ET/Hepburn Media circus–It's over the top!
-
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. -
tigerbos — 15 years ago(September 09, 2010 07:44 PM)
Look, there is really nothi5b4ng to debate. I stand by my opinion that Emma T. can say what she wants about who she wants and no one has to agree with it or not. I'm not discrediting anyone. I simply stated my opinion and I don't really know why everyone is taking her to task for stating "I don't like this person's work" basically. I mean, this has nothing to do with world hunger, poverty or war or disease. The bottom line is - why does anyone give a damn what Emma Thompson thinks about Audrey Hepburn? Maybe what she said wasn't a joke. Maybe she made an off the cuff remark and didn't think people like you or anyone else for that matter, would give a damn! I really have no clue. I just think that people need to get on with their lives and concentrate on more important things. I have fav people I like as far as actors/actresses and I don't always agree with their politics or what they say sometimes.
I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini. -
mmitsos-1 — 15 years ago(November 16, 2010 09:11 PM)
Sshelley
Because Tigerbos is correctthe original My Fair Lady did suckand suck big time it did.
It's a complete embarrassment. I was embarrassed to watch it when I was a little girl. I could recognize talent and "fine art" even then, with no formal training in the arts by that point or anything. It's an awful film. The songs are awful. Her accent was horrendous. Her acting wasn't much better. The plot was completely contrived. I can go on and on.
Why do people have to be actual, paid film critics to express pretty much FACT about a film, but people aren't taken nearly as much to task when they critique books. I've joined various book clubs, and the critiques some people give are absolute rubbish. These book club members, I hate to say it, often are just looking for a hobby and an excuse to get out of the house at night once a week, and their "critiques" are completely thin, poorly thought out/thoughtless, and with no merit. But the people in the circle are so afraid to tell someone to their face that their critique sucks. Well, it's the same with movies. There are those who view film with an eye critical enough to actually make an intelligent assessment, whether or not they've been "schooled" in film critique, and then there are othersthose, for instance, who might think that MFL was a great or even good film, and that AH did a great job acting in it.
Sometimes an "opinion" of art is more than an opinion..it's fact. And people who can intelligently assess know the difference. -
alvinkuo — 15 years ago(November 17, 2010 09:48 AM)
"Sometimes an "opinion" of art is more than an opinion..it's fact. And people who can intelligently assess know the difference."
An elitist who is conceited enough to think its opinions are facts. You must be fun at the parties.
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 04:28 AM)
Essentially she's encouraging people to dismiss films simply because they are old and to dismiss Audrey Hepburn because her fanbase will jump when she says how high. You're exhibit A.
Wow, all I read was Ms Thompson saying she wasn't all that into it. Wished she were, but wasn't. I didn't get any subliminal messages from her teling me to not watch movies she doesn't like.
I don't really see anything wrong with her expressing her opinion. I might not agree with it, I might even think "whoah, she didn't like that??", but I'm hardly going to lose my sh%t because she doesn't like the same things I do. I appreciate her honesty though. I think I wouldn't respect her much at all if she lied, just to make everyone happy.
I've never once not been honest about whether I like something or not, no matter how much I know and/or love the person making said album/movie/poem/book/whatever. My bullsh%t filter is calibrated quite high. How nice or crappy someone has been in their life doesn't mean anything when you look at a finished product. It just means a nice/horrible person made something that either resonated with you or didn't. Hell, my extensive music and movie collection is riddled with complete ar3eholes But they made great stuff for my taste. I also don't see why it should be of any consequence if I dismiss stuff that the whole world wet its panties over.
I'm not an Emma Thompson fan. I like some of her work, sure. Ditto with Audrey Hepburn. It's neither of their fault if their fans can't think for themselves.
Edit: I responded to this directly after reading that par5b4ticular postingso if you expanded on all that, I haven't seen it yetwill get on it forthwith! So apologies if I'm uhjumping the gun somewhat.
Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe.~Frank Zappa -
heartsinwonderland — 15 years ago(November 28, 2010 06:13 PM)
the thing that makes me mad is the way Emma puts it. she could have said it in a way that is less offending. i think she was been quite rude and vulgar.
If being crazy means living life as if it matters, then I don't mind being completely insane. - RR -
shankmaker — 12 years ago(February 02, 2014 10:30 PM)
I'd just like to add that I love both actresses. Emma is certainly opinionated, often contrary to my opinion, but she is still my favorite. Audrey Hepburn- opening scene of Breakfast At Tiffanys no dialogue at all- but that is classic cinema. I feel blessed that both actresses have enriched cinema.