MovieChat Forums > The Ambassador's Daughter (1956) Discussion > Norman Krasna wrote this for Olivia...

Norman Krasna wrote this for Olivia...

posted 15 years ago by Doylenf
6 replies | jump to latest

He's the man who penned PRINCESS O'ROURKE which won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay in 1943. With Olivia living in Paris, he wrote THE AMBASSADOR'S DAUGHTER with her in mind.

Objections to the age business are understandable, since the character more likely should have been played by someone more age appropriate--like Audrey Hepburn. But I will say this--Olivia looked very beautiful and youthful in many of the scenes and did win the Belgian Prix-Femina for Best Comedy performance by an actress for this role. All this ranting about the age factor is so overdone--she does look great in the Christian Dior outfits and John Forsythe was only a year and a half younger than Olivia. BTW, they're both still alive at this writing!

"Somewhere along the line, the world has lost all of its standards and all of its taste."

[–] OldPolitico 11 years ago

The age issue wouldn't have been so apparent if John Forsyth eld a higher rank, maybe MSG rather than SFC. This brings me to some errors, typical of Hollywood. Tommy Noonan's character in the credits is a corporal, but he refers to himself in the film as a PFC and wears a uniform without even that chevron on his sleeve. And, twice, Noonan recites his service number with an O prefix which indicates an officer, enlisted rnk service numbers should have an E prefix.

The French part of the dialog is badly handled in speeches by both De Haviland and Loy who in rea l life probably knew better.For example, Myrna Loy, at intermission of the ballet, offers a toast "Viva la America!" which any French speaker would render "Viva l'Amerique!" Two obvious errors involve the senator's backstory as explained by his wife. She says he was elected to the US Senate at the age of 28, but the Constitution sets 30 as the minimum age to serve in that body. She also says she mistook him for a baseball player when he said he was a "Senator' - but the DC team from about 1905-56 ws known as the Washington Nationals; we'll call this one poetic license, perhaps.

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

The entire cast was just plain old. When I saw the cast list, I figured it was some film from 1941! To me, the oddest was the pairing of Menjou and Loy. 15 years separate them and he looked every day of it.

Loy's character wasn't very handy with French, as evidenced by her intentionally lame impersonation early in the film. So not only would that explain her misspeaking, but it's entirely possible that if she said "Viva l'Amerique!" audiences would not know what the hell a "lamereek" is.

The senator at 28, I'll give you that. As for the Washington baseball team, they were indeed the Senators. The Nationals are a current and different team. The Senators were an old team that moved to Minnesota and became the Twins.

[–] leader-7 11 years ago

Loy's character was purely American, she'd never been to France, and her character didn't study french... so I don't get the criticism.

As for the age differences... Why is 15 years between them an issue? Hollywood real life pairings are at least that many years apart; and in many story lines, same thing.

Plus, his position, his job -- of course he'd be older -- based on his experience and need for credibility in the ranks.

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

Hollywood real life pairings may often be that many years apart, but I doubt Senators and their wives are often 15 years apart. Some may be. Who knows? But basically, most husbands and wives are closer in age than that. So by making them so many years apart, you're drawing attention to it. And in a film, when something has attention drawn to it, it makes the viewer focus on it and even wonder if it will end up being a plot point.

[–] leader-7 11 years ago

yes, I agree. But I also don't think Hollywood then (or now, for that matter, but now they seem to be more "sensitive" for lack of a better word) paid that much attention to who in a role was how old. If an actor (on contract) was available, they handed them a script and said, "here's your next part." "I don't do tap dancing, Mr. Mayer." "Yeah, you do now." And that's that.

So, you're right -- but I also think viewers /now/ are looking for anything they can to criticize a picture, where before, most people just took the roles at face value.

remember, in Shakespeare's day, all the actors were men, and no one was saying, "Oh, that Ainsley Bancroft III, wasn't he just awful as Juliet? He was way too old for the part at 21."

[–] IStillAmBig 9 years ago

6 years later and you still get replies to this.....

Olivia was indeed a little long in the tooth for this, but she did look nice and played the role well.

I think the issue is - why people bring it up - is she was never considered a great beauty or a sex symbol. Though certainly talented and attractive, she didn't have a lot of sex appeal onscreen and I think the majority of folks who think of her think of someone a little matronly, therefore not suited to the daughter role.

As a former actor who was still getting cast as "mid-thirties" in my late 40s, I'm not trying to dog pile on the Lady, merely stating I think I understand why so many harp on her age in this.