ET/Hepburn Media circus–It's over the top!
-
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! -
alvinkuo — 15 years ago(November 12, 2010 11:34 PM)
Pathetic sight these days: people who can't bother to read articular, reasoned posts and claim that's it is all a rant. Then again it is IMDB.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -
sandors_siren — 15 years ago(December 26, 2010 05:08 AM)
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.
Well
I
might, but I have to take a break. I've got my board viewing mode in "flat", so I've just scrolled down 3 consecutive really long posts. I'm not put off by long posts
per se
, but I do want to take it all in, and I'm a little distracted right now.
Why bother? Well because I can't quite express how much I appreciate people who can think, write AND spell on imdb, so I'll pay my respects!!
Typos are one thing, but take a look aroundit's scary out there. I just happened upon this discussion by accident (and I'm quite enjoying it). But alas, I can't be left in peace to just read and comment at my leisure. I have to work too.
Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe.~Frank Zappa -
rosa_flamingo — 15 years ago(October 08, 2010 05:57 AM)
I've been reading a lot of your comments concerning ET and AH and there's a few things that really annoy me about your line of argument:
Why is it unfair and arrogant of ET to state her opinion about AH's acting? Isn't everybody entitled to say one's opinion? And it's not as if she started some mean smear campaign - she just answered some journalist's question, for god's sake! And just because AH seems to be perfect in every way and has earned this Mother-Theresa-like-holier-than-thou-reputation, she can't be an object of criticism?
And does one need PROOF to have an opinion? There's no measure for art, just one's own perception and clearly Audrey Hepburn didn't do anything for Emma Thompson. So ET is as right as everybody is. You don't have to PROOF anything to state your opinion! And you don't have to be Meryl Streep (even though I personally think ET is equally good) to criticize other actors. Especially when you're asked about a script you're writing and the movie it's based on. And if she thinks that AH is twee, so what? Does that harm AH in any way? The only people who really get so terribly upset, are those who love AH but secretly have doubts about her acting skills, but can't admit it to themselves.
That's like those people, who are offended when other people don't believe in the bible and start argueing. It's a sign of inner doubt, that can't be admitted to. Those people who are sure, don't care what other people think.
And you asked in one other post: Is it really fair to compare them as actresses? I think it's fairer to compare them as actresses than as movie icons.
I also think that ET is very aware of the different acting styles. Even among the old-style-actors there were better and worse ones. AH wasn't bad, but not extraordinary. Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn and Deborah Kerr were all more convincing and versatile and earned a million oscar nominations. But still Audrey Hep5b4burn is the greater icon. (The greatest female icon after Marilyn Monroe, if you ask me.)
Audrey Hepburn is not famous and beloved for her acting in particular, is she? She's famous for her fantastic looks, her charm, her style and her dramatic biography. It's like Frida Kalo in a way (not the looks, of course!). People don't REALLY like her PAINTINGS, but they appreciate her personal history. Not that I don't enjoy Audrey Hepburns performances! I do, I really do, but she is ALWAYS cute and lovable. That's fine for Roman Holiday, but for My Fair Lady?
You said: >>There would have been absolutely no reason for Shaw to hate My Fair Lady as it is almost identical to Pygmalion. So why do people keep stating this as if it were a fact? The fact is that Shaw died before My Fair Lady was made, he had no chance to speak for himself and no one has the right to speak for him.
Personally I don't think Emma Thompson gets Shaw for the bees, "It's a play about sexual slavery!" Absolutely not!<<
Well I think it is in a way. Didn't you ever find it curious that the father wanting to sell his daughter to do who-knows-what is a form of slavery? And it's just treated as a joke in the movie. The girl is treated as an object not a person throughout. And it seems to be the most natural thing in the world to the viewer, that's what annoys me personally.
And the ending ambiguous? It's pretty obvious she's5b4 given in to his way. I've always hated the ending, no character change in Higgins at all and he still doesn't lose? A little rebellion and a little fight on her side and then she's his pretty little slave/ decoration/ object of ridicule again? Very jingoistic! So maybe it IS time for a remake?
I used to love My fair Lady, but the more I really think about it the less I like it. I adore classical movies and usually I'm always against remaking them. But if this one takes a whole different approach to the mentioned topics, it has a right to exist, doesn't it? And art is very much about interpretation, so as an artist ET has every right to interpret Mr. Shaws play in her personal concept.
Wow, that was really a long post. I hope I didn't offend you, I just felt like writing something after all that slander (not particularly yours) against ET. -
wellesradio — 15 years ago(October 10, 2010 05:23 PM)
Totally agree with you.
It is a play about social ills. It has a message. (Gasp - Shaw writing about societal problems? What does he want? An Oscar? The Nobel? Give it to him before he REALLY starts writing about prostitution. We wouldn't want him writing any unpleasant plays now.)
To be honest the father pimping out his daughter was meant to be played funny. It was just Shaw's way of lacing the strychnine with sugar. His generation had to be able to do that to get past the censors.
There were two ending to the original play. Both very different to MFL (and don't look to the Leslie Howard version either). Higgins and Eliza DON'T end up together. She doesn't give in. And seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not realize that making "I Could Have Danced All Night" a deliberately focal moment dramatically changes the tone of the story. And again, that ending! Bah! Higgins doesn't change. And yet she's overcome with care for him. And "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face"? Oh, talk about romanticizing a very dry sentiment on the part of the original Higgins.
The editiorial decisions and the staging and for God's sake - the music - changes everything! No dialogue was changed? What do you call lyrics if not an addition to the dialogue? So if Higgins or Eliza go into a soliloquy reciting the words to these numbers it's wrong, but if they sing them it's all right and doesn't affect the play?
Again, mind you, I like MFL. It's greatly entertaining. But it's more sugar than anything else.
A tip: [*URL](remove the asterisk) for all your linking needs. spread the word Use this sig! -
tigerbos — 15 years ago(September 09, 2010 06:56 PM)
Doesn't anyone have a sense of humour anymore? Emma says a lot of things in a joking manner and everyone seems to take her to task over it. Look Audrey Hepburn was AN O.K. ACTRESS, she wasn't great and if Emma really thinks so, it's just her opinion. People talk about John Wayne as if he were a god or something and he was wooden as hell and acted the same in every film! Plus he was racist. Who cares? If you like someone you like them if not, well then fine. I saw the interview someplace on line and I thought she was just joking and thought nothing of it. I don't understand why everyone's so sensitive on this issue!
I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini.