I'd like to know, besides striving for more accuracy in EVERYTHING, if a movie on Audrey's life were to be made, what would Audrey fans demand from it? What would they be happy with? What would need to be shown, what would they demand from the actress? how would one do Audrey justice in a biography film?
shareI do have to agree that it does NOT do Hepburn's justice. I was quite disppointed.
shareI think Audrey fans are upset over a lot of things. there were some glaring mistakes, i mean, some obvious ones - for instance, where they shot that scene in Sabrina. it takes place in an indoor tennis court, not an outdoor swimming pool. that was obvious. not so obvious, but known to Audrey fans, is that she was NOT an only child, and Mel Ferrer was NOT that nice. What else... oh, a big thing was that they only did half her life. the most important part of her life they covered in a one minute blur at the end... It was very candy coated, and screwed up even the basic facts. That was the trouble. I was a bit upset at the bad casting (I didn't even realize that one guy was George Peppard for the longest time...), and bad hair and make-up. The Hepburn look is a famous one, that they could at least get right for a biography. Anyway.... back to the question... lol. What would be a suitable movie tribute to Audrey?
shareThis movie was okay, if only for the fact that I learned more about one of my favorite actresses; Audrey Hepburn. I would have liked it better if Jennifer Love Hewitt had not been involved. She is a terrible actress. The only reason she got the part was because she was involved in the making of the movie. Just because Audrey Hepburn is one of her favorite actresses, it does not mean she had the right or the talent to play her in a movie.
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music" -anonymous-
"She is a terrible actress"
You do realise that posting that could result in a very early death for you.
"Just because Audrey Hepburn is one of her favorite actresses, it does not mean she had the right or the talent to play her in a movie."
Ok it doesn't mean she has the TALENT but she had it anyway so that's not a problem, but it does give her the right, she didn't chose to play the role, she was asked. You don't understand the way Hollywood works do you? If you like someting you have the right to be that something cause in Hollywood dreams come true for the select few talented people in Hollywood they get to be what they want to! Jen is a lovely, sweet, talented woman who does NOT deserve the battering that people keep giving her! If you don't like her acting FINE! But don't say "Oh! she's a terrible actress" to be honest I don't think Audrey Hepburn is that good an actress (except in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' and 'My Fair Lady' she was very good in those two films!) but you don't hear me complaining!
Gonna stick to the original topic and not join the fray . . . just yet. ;)
I would love to see a proper Audrey biopic, but I'd personally have a million stipulations. I'd like to have something that would show new fans and old fans alike all the different sides of Audrey that not everyone got to see. Show us something we don't know! A big problem with TAHS was that she was painted as a two-dimensional character with issues no real person would have. Audrey was very much a real person. I'd love to see more detail on her life during the war, instead of the silly gloss job it got so they could rush to the set of Breakfast At Tiffany's to focus on Audrey's non-issue of getting Truman Capote to smile. And something that shows she wasn't a whiny ingrate! Or a tart. There was entirely too much vamping and using sex to get her way in TAHS. Audrey was about being natural, which was sex appeal enough. Also, the lasting impact she has had on film and fashion. She really was something different in an era of busty dames like Marilyn and Liz Taylor, and proved that simplicity rules all.
Mainly, I'd like it to be a real labour of love written, directed, and completely made by people who know what they're doing and love it, and have the time to do it right. Find an unknown who really does look and act like Audrey so the audience doesn't get stuck on the fact that So-and-So is playing another famous actress. Focus on her lasting friendships with other great people, and most definitely focus on her UNICEF work and the wonderful Robert Wolders. Also, a mention of the Audrey Hepburn Children's Fund and the work her sons are continuing to do on her behalf to help children like she was helped during and after the war.
Oh, and it'd be nice to have a biopic that was actually done with the estate's permission. :)
JLH was too young, too busty and she slipped in and out of character. I didn't quite connect to JLH as Audrey Hepburn because she for whatever reason didn't fully inhabit her role. And one can do justice to a bio-pic given the right actor, examples just watch Sissy Spacek as Loretta Lynn in Coal Miners Daughter or the Dorothy Dandridge story with Halle Berry- both winning awards for their portrayals one an Oscar the other an Emmy respectivly.
I have to agree with another person here that I didn't even know the one actor was supposed to be George Peppard or the director of BAT- was that supposed to be Blake Edwards?
The best part of the movie for me was when she met Givenchy, that was the only time(for me) JLH came close to getting into the character or persona that was Audrey Hepburn.
exactly!
i think the whole film was rushed. they couldn't afford to research, or get the make-up right, or get the casting right. i bet the actors didn't have enough time to really even KNOW their characters, which seemed to be the problem.
anyway.... arg.
They only would have been happy if Audrey came out of the grave and portrayed herself....
I think Jennifer Love-Hewitt did a wonderful, wonderful job here. If there is a fault to this movie, it's in portraying Audrey Hepburn as some sort of perfect, almost female Jesus Christ. Come on, she couldn't have been THAT perfect.
JLH obviously is a very dedicated fan of AH, and should be commended in helping bring about this movie, and capturing much of the Audrey Hepburn charm. Let's face it, for we AH fans, NOBODY can compare to her. To compare AH and JLH is unfair. One is a memory, one is not.
I've seen JLH's other movies, and read much about her. She is worthy of portraying AH in both heart and talent, and I'd bet AH would say so herself.
This movie is well-worth seeing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree. I couldn't get over how Jeniifer looked nothing like her. Audrey was famous for having big beautiful eyes and being abnormally tall and thin. JLH has small squinty eyes and she is abnormally short. I know thats picky, but I'm a purist and it bothered me. Her voice was pretty good, I could tell she was imitating Audrey, but they could have found anyone to do that, who looked more the part.
shareJLH doesn't have small squinty eyes. quite the opposite actually. if you think that.. you'd have to be blind. when she gives a wide, happy smile her eyes to tend to turn into upside down U shape... i think that is very cute. I think most people love her happy smile. It's what separates her from a lot of other actress.. (although it isn't Audrey-like) But normally (when she isn't smiling) she has large eyes... just like Audrey did.. perhaps not nearly as beautiful as Audrey.. but the closest one I've seen amongst all the people I know or Actress I've seen. She isn't abnormally short. plus I don't think thats all that important.. Audrey had a delicate, ballerina like body. JLH is more busty than Audrey.. but she does pass off as a delicate creature herself.. I thought her looks weren't the problem.. No one can be as beautiful as Audrey was.. but JLH was as close as possible for a human being. Her acting wasn't horrible- just not great either. she did get some things right.. she just didn't have Audrey's inner charm. Her inner strength, intelligence, and wit. JLH had all the superficial, outer part done right.. its hard to get all that other stuff... because that's what made Audrey Hepburn an eternal legend. I don't think there is an actress out there who could have done it ALL correctly- AND still look like Audrey Hepburn on the outside as well. The production, writing, and directing of the film didn't help at all either.
I think JLH could definitely have brought us a better performance than she did.. she always tends to aim much lower than her potential.
i am a huge audrey hepburn fan. and as a fan i find it impossible to do her justice through any type of biopic. hollywood and the movie making industry's performers do not possess the characteristics of audrey hepburn's day. and even of her day, audrey was quite unique. her delicate frame, friendly smile, and inviting eyes captured the attention of movie goers because it gave them a sense of familiarity and it is her charm, so suddle no one can quite pin point why they are so intrigued and infatuated with it. rather than comparing themselves to the busty marilyn's they could see themselves. all of the things that i as a fan, and all the other fans love and appreciate about audrey truly cannot be matched. it is valid to leave well enough alone. and in this case there is nothing standard or mediocre about audrey, she was exceptional and so were her films, she is and her films are classics. to suggest a movie that needs a character as her, might as well suggest remaking breakfast at tiffany's. the chances, in that case, of a well received, critically acclaimed, new classic are so slim, it is ridiculous! in conclusion, i find that it is not a matter of acting ability on JLH's part that makes this movie an injustice to Audrey, because, if audrey was so captivating and unique among a community of classic actresses, what makes people believe that another person can recreate that SUCCESSFULLY. its absolutely asinine.
shareI think the only reason for a biopic would be to make Audrey Hepburn's inspirational life more well known, and for that reason you have to have the second half of her life which in my view is the more amazing - the path from being the highest paid actress in the world to dedicating basically all her time to campaigning for UNICEF. If you were going to make it I think you should have two actresses, one younger and one older. I couldn't name names though!
Regarding TAHS I don't think that JLH can be blamed for all its flaws as the script was quite poor and the direction uninspired. The character of Audrey Hepburn just wasn't very interesting according to this movie - so why make it?
who do you think should have played audrey instead of JLH?
sharenatalie portman should have played her... she resembles audrey and she's a far better actress than JLH
shareNatalie Portman would be my pick, eventhough her body does not resemble Audrey's. She's maybe 5'2, which works against her. Her face, however, is pretty much on the mark and she has that innate elegance that was so intrinsic to Audrey's appeal. However, I think it would be most fitting if a total unknown was cast in the part. In that case, people wouldn't have any pre-conceieved notions about her. Also, they could do a search for someone who has the best resemblance, and not hire someone based on her name.
share[deleted]