notes. It seems Emma Thompson misunderstands why Audrey was dubbed over for the film. This has nothing to do with comparing Audrey to Julie. I was originally replying to what you said about Audrey's singing. As for my comparison to the movies they have done, I was not the only one on this thread who brought up Julie Andrews. It was just a general comparison based on things that were said in this thread, not specifically to what you or Emma said. And I don't keep bringing her up, I am replying back to what you are saying.

My Favorites from this year: The Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday, The Shop Around the Corner, & The Thief of Baghdad. Honorable Mention: Fantasia (I remember loving it but I haven't seen it for awhile). Also I still need to see The Great Dictator (shame on me)

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > > Well, I am basing what I am saying on my opinion, of course, and emotion, yes. But, also fact. The fact is I saw the Moss Hart production not once, but twice. Once with Julie Andrews and Alec Clunes and once with Sally Ann Howes and Edward Mulhare. They both were as different from the film, as night and day. Yes, the songs were the same, the scenes were in the same order, the lines were the same; but in tone and attitude, and execution of the musical numbers (Get Me to the Church on Time was and incredible show-stopping dance number) it was in a completely different class. It was more exhilarating and had more scope than the Ultra Panavision 70 film. Moss Hart's direction, in my opinion (and all the people who I know who saw his show), was superior to Cukor's, in every possible way. > > I never said you were putting Julie Andrews' acting down. I only wondered why you keep bringing her into the discussion about what Emma Thompson said, since she never mentioned her. And you brought up the word "twee" regarding Mary Poppins and Maria. I only tried to explain how Julie's performances would never be called "twee". It is not synonymous with sweet or nice, but with fragile and frail or wimpy. Julie Andrews is the further thing from fragile and frail, or mealy-mouthed or wimpy. She is assured and reliable. A dependable girl-guide. The word could not be applied to her > > Finally, of course it was a success without Julie Andrews. You aren't reading my posts closely enough. I've already made the point that the show didn't need any of the people that Jack Warner felt it needed to made it a success. Or anyone else. The title was the star. The show was the star. Still, it wasn't the hit that Jack Warner thought or wanted it to be. He predicted that the biggest show in Broadway history would be an even bigger motion picture success. He predicted it would be the biggest success in motion picture history. He spent a fortune on the rights, his star and the production, and while the film was a hit, by any standard, it wasn't even the biggest hit of 1964. It didn't come close to the profits of *Mary Poppins*, released the same year, or *The Sound of Music*, the following year, both starring the person he thought nobody would want to see. While it is true what you say Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music beat My Fair Lady in the box office, My Fair Lady was still a huge box office success. Maybe if could have been better with Julie Andrews but it certainly didn't fail without her. All 3 movies are on the list of top box office movies ever. And today critically they all seemed to be ranked the same. They all have around the same IMDB rating too. And just because you saw the play does not suddenly make your opinion fact. It is a fact you saw the play what you thought of the movie is an opinion. I am not saying the movie was better or worse than the play. I am saying the movie was great regardless of the play. It still won best picture and is still a highly regarded classic today. It has its detractors but so does everything. Emma Thompson said specifically that twee meant sweet with no bite. She said nothing about being weak or frail. I have seen plenty of people say both Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music are sugary sweet and that is what I was referring to (although I am a fan of both I do agree with this sentiment.) I was not trying to imply that Julie Andrews played weak or frail characters....not at all. But I also certainly do not think these were the type of characters Audrey Hepburn played either. As for bringing up Julie Andrews the main thing I have been saying is Emma Thompson complained about Audrey's singing. As I said many times Audrey CAN sing, she just isn't a professional singer that can sing high notes like Julie Andrews which the role required. I think it is fair to say that if Emma is going to complain about Audrey's singing she better get someone who like Julie Andrews can sing those high notes.

Well as long as they play the right movie. I am really looking forward to seeing this again and recording it. It is a definite favorite of mine.

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > Not sure why you keep referring to Julie Andrews, when Emma Thompson never mentioned her, and she's not really part of this discussion. But, since you bring her up, the roles in *Mary Poppins* and *The Sound of Music* as played by Julie Andrews are pretty much the opposite of "twee". Yes, had Audrey Hepburn played Maria (a role she went after with full force), it would most certainly have been "twee". Julie Andrews played those roles as a determined, resourceful woman, not a waif. She is sweet, but with gumption. She doesn't need someone to rescue her. And if you think Audrey Hepburn is a better actress than Julie Andrews, well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I think a lot of your sentiments are solely based on emotion. Oh because everything you said in this post was based on fact? Everything you have said against My Fair Lady & Audrey Hepburn have also been based on emotion. My fair Lady was a successful movie even without Julie Andrews and it is ranked just as high as Mary Poppins and Sound of Music on many critics and fans list. I was not putting down Julie Andrews acting. I just said in comparison and based on the roles she has played I don't see how she is better actress than Audrey Hepburn. And I think Audrey has played plenty determined/resourceful and admirable women. Not just sweet waifs. To me she was admirable on and off screen (although actually I feel the same about Julie Andrews, as a person I really admire her). And it doesn't matter that Emma Thompson did not bring up Julie Andrews plenty of other people have on this thread. I think it is a perfectly fair comparison.

I think you got all the ones that I enjoyed. Although I might add Harvey to that list as well. I think my personal top 3 from the year are Rashomon, Sunset Blvd, and In A Lonely Place. Oh and I personally count The Third Man as a 1949 film. But that is also definitely one of my top favorites.

I agree with you there Cujas. I thought both Wendy and Leslie were great in the title roles. I love the 1938 film Pygmalion a lot. In fact I think it is a bit underrated compared to the musical. Not that I don't love the musical but I think more people should see Pygmalion which is wonderful. Like I said on another board I just love the story in general (it is one of my favorites). I also love Shaw's original play. My Fair Lady is what introduced me to the story (and Audrey Hepburn for that matter) so I do love it but I also don't think it is the definite version of the story or musical.

> {quote:title=cujas wrote:}{quote} > Hitchcock thought Julie Andrews was a good actress. And plenty of directors were impressed with Audrey Hepburn. I am not insulting Julie Andrews as an actress. I am just saying I don't see how she was a better actress in comparison to Audrey Hepburn looking at both of their careers. Edited by: Kinokima on Aug 11, 2010 4:12 PM

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > > > We do know how bad she was. I've heard all the tracks, and she's horrid. Still, the dubbed voice was so inappropriate for her speaking voice, that I would have rather they let her vocals stand. It would have improved nothing, but the jarring difference (another thing wrong with the film), wouldn't have been there. > > Where it's "written", is in the music that Frederick Lowe composed. When it was decided to make Higgins a "talk-sing" character, it was also decided that Eliza would be a legitimate singer, who hits high notes, once she is "transformed". The notes are the notes. Most people who saw the film, during its original release might not have seen Andrews in the show, but they certainly heard her sing the songs. It was the most celebrated musical to ever hit Broadway. The cast (particularly Julie) were constantly on television, and the Broadway cast album was owned by more people than who ever laid eyes on the film, even to this day. The biggest selling LP of all-time, back in 1964, and remains one of the biggest sellers in Columbia's catalog. It has never been out of circulation. Actually we don't know anything. Everything you said has been your opinion not some ultimate truth. I will admit I don't think Audrey could sing "I could have danced all night". However her version of "Wouldn't it be Lovely" was perfectly fine and it my opinion should have been used for the movie. I actually like it better than the version used in the movie because it seems more real and natural. Also I am waiting to see who Emma Thompson will get for the singing parts. It seems Carrie Mulligan is up for consideration and is Emma's top choice. Well maybe I am missing something but I see nothing that indicates that Carrie Mulligan is a legitimate singer who can sing the high notes. Before Carrie Mulligan I know Keira Knightly was under consideration. Can Keira sing like Julie Andrews? So unless they get someone who can sing the the parts just like Julie Andrews than I don't want to hear Emma Thompson complaining about Audrey's singing. Also about Julie Andrews. Don't get me wrong I love her, especially her voice. But I don't think she is this amazing actress in comparison to Audrey Hepburn. Based on Emma Thompson's definition of "twee" wouldn't the movie roles that Julie Andrews made famous (Mary Poppins and Maria in Sound of Music) also be considered Twee?

> {quote:title=Fedya wrote:}{quote} > I don't see why so many people are so up in arms that Emma Thompson said something less then complimentary about Audrey Hepburn, when we have a nice long thread doing much the same thing in [Comedians that are NOT funny|http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/thread.jspa?threadID=154830&tstart=0] I think there is a difference between a message board and a celebrity saying things to the public. Of course I am not saying Emma is not free to have her opinions about Audrey Hepburn as much as I dislike it. But then I am free to dislike it and to think she was rude in the way she presented her opinion. That is my opinion.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *You are making an assumption that what said was cut up but I have yet to see her say so.* > > That's because in this day and age of 24/7 anything goes news, it's the sensational that leads. After the commotion has died down and the facts come to surface, the retractions rarely, if ever, get the hype that the original story did. Of course a lot of news is sensational. But Emma Thompson is free to clarify her point if the newspapers got it wrong. I think it is ridiculous to assume we are taking what she says out of context just because there aren't pages of interview. And I am pretty sure this sensation is not going to hurt Emma Thompson. If anything it is publicity for her movie. As they say there is no such thing as bad publicity. And *johnm_001* no Audrey Hepburn is not Mother Teresa but ironically enough she was a wonderful human being who used her celebrity to help many people in need in some of the poorest countries. Of course that has nothing to do with her acting ability.

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:} > > > > > > > Of direct quotes from Emma, I count two sentence fragments, and three possibly complete sentences pertaining to Audrey. I'd say we are missing an awful lot, unless I saw a full transcript. Emma does say a lot more about her views of the film/story/characters in this link than the first one, but no more about Audrey. > And why does there have to be more? You are making an assumption that what said was cut up but I have yet to see her say so. Maybe that is everything she said exactly. And what you say is a little bit I think there is a whole lot. She doesn't need to say two paragraphs worth about Audrey Hepburn to see what she means. And even if she was just talking about My Fair Lady and not Audrey's entire acting career she still could have had much more tact. Instead of saying she cannot act or sing (which I feel is utter nonsense) then she could have simply said I don't think she was right for the part. Edited by: Kinokima on Aug 10, 2010 8:55 PM

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > As I pointed out, we only have a few little snippets of what Emma said, so we don't know exactly what she really said. Sorry we have a whole lot of what she said. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1300986/Audrey-Hepburn-twee-mumsy-really-act-Emma-Thompsons-scathing-appraisal-My-Fair-Lady-star.html I don't think we are missing anything here! And if we are let Emma Thompson speak up for herself. This is not the first time she has made controversial remarks. Edited by: Kinokima on Aug 10, 2010 7:19 PM