MovieChat Forums > My Fair Lady (1964) Discussion > Dis anyone else ever notice....

Dis anyone else ever notice....

posted 11 years ago by dish55
23 replies | jump to latest

...that Audrey Hepburn isn't any good in this role? I'm not talking about the singing - that topic has been beaten to death since 1964. I am talking about her acting, her interpretation of the role. To put it bluntly, she is inadequate. As a Cockney she is stiff and theatrical and once she turns into a lady she doesn't even bother to use a British accent, she just talks like, well, Audrey Hepburn. And what's with the hoity-toity accent at the Ascott? Whether it was her choice or Cukor's it is all wrong for the scene. I love AH in everything else, but she falls flat on her face in this one.

[–] bill3-1 11 years ago

Nope, didn't notice, I think she did a great job, Academy Award worthy.

[–] strntz 11 years ago

Nope, didn't notice, I think she did a great job, Academy Award worthy.

Yeah, it escaped my notice also. I guess Bill and I should pay more attention....

Just once, I'd like someone to call me sir without adding 'you're making a scene' ~H Simpson

[–] billgbg 11 years ago

Not bad. But everything in the movie is too conservative. It's as if the director is terrified of even moving the camera too much. The whole thing stinks of the stage. Big problem.

[–] Harold_Robbins 11 years ago

Hepburn is fine, especially in the second act, in which she's superb.

"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."

[–] Troll_Dahl 11 years ago

I agree with your assessment. I was impressed with her when she confronted Higgins. I would like to hear Julie Andrews singing this part in her prime, but Hepburn's good. I did notice the theatricality, but since I like theatre, that's not a huge deal to me. One thing, though: I feel like it's a four-act story someone tried to tell in three. The ending seems rushed and hard to justify.

[–] kmarcel 10 years ago

@Troll_Dahl I'm not sure if you're suggesting that Audrey Hepburn sang in My Fair Lady, but she most certainly did not. She was dubbed by Marni Nixon so that is whose voice you're hearing. Also, as fantastic as she is, Julie Andrews was not yet famous enough to be apart of such a large and high-profile film; she was still only a budding stage actress, at the time.

[–] Troll_Dahl 10 years ago

As far as Hepburn being dubbed, I know that today but may have been ignorant at the time. I don't honestly remember. Regarding Julie Andrews, I guess Walt Disney begged to differ. In any event, I believe she was Eliza on stage and more's the pity if no recordings survive.

[–] almostfm-1 9 years ago

I know I'm jumping in late, but there are parts of Audrey singing in the movie. It's most noticeable in "Just You Wait".

Also, it's ironic that the producers chose to cast Hepburn because they didn't think that Andrews was a big enough star to "carry" the female lead. It's exactly what some people said when Hepburn was cast as Ann in "Roman Holiday". In fact, the story I've heard Gregory Peck tell is that part way through the production, he went to the producers and strongly suggested that she also get billing "above the title", instead of the original plan to bill just Peck above the title, with "and Introducing Audrey Hepburn" below the title.

[–] alkhmyst-743-479615 11 years ago

Obviously, I'm going blind. I thought Hepburn was enchanting. And for your information, Audrey Hepburn was British, and had no need to "use" a British accent, she used one all the time. Do you have normal hearing? An amazing trend on IMDB is people who try to make themselves look brilliant by bashing great movies.

[–] ConDeuce 11 years ago

The problem is the movie version of "My Fair Lady" itself and not Hepburn's performance. She's perfectly fine in the role (though Andrews probably would have been better). Hepburn's performance (or miscasting by some accounts) is a frequent subject of film history but I would argue that there are problems with the film itself that very few (if any) people discuss so they pick on Hepburn's performance as the film's weakness.

[–] mr_peabody_70 11 years ago

It's a matter of opinion. It makes me laugh how everybody has to specify that they "love" Audrey before they start bashing her. So hard to believe.

I've never undertood the hype with Julie, since I've always thought her Poppins and Maria Von Trapp (her first two screen appearances) seemed TOO thatrical, not adequate for screen. I concur with the producers that she was too much a stage actress and therefore, was not ready to appear on screen for MFL as she was not for MP or TSOM. Still, they DID ask her to do a screen test, but she refused, so not being in the movie is in part Andrews' fault.

It's been said that Julie could not nail the cockney accent herself (unlike Wendy Hiller), so there's no much difference with Audrey in that regard. As for Audrey acting stiff and thatrical as cockney, again it is just a matter of opinion, I don't think so.

Regarding the also much criticized "lack" of a British accent, I've always thought that a more neutral accent like that of Hepburn was better suited for someone who trained to speak good English, like Eliza did. If she would've spoken with a recognizable or typical accent, Karpathy would've spotted her "origin" in the very same way that Higgins was capable of doing at the beginning of the movie.

As for the hoity-toity accent is in the script, describing Eliza's speech as [speaking with pedantic correctness of pronunciation...]

There's a video with Andrews playing Eliza, and other than a beautiful voice, I'm not impressed by the acting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hVqUeGBPmo

[–] mit800 11 years ago

/\ ridiculous.

Dorothy stop that, Mr. Ha Ha`s lookin at you!!

[–] theoneheart 10 years ago

You must be joking. Julie Andrew's Academy Award in Mary Poppins was well deserved. Her performance in The Sound of Music was truly moving and well deserving of its nomination. She would almost certainly have been a good choice for Eliza. I agree that Audrey was more than adequate in her performance though it was far from her best. Your comment on her British accent was also spot on. It's rather questionable to discount a 'beautiful voice' from an Academy Award winning actress when comparing who's best suited to perform in a musical.

[–] robert3750-92-607013 10 years ago

I suspect that the true motive behind those who criticize Audrey's performance is residual anger at her being chosen over Andrews for the role. I thought Audrey was wonderful.

[–] crlnrgbrght5 9 years ago

Well, not on my part. I was pointing out that Hepburn wasn't the best actress to play Eliza Doolittle, and the main reason why she was chosen for the film was because she had box office appeal. I know how these things work in Hollywood, they're still doing it.

[–] robert3750-92-607013 10 years ago

I suspect that the true motive behind those who criticize Audrey's performance is residual anger at her being chosen over Andrews for the role. I thought Audrey was wonderful.

[–] crlnrgbrght5 9 years ago

I don't think Hepburn was any good in this either. The studio system cast her in this because she had star power. Wendy Hiller who was in the 1938 film of Shaw's "Pygmalion" was the perfect Eliza Doolittle.

[–] robert3750 9 years ago

We'll have to agree to disagree. I loved Audrey in it. Her acting credentials are rock solid.

[–] gregorykeithmorris 9 years ago

I thought she was adequate. She wasn't horrible. She wasn't Great. She was meh.