Kinokima

Emma Thompson might be a good actress and writer but I highly doubt she will ever reach the status of Audrey Hepburn. And for the record it isn't just Audrey Hepburn's fans who think what Emma Thompson said was complete nonsense but people who worked with Audrey. Here is a great piece by Frederic Raphael who wrote the screenplay for Two for the Road (and also won an Oscar for it). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/7935455/Why-Audrey-Hepburn-was-a-real-star.html

Just thought of a few more Jules Dassin's Night and the City in London (and if I am not mistaken he was forced to film there). Carol Reed's The Third Man in post war Vienna. King Vidor's The Crowd in New York (it is amazing to see the city in the late 1920's).

Classic Viewer this thread was not about pitting Emma Thompson's against Audrey Hepburn (or Emma Thompson's version of My Fair Lady against George Cukor's). It is about Emma Thompson putting down Audrey Hepburn. And it seems she wasn't just putting her down for her role in My Fair Lady but as an actor in general. And while I don't necessarily think My Fair Lady has to be remade, I like Emma Thompson's work so I am interested in what she will bring to the story. I didn't think she needed to put down Audrey Hepburn though. Edited by: Kinokima on Aug 10, 2010 2:22 PM

This is why I say Audrey Hepburn gets unfair criticism for My Fair Lady. I am fine with people not liking her in the role or saying they would rather have Julie Andrews, but it was not Audrey's fault Julie did not get the role. It wasn't Audrey in place of Julie. Jack Warner never wanted Julie Andrews for the role in the first place. So Audrey just went with it because she thought why not her instead of Elizabeth Taylor. Heck maybe you can blame Cary Grant because maybe if he had accepted the role of Higgins, Warner maybe would have went with Julie Andrews as Eliza. I think he just wanted one box-office star in the movie. As for the singing as I said Emma Thompson does not know what she is talking about here. Audrey Hepburn *could* sing. No she certainly could not sing like Julie Andrews but she could sing as well as many of the Hollywood stars today (like Nicole Kidman) that get cast in musicals. They never go for the Broadway star anymore. Just listen to her sing in Funny Face & Breakfast at Tiffany's. Is Emma Thompson going to cast someone with a voice as great as Julie Andrews? I highly doubt it! (Although it would be nice to see Julie Andrews get a part in this new film. Maybe as Higgin's Mother? ) Audrey Hepburn did not know she was going to be dubbed when she took the part. She even took voice lessons. She was very upset when she found out and walked out in anger. But being the graceful lady that she was she came back and apologized for her behavior. If anyone deserves scorn for what happened with My Fair Lady it is Jack Warner not Audrey Hepburn.

Well I created it specifically about Wilder but I guess sometimes it is natural to get off-topic especially if you start an interesting conversation.

Since you mentioned the Rossellini neo-realist films then I would also say The Bicycle Thief.

As I said before I don't care that Emma Thompson doesn't like Audrey Hepburn. She has a right to her opinion but I also have a right to say her opinion is full of...... And since you are using examples of famous directors disliking other famous directors I can also disagree with their opinion or how they present their opinion. Tolstoy hates Shakespeare. He wrote some long essays on the matter. I love Tolstoy's novels (well the two I have read) but when it comes to Shakespeare then I don't think he knows what he is talking about. Actually I think his opinions on Shakespeare are quite ridiculous.

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > > Audrey Hepburn does well enough in *My Fair Lady*. > > I humbly suggest that anyone who thinks any aspect of her performance in MFL can be deemed, "well enough", has no idea what that character is supposed to be. Certainly Cukor didn't! It's perfectly fine that you dislike the performance and the movie. But I like the movie and her performance and I know I understand the character.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > All of this is really just a lot of Much Ado About Nothing. > > I guess one actor can not criticize another actor at all. is this what I am hearing? > > Emma Thompson is free to say whatever she wants but we are also free to speak out against what she says. Everyone is free to have their opinion but that doesn't mean that opinion cannot be disputed. And I just thought the way she presented her opinion was extremely rude. If she wanted to criticize the first film she could have done so with much more tact. She could have said that she didn't think Audrey was right for the role or that she thinks more could be done with My Fair Lady. She could mention that My Fair Lady is an adaption itself. But no she has to belittle Audrey Hepburn's career. I can tell you that Audrey Hepburn would never do anything like that. She was class act all the way and that is why she is admired so much today. She was not just wonderful onscreen but wonderful off as well. I am certainly not attacking Emma Thompson's acting or writing abilities. I liked her in many roles and I love Sense & Sensibility. So I might still like her onscreen but unlike Audrey I now question how I feel about her offscreen.

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote} > OK . . . Maybe this was all just a good and crazy publicity ploy? But, I don't think Thompson is so much insulting Audrey as an overall actress. It's all about the 1964 film and not what Audrey has come to represent as far as a film icon goes. First of all my impression of what Emma Thompson said she was insulting Audrey Hepburn's acting ability in general not just her role in My Fair Lady. Saying all she could do was be sweet and cute and that she had no wit or bite or Twee as she said. And while Eliza is not my favorite role for Audrey, I still enjoy her performance very much and I think she gets a lot of unfair criticism because she doesn't sing and because Julie Andrews was not cast (neither of these things were her fault and she had no control over them). In fact this was the first role I had seen of Audrey's and I have been a fan ever since. Basically it seems to me that Emma Thompson thinks putting down Audrey Hepburn will sell her own version of My Fair Lady. Well she should sell it on its own merits not by putting down another Actress' work. That lacks class. I do like Emma Thompson's work but I have lost a lot of respect for her.

As I said in the other thread Emma Thompson does not know what she is talking about. Audrey Hepburn was a wonderful actress. Most actresses today do not come close to comparing, though they certainly try. Did she play similar roles a lot? Yes but so did a lot of actors/actresses at that time. And I think she gave some great iconic performances: Roman Holiday, Sabrina, Breakfast Tiffany's, and some great dramatic performances: Wait Until Dark, The Nun's Story, Two for the Road. And she actually could sing too. No not the high notes that My Fair Lady required but her versions of Moon River is one of my absolute favorite songs. I like Emma Thompson but this lacks class something that Audrey Hepburn had in abundance.

There will be a tribute in September according to TCM

Very true about Clary. He was in the camps himself but survived. I read his autobiography and it is very remarkable. All the German characters were also played by Jews who escaped Nazi Germany (Well Hochstetter was an American Jew but the rest like Klink, Schultz, and Burkhalter were European Jews). John Banner and Leon Askin's parents were also killed in the camps and Leon Askin at one time was interrogated by the Gestapo. Many remarkable stories in the Hogan's Heroes cast. And also the show with some rewrites was also a big hit in Germany.

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > > *My Fair Lady* is my favorite musical. It's the movie version of it, I hate. I also love the 1938 film. Well when I say the musical I mean the 1964 movie. I never got to see the play with Julie Andrews or otherwise. I was shown the movie in High School and it is what introduced me to the story and Audrey Hepburn and I have been a fan of both ever since. It is not necessary that I think it was right they passed up Julie in the role (definitely an injustice) but I still enjoy Audrey as Eliza despite the fact that she doesn't sing. But I know there are many others that share you opinion about the movie so I can't hold it against you.

I don't care what Emma Thompson says, Audrey Hepburn was a wonderful actress and certainly much better than most of what we have today. Sure she had her screen persona but most actors of the classic era did. And she can't sing? Sorry just because you can't sing high notes doesn't mean she couldn't sing. Her singing was quite lovely in Breakfast at Tiffany's & Funny Face. And everyone has their opinion but I personally love the musical My Fair Lady, the 1938 film Pygmalion, and Shaw's original play. I am sure I would have loved the Broadway play with Julie Andrews too if I had the opportunity to see it. It's one of my favorite stories and each version brings something different for me.

> {quote:title=Kelly125 wrote:}{quote} > Is me or what I think TCM going ask for trouble I notice they showing racically charge Birth of the nation boy that good way get in trouble with NACCP > Did you also notice that right after Birth of the Nation they are showing Within Our Gates (1920) a film by a black filmmaker that is in some ways a direct response to Birth of a Nation. Personally I have seen neither but I think it is great that TCM is showing both films. This is part of our history.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > I can't laugh anymore while Bob Crane is on-screen. Bob Crane isn't the only actor in the series. I feel sorry for what happened to him and yes his true life was disturbing but I guess I can separate reality from fiction. Besides Hogan was actually my least favorite character in the show.

I saw Yellow Submarine as a child but I can barely remember it. I would love if TCM would have an evening of Beatles films. I know they aren't high art but they are fun. And A Hard Day's Night certainly has some critical success. As a child my favorite was Help though. The Beatles were doing spy parodies well before Austin Powers. Besides if they can have Elvis films on TCM why not the Beatles?

> {quote:title=prc1966 wrote:}{quote} > > And I can't help it, I still get a kick out of occasionally watching Gilligan's Island and Hogan's Heroes I know the original comment is a bit old but there is nothing wrong with enjoying Hogan's Heroes. I love the series and no I don't consider it a guilty pleasure.

I am enjoying the Bob Hope/Road day too. Before this I only saw Road to Morocco. But now I can add Road to Utopia and Road to Bali to that list too. Looking forward to watching Nothing But The Truth tonight as well.

> {quote:title=JefCostello wrote:}{quote} > As I just said, Brando, Newman and Clift weren't that far removed from their 20's when Audrey was a big star. And the actors didn't have to be in their 20's. Even actors in their late 30's would have been better They were casting men in their late 50's next to her.

Well Holden and Hepburn were having an affair during the picture so I don't think he was too old for her. I do think Bogart was miscast though. On one hand I like that he is not your typical romantic lead so he isn't the obvious choice for Sabrina but he was way too old and I just think Bogart and Hepburn lacked chemistry. I do enjoy this film for Audrey Hepburn (it is one of her best performances in my opinion and I am big fan) unfortunately I can't say the same for Bogart (who I love in most everything else but romantic comedy was not his forte I guess). As I said in another thread I wish Wilder would have paired Audrey Hepburn up with someone else, He always chose the wrong leading man for her. It's like he couldn't get Grant so he chose another older man for her and it just didn't work. He should have changed his script slightly and cast someone else instead (I think Audrey Hepburn would have been wonderful with Jack Lemmon).

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > I guess you too missed the point I was trying to make. > > Instead of focusing your attention to whether or not you like AFI or not, just try to read my comments about how without a list of films from AFI the "regular" folks out there who do not know the difference between what TNT cable channel calls a classic and what critics like Roseblaum or the site you describe do call a classic. > > I am not advocating that what AFI is listing is the ultimate list. It is their opinion. Just like everyone else has an opinion. > > What I am trying to say is that if we were to leave the average American to decide what they would consider to be a real classic film, many would be swayed by what is shown on AMC, TNT and other channels. While I do believe the AFI lists are more or less trivial in nature they do present a focused effort in getting average Americans to tune in to see some films that are considered classic films as oposed to just listening to TNT and AMC. Sorry I did understand your point. While I like the point of what AFI does with their lists I think their lists are way too narrow. They include a lot of movies that are not classics at all (and not even worthwhile new films). I mean come on Titanic? The Sixth Sense? (well at least Titantic won an Oscar what is Sixth Sense doing on there?). If anything with a few exceptions (like adding Sunrise) the AFI's revised list got worse. The fact that it is only American movies is also extremely limiting. Why shouldn't the average American not be exposed to foreign classics too? So I like what AFI does I just think they could expose people to more worthwhile movies. Also the *TSPDT* list takes into account the Sight & Sound Poll in its ranking. It takes a look at many different polls and collaborates the results from those polls. It's not perfect but I think it is by far the best list out there. This is how they come up with the results: "Now, lets' talk statistics. The January 2010 list of the 1,000 Greatest Films of all-time has primarily been compiled by using 2,041 individual critics' and filmmakers' personal lists/ballots of their favourite/best films. That's 216 more ballots than our December 2008 list. A very warm thank you to everyone that has contributed lists and/or lent their support towards the current version. In particular, thanks to Angel Gonzalez Garcia, Aaron Dumont and Rob Sheehy for their steady supply of lists throughout 2009. In summary, here is the exact breakdown of individual ballots used, or if you like, from where we have begged, borrowed and stolen:" Sight & Sound's 1952-2002 polls (524 ballots) Senses of Cinema's 2000-2007 Top Tens (147 ballots) Time Out's 1995 poll (107 ballots) Nickel Odeon's 1994-1998 polls (100 ballots) Steadycam's 1995 & 2007 polls (80 ballots) El Mundo's 1995 poll (72 ballots) Your Movie Database's (YMDB) Critics Corner (71 ballots) Rotten Tomatoes' lists from 2003-2009 (70 ballots) New Facets? polls (69 ballots) One-Line Review's 2009 poll (66 ballots) New Positif?s 1991 poll (63 ballots) The Cinematheque's Top 10 Project (62 ballots) PBS's Independent Lens lists (59 ballots) Cinematheque Belgique's 1952 poll (52 ballots) Libre Journal du Cin?ma's 2009 poll (50 ballots) New John Kobal Presents the Top 100 Movies (44 ballots) PopCornQ's 1997 poll (39 ballots) The Village Voice's 1999 poll (37 ballots) Epoca Online?s 2000 poll (28 ballots) Kinema Junpo lists from 1999-2002 (25 ballots) New BBC's Calling the Shots series (25 ballots) Plus 251 more ballots from a variety of other sources.

I find the AFI list a bit disappointing too. My favorite critic's list is (which I also mentioned on another thread) is "They Shoot Pictures Don't They". Granted a lot of stuff in the top 100 is pretty well known too but I still find the list way more interesting than the AFI one and I also like that it includes foreign films as well. http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100films.htm

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > > > The film IS reality for most Germans in 1938. That other stuff, the political stuff, had nothing to do with them. They let their government handle that other stuff. > > You are missing my point, which is: average people should pay more attention to what their federal government is doing, and they should pay attention all the time. Bottom line is this is an UFA film or basically a Nazi film. They had already taken over 72% the company by 1938. This is what the Nazis wanted to reflect as a reality at the time. It doesn't mean it is a bad film or there wasn't some truth to it. But I hardly would look at the film as reality just as I wouldn't look at most Hollywood films as reality. And I am also pretty sure the German people on average knew more of what their government was about than you give them credit for. This movie might not of had the political message but there were plenty of others that did.