ET/Hepburn Media circus–It's over the top!
-
mmitsos-1 — 15 years ago(September 19, 2010 11:23 AM)
SorryThompson easily has racked up just as much of a "legacy" as A. Hepburn has. Thompson has two Oscars to her credit, one of which is for acting, making her the ONLY actor or actress to have ever won for both writing and acting.
And, as far as her acting credits go, Howards End was sublime, as were several other of her films, including Remains of the Day, Wit (probably the most REAL performance of a cancer patient ever portrayed), Sense and Sensibility, Love Actually (albeit a small part, moving nonetheless), and A Winter Guest.
I like Audrey Hepburn as well, but her range was quite minimal, as charming as she was. Yes, she was quite good in Roman Holiday and Wait Until Dark, but I still tip my hat to Thompson over Hepburn in terms of sheer acting talent.
I love both actresses, and if you read the entire article, she was absolutely dissing Hepburn's SINGULAR PERFORMANCE in My Fair Lady, not her entire career. She admitted that she was even familiar with her entire careershe was simply familiar with My Fair Lady and thought that both H's performance, as well as the whole film itself, was overproduced, and "twee".
And I agree with her completely. -
tigerbos — 15 years ago(September 23, 2010 02:05 PM)
I agree with your post. I'm certainly sick of the rabid posts by A. Hepburn fansshe certainly was limited in her range, even she stated this herself. It looks like the only reason 16d0people come on here anymore is to knock Emma's opinions or politics which I find shockingly insipid and lame. Emma Thompson is one of the greatest actresses ever and I certainly have my own life and don't need anyone, not even her, to dictate to me my taste in film or politics. Everyone else needs to move on and get over it!
I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini. -
mmitsos-1 — 15 years ago(November 10, 2010 11:56 AM)
Oh My Goddovstar-1, now you really don't know what you're talking about. Emma was TWEE???? in Much Ado? That was a great movieat least her part. I 2000will say that Michael Keaton's performance was a bit out of it, and Keanu Reeves was his usual extremely wooden self, but the rest of the cast was fantasticESPECIALLY Emmaand that is not because I like her. I like her, perhaps, in part, BECAUSE OF her performance in this film. Her interpretation and reading of her part were both spot on, but also quite accessible. I thought she brought everything to the character, and interpreted the gamut of emotions perfectly.
You clearly just don't like her. She is a rare, and quite versatile, acting talent. -
ikke_for_let — 15 years ago(August 14, 2010 04:45 AM)
There is nothing intelligent about liberals. Liberals disregard feedback from reality entirely. Which makes them much closer to being insane than intelligent.
Here is a link to a study that shows that Liberals know less about basic economic issues than Conservatives. Not exactly a sign of intelligence. Quite the opposite actually.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932 412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
But I guess if you really don't understand much of anything, it's easy to believe that you are smart. Sort of like the self inflated confidence of eight year old children.
We conservatives just shake our heads of the incredible ignorance of liberals. That ignorance being so profound that we know that even beginning a serious discussion with liberals is futile.
On top of having to suffer through liberals lack of coherent thought patterns, we also have to endure their constant touting of their own mental superiority. Again it's like eight year old children. Confidence based on a solid foundation of ignorance. -
mmitsos-1 — 15 years ago(August 15, 2010 10:13 AM)
For every study you want to copy and paste in an IMDB board about the magic of Conservatives' economic policies, I have a hundred to cite you about the complete ills their policies have perpetrated on this country for the past 100 hundreds. Just look at the GDP.since FDR, at most recent, jobs and economic growth as a percentage of the GDP has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, systematically outperformed under Democratic presidents, AND THEIR POLICIES, than under Republican presidents and policies. You're a moron who DOESN'T LOOK AT FACTS, JUST AS ALL OTHER REPUBLICANS ARE, if you're going to deny this.
We've had to SUFFER THROUGH EIGHT YEARS OF W., AND TWELVE YEARS OF DISASTROUND EOCNOMIC POLICIES AND LACK OF JOBS UNDER BOTH REAGAN AND BUSH I.you're the pot calling the kettle black. It is your religious, nothing-based-in-fact ilk that houses the "minds" of Sarah Palin, Reagan, John Kyl, Boehner, and the whole lot of nutcases.
Having any serious discussion with a Republican is completely useless, since you live in a dreamworld. You all think you're going to earn $1,000,000/yr some day, and therefore, you begin voting against your interests from early on, when the tax cuts for the rich and trickle-down economics (the only economic policy Republicans believe in) won't even help you.
You're all idiots. You're not even taken seriously by intelligent, thinking Liberals. Yes, I do call my liberal friends the intelligent ones, because we read, and we deal in facts. Your party is extremely divisive, believes basically that only w2000hite men matter, has no regard for any measure of safety nets for people in need, but certainly gets involved in areas of people's lives in which they have no business getting involved (e.g., privacy rights), and are simply dangerous for this and any other country. The right wing of this country has gone so far to the right that the so-called "moderate democrats" today are conservatives in any European country. And, your sick party wouldn't even welcome Nixon at this pointyou've all become so sicko right-wing in your thinking that it's actually quite comical to observe. -
!!!deleted!!! (33407653) — 9 years ago(April 15, 2016 01:41 PM)
I came upon your post by accident and, even though it is six years old, had to comment. Great post and oh so accurate. About three years ago a study came out (That would be about 2013 or so before you or the previous poster wrote their posts) that a study of liberals and conservatives found that, on average, liberals had IQs that were ten points
higher
than conservatives. It was something we liberals always knew but now it has been verified. Of course it is something conservatives will never know because they don't read, don't believe in facts, and live in a bubble of dubious reality that prevents logic or facts from ever getting in, -
thereseuphemiaabernathy — 15 years ago(August 15, 2010 05:38 PM)
DITTO THE OP.
I'm just eyerolling at all the ridiculous, angry, and wholly inapplicable criticism being hurled at Emma all of a sudden, clearly due only to some personal opinion she stated. Heaven forbid she not worship a certain actress. I do think highly of both Audrey and Emma, and for crying out loudget over it. Sheesh. I didn't see the actual interview either, only a direct quote or two someone posted here. I'm not going to start thinking poorly of Emma just because we may not share the same opinion of Audrey Hepburn's acting.
flower
power -
simplemines — 15 years ago(August 15, 2010 06:40 PM)
I completely agree. I think I might've seen one movie I didn't like Emma Thompson in; in the vast majority, she's simply superb!
I also like Audrey Hepburn, who was wonderful in several movies.
I think both were (and are) beautiful, interesting-looking, talent actresses, but like with their looks, they're talented in different ways. I can't see them swapping out roles. They're both wonderful, but in different ways.
(A genera comment: as for the politics, anyone who brings that crap into this discussion is a loser. And I AM a conservative! I'm sick to death of EVERYTHING being politicized, so out of any human decency you might retain, shut UP with the freaking politics!!) -
gabbieispretty — 15 years ago(August 24, 2010 09:03 AM)
Emma can think whatever she wants but it's disrespectful to bash a legend the way she did. Besides Audrey always has been and always will be beloved and Emma's fans need to accept the fact that when she bashes an icon it's going to come back at her. If she can bash Audrey then why can't Audrey fans bash Emma? At least Audrey was unique, Emma is a good actress but not better than Meryl Streep,Judi Dench,Helen Mirren and doesn't really stand out in any way
-
Nolegirl97 — 12 years ago(January 29, 2014 07:04 AM)
Everyone has an opinion on the icons of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Just because you find one of them overrated doesn't make you disrespectful, it makes you honest.
Personally, I love Audrey Hepburn and Emma Thompson both. And they both have similarities in my opinion. Both are excellenb68t actresses- not the best but still enjoyable- but have even brighter personalities. Audrey Hepburn is obviously known for being an angel that lived to help others, and Emma Thompson is known to be a hilarious personality that doesn't quite give a beep Both are unique and both are special. But to cut down Emma Thompson because she expressed her opinion (an opinion that has been expressed before, too) is just stupid.
But then again, I bet all of your critics are posting on your IMDB board about how disrespectful it was for you to cut down Emma Thompson. -
ar87 — 15 years ago(August 31, 2010 02:41 AM)
John Lennon was making an accurate point about how each generation cares about Christianity less and less, and that whether it was The Beatles or television, kids were letting their Bibles grow dust and were worshiping other things.
Emma Thompson was caught accidentally letting her arrogance come out in full form. She forgo2000t to press that button that all actors have that hide their true feelings about other actors. That diplomatic button. She revealed that she thinks the world of herself, and can't fathom why anyone in the world of acting could be more popular or revered than her.
There's no comparison. And John Lennon was a genius. Emma Thompson ain't no genius though I'm sure she thinks she is. That word gets thrown around way too much. I'm highly selective of it. Einstein, Newton, Lennon, McCartney, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare. No Emma Thompson. -
CountessGaviota — 15 years ago(August 31, 2010 07:05 AM)
Well, I was hardly comparing Emma Thompson and John Lennon ((apples and oranges). I was referring to the reaction of the media and some of the public. Might it not be just a little presumptuous to assume to know exactly how she thinks and feels and why she said something? I was saying you cannot always trust the media to quote something correctly, much less portray someone's words in the sense in which they meant them, especially if they can create controversy. Controversy seems to be far more important than accuracy. And even if she was being as she is accused, why is it so easy for us to jump on the bandwagon of hate and criticism? I think what she may have said is very tame compared to the viciousness it stirred up, and that saddens me.
-
wellesradio — 15 years ago(September 04, 2010 02:36 PM)
Lennon wasn't making any point about Christianity being less popular or any such b.s. He wasn't making any brilliant critique of western civilization. Jeezus Kroist, everyone thinks St. John was this fount of wisdom and peace. All he was doing was tooting his own horn and slightly dissing his fans and Beatlemania- which would eventually become his trademark because he knew that even after he died they'd still be sucking his beep no matter how much sh** he talked about people to their face. To tell the truth, I don't think Lennon was think2000ing much of anything when he said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. It was just his way of saying, "We're so beep popular it's ridiculous." He was just giving an opinion. He didn't mean any harm by it either way.
Now as for Emma Thompson and Audrey Hepburn, who gives a beep Hepburn's dead. Her feelings can't be hurt. Someone here says, "Duh, Thompson's not so great because Meryl Streep, Judi Dench and Helen Mirren are better. Besides, Hepburn has an Oscar!"
WTF? Yeah, Emma Thompson has one, too. And Julie Andrews should've been in My Fair Lady. Hell, the Academy dissed Audrey for that one too, not even nominating her, and gave it to Julie Andrews anyway. There are tons of great actors and actresses who never won that silly little trophy and others who've won it more times than they can count for widely disparate performances. It's almost meaningless. That piece of tin has been given away simply because you made money for the right people, bacause you pandered to a block of Aca-dummy voters, because of people's guilt over not having given it to you earlier, to spite an unpopular person, for political reasons, because you're about to die, because you're already dead, and occasionally even because someone gave the best performance of the year. Hell, Judy Garland never got an Oscar for an acting performance. Orson Welles never got one for directing. Does that mean they're inferior?
Now if you're going to make nonsensical comparisons then I'll add that Julie Andrews, Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn were better actresses than Audrey. I still like Audrey Hepburn. People don't watch women-oriented films anymore? That's a tricky one because Audrey never made films like "All About Eve" or "Woman of the Year" . She certainly never played anything like out of "Carrington" or "Angels in America" or "The Remains of the Day."
And I still enjoy watching her in My Fair Lady, but she's not some sacred cow. She was a pretty actress who was chosen for the role simply because she was popular. It's no different than when a popular play gets made into a movie today and the role goes to Reese Witherspoon or Julia Roberts rather than the wildly popular stage actress who originated the role.
I like Audrey Hepburn and I loved her in MFL (even though she couldn't sing) but if someone - anyone - wants to criticize that particular performance, or say they don't like her movies, they are justified in doing so. They don't have to have their career somehow compared to hers in order to have the proper credentials to do so (and it's not like anyone would meet up to a fan's standards. Jesus Christ himself could come down from the clouds and say, "Ah, she was just okay" and the super fans would be asking, "Yeah, what movie were YOU in?").
Ok, that's my two bits. At least I'm glad we shut those other idiots talking about politics up. Christ, the half truths they were telling! It seems like every week a conservative/liberal group puts out a report saying the other side is made up of idiots. And the only idiots are the ones who gobble it up. I always tell guys like ikke_for_let to go tell it to Einstein and Hawking.
A tip: [*URL](remove the asterisk) for all your linking needs. spread the word Use this sig! -
wellesradio — 15 years ago(September 13, 2010 04:00 PM)
Thanks, Sshelly, for putting up Emma's exact words (although I'm wondering why you called me an arrogant ass). I felt like we were all talking without really knowing the substance of it. It's good to be able to read it. Now that I've read it I can see its validity. She doesn't like Audrey Hepburn. She doesn't think Hepburn was a good actress. Period. Is that so bad? To be perfectly honest Hepburn isn't nearly as skilled or as trained as a classical actor as Thompson is.
Hepburn is an icon. And of course in our celebrity dominated culture you don't mess with he icons.
Thompson saw the original movie and didn't like Hepbrun's portrayal of Eliza Doolittle. There's nothing wrong with that (in fact, that proves Thompson isn't saying it "based on nothing." She's saying it based on what she's seen in the original MFL). And she didn't say Hepburn is untalented. Only that she doesn't like her acting. Bu the way, an opinion can be and often is the basis of a critique.
I grew up falling head over heels in love with Hepburn from watching this movie. How can one not? She is a dream!
But then again I watched the movie thinking I would grow up to be a determined bachelor like Higgins. I used the pause function on my VCR (the original movie came on two video cassettes that I rented eight times from the library) to write out the lyrics to "Never Let A Woman In My Life" and posted it on my bedroom wall to memorize
I'm happily married now thank you very much.
It was my first Audrey Hepburn movie. It was also well written and had so much going for it (namely the design and Rex Harrison's performance).
But still despite my love of Hepburn I think the movie does stand out mostly as a result of Cecil Beaton and Rex Harrison. There are plenty of movies where Audrey is the show stealer. The main attraction. This isn't one unfortunately. You don't walk away saying, "My God, what a performance Hepburn gives!" And to be quite honest I suspe238ct that if any other movie had been my first Hepburn experience THAT movie would have made a greater impact on me simply because it was love at first sight and she's pretty in everything she's in. It was her face that won me over not her performance as Eliza. I realize that now of course. As it is it's not one of her best movies. Look around on the net. Most Audrey Hepburn movie fan lists rate it at 9 or 10. It never makes it among her top 5.
Somehow saying that it's one's "moral" obligation to crucify another person for expressing a benign op5b4inion about something so pointless makes me fear for this nation's spiritual priorities. Emma Thompson is very much a post-feminist, strong-willed and intelligent individual. She takes acting seriously and wants to be taken seriously. She has strong opinions. And she plays in the boys club not just in the girls club.
And she also happens to be talking about Shaw whom she regards as one of the greatest writers in English history. Thompson has strong opinions about Eliza's character as Shaw intended it. Shaw would have hated My Fair Lady. He would have equally hated Audrey Hepburn as Eliza Doolittle. Thompson sees her involvement in this film as a way of retaining the musical but returning some of the elements that made the play so daring. And to be perfectly honest Audrey Hepburn was very TWEE in that movie! Personally I love twee but twee is not what a complex character like Eliza Doolittle calls for. Eliza has to have a rougher edge to her. Take the slipper scene for instance. The line, "I sold flowers not myself" never fails to choke me up a bit even when Hepburn says it but the scene is actually better performed in the original Pygmalion film. And even that movie was a bit too scrubbed and cleaned.
It's funny that people think an artist can't have an opinion about another long dead artist. If you think that's bad you should see what Shaw wrote about Shakespeare! I have an entire volume of Shaw's writings 5b4dismissing and bashing the works of William freaking Shakespeare. But do Shakespeare scholars cry foul, "Oh, no! You beastly little man! How dare you?" No. In fact Shaw's writings on the Bard are some of the most sober, intelligent and indeed highly critical dispensations on Shakespeare in the 20th century. They put Shakespeare in his place, asking wonderful questions such as "is he really worth reading anymore?" and telling us what Shakespeare's works and our infatuation with him tell us about ourselves.
So I say if anyone anywhere was ever worth a damn then it's only because they had both a great following and some mighty valid and important detractors. Let's hear it for detractors. Because once the discussion ceases then an artist becomes simply an image of a faded age. And if you want Audrey Hepburn to be remembered simply as a poster or a T-shirt, that's fine.
Come to think of it, I've been reading over Hepburn's own lack of confidence in her acting ability. What she didn't appreciate was that she was a very gifted natural actress. She had a wa
