MovieChat Forums > Love in the Afternoon (1957) Discussion > I didn't care for the male lead

I didn't care for the male lead


I felt the main male character looked way to old in a kind of perverted way for the young girl character and i felt his acting was very stiff, he delivered his lines like john wayne would but this wasn't supposed to be a john wayne style character. anyway that's just my opinion.

reply

I agree with you. Gary Cooper was too old for the role he played, and his acting seemed a bit old style too, as if he was still in "High Noon". Pairing him with a lovely young thing like Audrey Hepburn made the story feel rather creepy than romantic, IMO. Too bad, this was a very good film that could have been great...

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde

reply

I agree as well. It made the romance that much less believable. The trivia states Cary Grant turned down the role because he thought the age difference was too great. Gary Cooper should have followed his lead. Apparently Grant also turned down Humphrey Bogart's role in "Sabrina," which also would have made for a better movie. Two wonderful films nonetheless, mind you; yet it is tempting to imagine how perfect they could have been.


Nie wieder Krieg! Nie wieder Faschismus!

reply

But Cary Grant could have carried it off. He could have made the character charming. This man was just ridiculous in the role. He had no charm or charisma at all. He seemed wooden and uncomfortable the whole time.

I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.

reply

Grant and Hepburn together would've been hot.



reply

...not half as creepy as "Funny Face," with cadaverous orb-headed crypt-keeper, Fred Astaire playing opposite a very young Audrey Hepburn.

reply

Oh, heck yeah! I forgot about that one. Fred Astaire was never a good looking man, IMO; plus, he was too skinny, and as he aged he seemed downright "cadaverous" indeed, mostly when paired with someone like Audrey Hepburn. What were the studios thinking???

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde

reply

I would say ditto for Humphrey Bogart in "Sabrina," except that, hey, it's Bogey!

reply

I have strangely never seen a Gary Cooper film before this one, so I can look at it without prejudices.
I think Cooper acts very well in this film, and I don't find him to be weird here. Bogey looked older in Sabrina, IMO.
So, his part didn't bother me at all.
Maurice didn't seem to be as old as Cooper.
Yeah, of course they could get a younger actor, but Cooper is sill very good and he fits.

reply

When you complain about the age difference, you are kind of missing the premise of the film. That was part of the tension that drove the story. If you look at some of the related trivia sections, in the book on which this is loosely based, she was 18 and he was 62. Hepburn was aroung 28 (but probably playing her to be early 20s) and Cooper was around 57. Still, a bit of a big deal. But, such an age difference was not such a big deal to Europeans, then (and I guess, even now)> Wilder was clearly doing this as homage to his idol, Ernst Lubich, who probaly would also see nothing wrong with the age issue. We are so obsessed with pedophilia issues (there is a separate post devoted to this), that we tend to knee-jerk react before we examine the facts.
It is a charming, but rather odd movie, in my opinion, but just go with the flow!

reply

What were the studios thinking???


It was Hepburn's suggestion that the studios get Astaire, as he was retired up until that point. Personally, I thought he was charming, unlike Cooper in LITA.

reply

...not half as creepy as "Funny Face," with cadaverous orb-headed crypt-keeper, Fred Astaire playing opposite a very young Audrey Hepburn.


I disagree! Yes, Astaire was old, but he was so energetic, charming, and gregarious! Oddly enough, he hardly shows his age at all, demeanor-wise, despite being older than Cooper. Also, Dick and Jo (in Funny Face) become very good friends and respect and care for each other very much.

The same cannot be said for Flannagan and Ariane, whose entire relationship (if you can even call it that) is based on lies, casual flings, and one trying to outwit and outplay the other.

reply

...not half as creepy as "Funny Face," with cadaverous orb-headed crypt-keeper, Fred Astaire playing opposite a very young Audrey Hepburn.


I disagree! Yes, Astaire was old, but he was so energetic, charming, and gregarious! Oddly enough, he hardly shows his age at all, demeanor-wise, despite being older than Cooper. Also, Dick and Jo (in Funny Face) become very good friends and respect and care for each other very much.

The same cannot be said for Flannagan and Ariane, whose entire relationship (if you can even call it that) is based on lies, casual flings, and one trying to outwit and outplay the other.

reply

definately. i think he was far too old and audrey was far too innocent. the relationship just seemed wrong.

reply

My girlfriend and I agree. It is quite creepy.

reply

Go to the "Instead of Cooper" thread below, and say what you think!

reply

AH was generally cast against older male leads. The producers were exploiting her youth and innocence in that sense. In Cooper's defense I believe the producers saw him as someone who could sell the movie (he had a legion of fans). He was a handsome man (like Cary Grant) who excelled at comedy. Besides Love in the Afternoon, you should check out Ball of Fire with Barbara Stanwyck and Friendly Persuasion with Dorothy McGuire.

"Loyalty counts. . ." Lucas Buck

reply

I wouldn't say creepy because both characters were consenting adults (I took it that Arianne is supposed to be at last twenty since she went no longer to school and had attended the musical conservatory for quite some time). But I found there was a distinct lack of chemistry between the two. That might have been different if Ariane had been the kind of woman she pretended to be. A bewildering mixture of youth, experience,innocence and depravity. I was too aware that Flannigan fell for a woman that didn't really exist. In reality Ariane was like that girl in Rome and he hadn't fallen at all for that kind of innocence and those romantic designs upon him.

Also Cooper's mechanical and unimaginative ways of courting a woman (always having the gypsy band ready, going through the same hackneyed old routine with each female partner) didn't really add any sizzle to the romance. Copper was also a bit too old to successfully pull of the playboy who did a woman (sometimes doing even twins or six geishas) every night and in every harbor so to speak. These were the days before viagra. Even at this day and age playboys like Flavio de Briatore retire at the age of 58 and that was about Flannigan's age. I could have seen someone like Clooney in the role, middle-aged but still in his sexual prime (but already hearing his biological clock ticking, knowing that his high times will soon be over which can lend a certain kind of appealing vulnerability to such a character)

reply

I disagree - we've seen too many guys about Cooper's age with women decades and decades younger - David Letterman, Warren Beatty, George Hamilton, Michael Douglas - and yet more extreme as in Anthony Quinn or Tony Randall - ti happens too often in real life to criticize a movie for portraying it.

And I find in Cooper's looks, slow speech, exactly the kind of thing you mention, movielover, the "knowledge that his high times will soon be over which can lend a cewrtain kind of appealing vulnerability to such a character". It's why someone such as Cary Grant or Gregory Peck wouldn't have worked nearly as well in this movie at the time. Cooper looks OLD and rather tired - and I think it suits beautifully - I read his character as showing an internal nagging with the sense that his wild days must soon end, he must settle down. He's finally ripe for marriage.

And his reputation is EXACTLY what the sheltered Ariane feels she's missed and craved all her life - I find her home cramped and not particularly appealing - she'll now life the high life even as she bears him a child or two before Coop dies. (If I remember correclty, in real life, he died within a few years - I believe lung cancer). She'll be an extremely wealthy widow at 27 or so - in New York - with a couple of infants. Not a particularly worse situation than she's in when the movie begins.

reply

But none of these couples you mention is particularly romantic or sexy to the female viewer. I do not deny the existence of such couples and never did, I only question their romantic on-screen allure. While a twenty years old Arianne paired off with a 45 years old Clooney still looks kinda sexy, a twenty years old Arianne with a fifty-six years old Cooper just looks like a particularly strong case of a father-complex, a young woman seeking a father figure rather than a flesh and blood lover who will give her the time of her life in the sack . Besides, what you are just saying is that because Cooper has become a lame stallion who is probably in dire need of Viagra he's now fit to become husband. While that might be true, it is really not triggering off the romantic female imagination, it doesn't even play out well as a sex fantasy. A woman likes to think she has tamed a playboy not because he's too old to still play the game but because she's so irresistible. Realistic? Of course not, but who wants to see real life in an old Hollywood movie? I at least want the desirable fantasy and that is really not the aging, half-dead Cooper who, if he had indeed been a stallion would have gone straight to the butcher.


reply

[deleted]

All of you people commenting on Gary Cooper have no understanding of what a monumentally HUGE star he was, how unbelievably handsome he was as a younger man and his stature in Hollywood at that time. Even at 56, he was sexier and more attractive than 99% of other men. Very few women ever said "no" to Gary Cooper.

reply

He was in fact an incredibly sexy guy, and even into his advanced years was quite a playboy in real life (if you can believe the bios). So generalusgrant makes a good point. And these boards are full of comments from young women about how sexy they think older actors are - check ou the posts on Hugh Laurie, for just one example.

She did make a lot of these films featuring older men as the male leads, though - Bogey in Sabrina (looked much more road-worn than Cooper), Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady. And she did eventually make a wonderful movie with Cary Grant - Charade - where they tease each other about their age difference all through the film.

reply

I just googled Hugh Laurie (did not know who the guy was). No wonder young women find him hot, he is. Just like Clooney. But then they are not yet fifty-six, they are not even yet fifty and today's male celebrities are usually better preserved anyway. They eat better and they don't chain-smoke because they know it's bad for the skin (among other things) and they also make use of plastic surgery and cosmetic enhancements. So, sorry that is really not a good comparison.




reply

If IMDB has the right dates, Hugh Laurie is 51. If he's had plastic surgery, I'd be very surprised.

reply

I love coop and this movie but he did not age well and he wouldn't have been able to carry off this role as a younger man, either. He may have been a womanizer offscreen, as a previous post suggests, but he couldn't well play one onscreen.

reply

I guess it all comes down to taste ... this is the first film I've ever seen Cooper in, although of course I heard of him and have been meaning to watch some of his work for years. Personally I found him extremely attractive and very well suited for the part. Never once did I think "creepy" as I did when watching Sabrina ( but that might have something to do with the fact that I really don't like Bogart as an actor or man nor did I like his character).

Yes, it is true Cooper looked old and the people making the film knew it. Almost every shot of him is from the profile, in dim light, through the glass as Audrey is talking ... and so on. It's only about half-way through that we really see a close up of him and by that time we like him anyway ( at least some of us). While looking old, I still thought: wow, he's a handsome and very elegant man. Nothing creepy about it.

I know many said that Cary Grant should have played this role but I disagree. I love Cary Grant and he did age far better then most actors of his generation but I think he couldn't have brought that sense of mistery and danger that Cooper brought. Because Cooper was slower and quitter, he seemed more likely to break poor Ariane's heart at the end and so the pay off was so much bigger when he finally pulls her in his arms and we find out they got married simple because you didn't know whether he would do it or not.

With Cary Grant there would have been no question. He was too charming and ultimately too nice to hurt such a sweet girl. There never seemed to be any sense of danger about Cary in any of his comedies which is why we loved him so much. He was so handsome and so approachable at the same time ... but that combination wouldn't have worked in Love in the afternoon.

ask the spokesperson, I don't have a brain

reply

Completely agree. I really didn't think he was too old. He was a very attractive man whatever his age. I couldn't see Cary Grant or Yul Brynner in the role at all. They were too suave. Cooper had the right amout of subtle sophistication although he could've played it a little more cool in the film.

reply

[deleted]

The role was obviously (to me) written for Cary Grant, an older attractive man with the requisite charm and romantic aura, which Cooper lacks in spades. I'm not surprised Grant was offered it first.

reply

i agree i think GC was awful!!

reply

I completely agree. It was on TV last night, and I just couldn't watch it, much as I love Audrey Hepburn. It was too creepy.

Cary Grant proved his class for turning down those two roles - thanks to the poster who shared that.

And I agree with the other poster who said Grant could have carried it off. An older man who was exceptionally charming - as Grant was - could have made it work. But please, a 20-yr age difference would have been plenty!

reply

I can't be objective here. For decades, Gary Cooper has been my favorite actor. He was positively beautiful in his younger days and still exuded sex appeal in High Noon when he neared the end of his career (I never doubted that the young Grace Kelly would have married the much older Will Kane.) Frank would have been the same...charming and excruciatingly good looking in his youth, but maintaining the charm as he refused to "grow up" and out of his playboy persona. Please....search out some of Cooper's other movies and see what I mean. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend The Cowboy and the Lady, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Along Came Jones, and The Fountainhead.

reply

I believe that was part of the point, wasn't it? Their age difference? Did you notice they didn't kiss? That's beccause Gary Cooper refused to kiss her, due to her age.

reply

Did you notice they didn't kiss? That's beccause Gary Cooper refused to kiss her, due to her age.


Are you talking about Love in the Afternoon? They kissed several times in the movie! It was rather creepy, particularly since Hepburn had her hair in pigtails in one of those scenes!

reply