Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
edonline

Emma Thompson: 'Audrey Hepburn couldn't act'

Recommended Posts

oh this is just because she has a movie coming out a sequel to "Nanny Mcsomething" which I am surprised because I thought the first one bombed

 

and I do hope it was taken out of context ... but heh this is what they do now create a controversy to get ticket sales

 

I loved Audrey Hepburn because of her beauty and grace and style more than her acting ability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is silly.

 

This kind of thing happens all the time. If you dig you'll find unsavory comments on others by many people you both love and hate.

 

A lot of the great directors had less than charitable things to say about each other and no one is hurt by it. Bergman hated Welles, Welles didn't like the French New Wave, Kurosawa wasn't a fan of Ozu, Rossellini disliked Antonioni (so did Welles and Bergman.) I have no problem with that, it does nothing to change how I feel about any one of them. In fact it gives us information on how each of those guys think about film.

 

Emma Thompson's comments won't denigrate Audrey Hepburn's status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect Emma Thompson's right to slam Audrey Hepburn's performance in MFL. Audrey has said herself that Julie Andrews would have done a better job in the role. But, seriously, does Emma Thompson really think Audrey's popularity is strictly "a guy thing?" Does she then believe that all those Audrey Hepburn purses are being purchased by men? I probably know 10 Audrey Hepburn fans for every one Emma Thompson fan, and most of them are women. As I look over the list of Emma Thompson's successful movies, I realize that she has made a career out of starring in stilted literary adaptions that most people watch once, just for bragging rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are entitled to their opinion. Part of the reason why we identify Hollywood as being so fake is because everyone puts on faces with everyone....and behind closed doors and "off the record" the truth comes out. It's why we choose to be skeptical about what people write in their autobiography since the same facts never came out in interviews. Let's all not be so sensitive and let Emma Thompson have her opinion, and kudos to her for having the guts to say something like that on the record. I'm sure if I was a fly on the wall on Audrey and Mel's bedroom several decades ago, both would have some interesting things to say about cast and crew of their projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this reminds me of that old syndrome of a classically trained actress against the imagery and style of a movie star. Well, it?s one thing for Thompson to have the right to voice her opinion that for the most part won?t be so accepted by a vast majority of fans. In the end, Thompson has to know clear and simple that her hypothesis on Audrey will never have any sort of defining factor to judging the quality of Audrey?s career. This is nothing more than a point of observation on Thompson?s part to distance her from a portion of motion picture tradition. Too bad, she doesn?t understand the attitudes and perspectives that make motion picture performers or movie stars special and beyond all the literary hype and sophistication Thompson believes is in her favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her guy thing comment is lost on me. I would say Audrey Hepburn's greatest appeal is to women and gay men. Oh, and old men, apparently. Her luminous screen presence, notwithstanding, most guys at the time would have preferred Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, Sophia Loren, Jayne Mansfield, Ava Gardner, Susan Hayward, Esther Williams, Debbie Reynolds, Doris Day...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding. Emma Thompson a screen legend???? ****. She's a good actress, yes. She's not in Audrey's league and never will be..............I find her catty comments very beneath someone like her. I can understand not liking Audrey in MFL but saying she cant act is ridiculous. NOT a class act, which Audrey was in every respect...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMEN, MOVIE PROFESSOR. Thompson is an actress. Audrey was an actress and a STAR. The kind of star, no matter how much talent she may have, Thompson will never be. Her comments smack of jealousy and a lack of class.......she certainly isnt going to "sell" this new version of MFL to me after these comments.........I wont even see it now after hearing this.........

 

Edited by: Hibi on Aug 10, 2010 10:26 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have a strong opinion on this, one way or the other. I'm just using the fact that we're talking about Emma Thompson, someone who will probably never come up on these boards again, to mention a film she's in that no one has yet listed. It's called *Wit*, and it's no fun to watch. It's one of those films that are really good, and really difficult to watch. Words such as "harrowing" and "devastating" come to mind.

 

Anyway, I think that part of this discussion stems from the fact that Thompson is British. In spite of the fact that there are and have been many British film stars, most of them immigrated to America at some point, and most of the films that made them famous on this side of the Atlantic were made by an American studio. The Brits have their celebrities, to be sure, but they don't really have the equivalent of the Hollywood star system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}

> Old men are not into mammary glands?

 

Well, Hollywood thought not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it denigrates Emma Thompsons' status in my book. Rude and tacky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> In her statement, what do you suppose this means?

>

> It's high time that the extraordinary role of Eliza was reinterpreted, because it's a very fantastic part for a woman.

>

> What does reinterpreted mean?

>

> Should we reinterpret Lincoln? General Patton?

>

> Is the new Eliza going to be a feminist? A man? A munchkin?

 

I took it to mean, have an actress who can both act and sing the role, this time.

 

You know, Jack Warner was absolutely astonished when the world turned against him for casting Hepburn. He claimed that it was strictly business, and while Hepburn never had a box-office blockbuster, she also had not been in a film that didn't make money. He also claimed that no one outside of New York knew who Julie Andrews was. Of course, that was absolutely ridiculous. If nobody knew who she was, then why was everyone so upset about it? Since the beginning of sound film, they dubbed actors and actresses, and no one cared. The reason Hepburn's casting was such a big deal was because everybody did, in fact, know who Julie Andrews was. Besides having been in 3 hit Broadway shows, she was featured on virtually every variety program of the day (there were many), appeared in her own special with Carol Burnett, and her starring role in *Rodger's and Hammerstein's Cinderella*, was seen by more people than who ever saw a Warner Brothers' (or any other film studio) move. The inside scoop at the time was that Warner didn't find Andrews pretty enough to be in films. Had Hepburn turned down the role, either Elizabeth Taylor or Shirley Jones would have gotten it. Which is exactly why she accepted it. Anyway, his film didn't need a star. Of course, Taylor would have suffered the same scorn as Hepburn. The show was the star. The title was enough. *My Fair Lady* was already the biggest musical in Broadway history, and its cast album was the biggest-selling album (any genre) of all-time. You would think that after all his years in the business, Jack Warner would have known that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote}

>

> I took it to mean, have an actress who can both act and sing the role, this time.

>

 

Sounds great to me!

 

opera-singer.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, I am going to stay out of the fracas. I think it's possible to be fans of both ladies.

 

I do agree that Hepburn's casting botches the original film version. And I hope that Thompson can help bring it to what it should've been. She certainly has the determination and drive to do so. I'd say, give her a chance. If it's not to your liking, then there will always be the Audrey version to fall back on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...