ET/Hepburn Media circus–It's over the top!
-
!!!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 -
wellesradio — 15 years ago(September 15, 2010 11:57 PM)
"She couldn't act I'm afraid."
Yeah, that's an opinion. You don't have to precede that with the phrase "in my opinion" to make that any clearer. Thompson actually believes it. Opinions for the most part are stated matter-of-factly. Unless the holder of said opinion is very timid or unsure of their opinion. I hear a singer I don't like and I say, "He can't sing."
Britney Spears is terrible. Se can't sing.
See what I did there? That's an opinion. I don't have to state that it's an opinion like I'm doing now. It just is. It's up to other people to discern what is opinion and what is fact. You called Thompson an arrogant ass. You stated that like it was fact. You don't hear me complaining because I have the good sense to recognize an opinion when I read one. And that is your opinion.
And I actually kind of believe Thompson to tell you the truth. Audrey Hepburn was not one of the great actresses of the 20th century. But she was one of the great icons. (at least she was way better than Marilyn Monroe). Certainly she wasn't a very versatile thespian. As I've said, she was a great "natural actress." She was indeed very competent as an actress. And I might add that the reason Thompson hits flat notes on occasion is because she tries different things. She's not afraid to fail, to experiment. She famously said she doesn't act in too many movies because she doesn't like taking on the role of the wife, the girlfriend, the love interest or the victim. Which is not to say she hasn't played those roles (we all gotta eat). But saying that in Hollywood takes guts. It's tough out there for actresses today. It always has been. They won't take you seriously unless you look like Audrey Hepburn. And they apparently didn't take Audrey (or any woman) too seriously since most of her roles were the wife, the girlfriend, the love interest or the victim. Hepburn was pretty much forced by the studios to stick to the formula. Wait Until Dark and The Children's Hour (where she played the victim, showing that even in that she was forced to limit herself) might be the only exceptions. Just so she doesn't have to dirty her face too much.
Is that Hepburn's fault? No. I'm sure if given the chance she could have been a great actress. But she wasn't given that chance. I'm saying this as someone who's seen all her work.
Not that it matters even if Thompson was a terrible actress. An opinion is an opinion. I called Britney Spears a terrible singer. And I'm not even a singer myself! That doesn't invalidate my opinion.
And Shaw's possible opinion of MFL? I was being too kind. It's pretty much a given that he would have detested it and made the types of public protests that would make Alan Moore look gracious. No one familiar with Shaw's work and his temperament would ever say otherwise. He was notoriously protective of his work and immensely anti-romantic. That's why they waited for him to die to even attempt composing the songs for it.
MFL being exactly like Pygmalion? That reminds me the famous story of Ibsen's A Doll's House. When it premiered it was quite naturally a controversial play. Ibsen was adamant that no producer change a single line so that a "happy ending" is implied. So what did many producers do? As soon as the last line is uttered and all the characters exit there is a pause and quietly Nora re-enters the home, quietly hangs up her coat, looks around and softly walks toward the children's nursery. End of play. That's pretty much what MFL is to Pygmalion. You could have every line in it be the same, but the tone, the songs and the ending are a betrayal to Shaw's message.
As for all that red herring stuff about Shaw and social Darwinism. Neither here nor there.
As for the reasons for adapting MFL rather than Pygmalion? You'd have to ask the producers. She is only adapting thescript, not directing it. But the answer is probably simple. MFL is more bankable. I don't know how Thompson became attached although her reputation as a writer no doubt came into it. My guess is she probably would like nothing better than to work on a Pygmalion project, but since that isn't likely to happen why not just work on bringing this to the fore? I don't think the producers had any "you must love the original" clause in the contract. Besides, it's obvious she thinks the original can be improved upon. And again, she must see something she likes in the musical to be working on it. Loving a specific actor's interpretation in one adaptation should not be a requirement. You don't need to like Lawrence Olivier in order to direct a new version of Hamlet.
A tip: [*URL](remove the asterisk) for all your linking needs. spread the word Use this sig! -
sandors_siren — 15 years ago(December 26, 2010 04:46 AM)
You can't just state Audrey Hepburn can't act without backing it up.
You
can't
back something like that up, since what one person thinks is deplorble, another might find to be fine art.
And I don't need someone to add "in my opinion" to anything in order to know it's an opinion. Unless it's fact regarding the making of a movie, any other statements are opinion. "So and so was great in this movie"opinion. "So and so stood to the left of the camera in this scene" fact.
I don't need to be spoon fed to know when an opinion is being made, arrogant or not.
And I don't think anybody on the planet needs to defend themselves if someone doesn't like their piece of work. All you can do is come to terms with itaccept that you didn't reach 100% of the global population5b4. Which is a given, by the way. Nothing is universally funny, scary, good or even bad.
Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe.~Frank Zappa -
friendofthebard — 15 years ago(September 16, 2010 12:34 PM)
wellesradio
said:
"She couldn't act I'm afraid."
Yeah, that's an opinion. . . . You don't need to like Lawrence Olivier in order to direct a new version of Hamlet.
Interesting post,
wellesradio
.
I enjoyed your comments about Shaw and Ibsen. There are always several authors at every book festival who mention how demeaned/betrayed/misunderstood they feel when their book is adapted to a film they don't even 1c84recognize. They talk about being resigned to "getting over myself" and needing to eat.
Audrey Hepburn was not one of the great actresses of the 20th century. But she was one of the great icons.
Agreed. And saying anything less than glowing about an icon will always generate a firestorm.
"I'm not alone. I'm with Muriel." -
wellesradio — 15 years ago(September 16, 2010 04:31 PM)
I'm afraid you're right, friendofthebard. Interesting name by the way, what with the talk of how Shaw was no friend of the Bard - and yet his controversial writings led to some great insight on Shakespearean drama. Which I guess proves your point about writing anything less than glowing about icons. Only worthy subjects conjure up firestorms. Look at Wagner. I think Shaw coined the term "Bardolatry" to describe fans of Shakespear who ascribed infallibility to the man from Stratford. Very clever, I think. Of course I love Shakespeare so I take it all with a grain of salt.
Funny thing is Shaw was a wealthy and famous man before the popularity of films which is why he didn't option his plays simply to make money. He allowed some of his plays to be adapted because he thought film would be superior to the stage. Most importantly he thought film would afford his works freedom from the censors he'd spent his life railing against. As such he thought film would be an emancipated medium. Ultimately, however, those same sort of censors took over the film industry and the film-going audience proved not to be as patient of literary as he'd hoped (a trend sadly continuing to this day) while the producers tended to be sappy dilettantes and shysters looking to make a quick buck. He initially envisioned a world where daring writers could stage their productions cheaply and efficiently in one filmed performance rather than sucking up to the theater industry for a run of performances under the watchful eye of the censors. He was very idealistic even into his old age. But he was let down.
To tell the truth I couldn't even be bothered to read more than two or three lines of Sshelley's rant. If anyone is too stupid to realize how utterly romanticized MFL is compared to Pygmalion (let alone being trusted with the grammar school task of identifying facts vs. opinions - something I assign to my students as homework all the time) they shouldn't even be taken into consideration. You know what Harlan Ellison said, "You're not entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to your informed opinion." In this case it's Emma Thompson - 1. Sshelley - 0.
But of course even uniformed opinions are opinions. I used to think any idiot could see that. I'm sorry to be proven wrong.
We'll just have to let the mad dog froth up and gently put it down.
A tip: [*URL](remove the asterisk) for all your linking needs. spread the word Use this sig! -
tigerbos — 15 years ago(October 16, 2010 09:44 PM)
blah blah blah blah blah blah blahmore crap from someone who continually vomits her opinions onto the Emma Thompson board. I wonder how much we could all pay you to stop. Your arrogance knows no bounds. You continually rant on and on and don't give a rat's turd about anyone's opinion but your own.
"I will not tolerate this childish behavior of ignoring me and insulting me behind my back" WAAAAA WAAAA WAAAAA "You're being so mean to me. I don't get any attention from my husband so I'll go on here and act like a furktard".
I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini. -
wellesradio — 15 years ago(October 21, 2010 04:38 PM)
tigerbos said:
"blah blah blah blah blah blah blahmore crap from someone who continually vomits her opinions onto the Emma Thompson board. I wonder how much we could all pay you to stop. Your arrogance knows no bounds. You continually rant on and on and don't give a rat's turd about anyone's opinion but your own.
"I will not tolerate this childish behavior of ignoring me and insulting me behind my back" WAAAAA WAAAA WAAAAA "You're being so mean to me. I don't get any attention from my husband so I'll go on here and act like a furktard". "
hahaha
yeah, something like 5 pages of posts (all in one go!) that no one here is going to bother to read a single line of. Might as well plaster a big black X across three quarters of this page. Sigh all that ranting. Talk about wasting an afternoon. I feel almost bad about it.
And all centered around the premise, "You can't state an opinion as if you know what the heck you're talking about." Hey, Sshelley. You're an idiot.
Whoops. Did I just state that like it was a fact? I did.
A tip: [*URL](remove the asterisk) for all your linking needs. spread the word Use this sig!