Category Archives: Audrey Hepburn

1957 Films, Audrey Hepburn, Comedy, Fred Astaire, Romantic Comedy

Funny Face-1957

Leave a comment

Funny Face-1957

Director Stanley Donan

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire

Scott’s Review #1,375

Reviewed July 7, 2023

Grade: B

The results of Funny Face (1957) are mixed and the word ‘cute’ pops to mind on more than one occasion.

On the one hand, audiences are served a sophisticated look at the fashion industry and the sleek style of Paris, France in the 1950s. The outfits and set design are fab revealing the cultured and colorful modeling world while the makeup and hairstyles match the time with fragrant gusto.

The screenplay is riddled with plausibility issues bordering on offensiveness and silliness and a good look at the patriarchal mindset of the times. The message is twofold. The fashion industry and Hollywood equally embraced these norms at the time the film was made.

In a word, the overall film is dated.

New York City fashion photographer Dick Avery (Fred Astaire) is tasked with finding a model for a new assignment. Discouraged, he is struck by the beauty of Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn), an intellectual bookstore employee he photographed by accident.

He convinces Jo to go with him to France, where he continues to photograph her against Parisian backdrops while they scramble to pull together a fashion show along with crusty Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson), a fashion magazine publisher.

Dick and Jo fall for one another, only to find hurdles to overcome along the way.

The musical numbers are plentiful but rather second-tier. Bouncy songs like ‘Funny Face’ and ‘On How to Be Lovely’ are decent but not memorable. The highlight is “S, Wonderful’ appearing during the finale and perfectly wrapping the Paris experience and the film in a shiny bow.

Comparisons can be made to An American in Paris (1951) and not just because both are set in Paris use the same tune (S Wonderful) and are composed by George Gershwin. There’s more buried beneath the surface that ties the two films.

Both lead characters, Jerry and Jo, wind up with the wrong partners, in reality, inappropriate for each other. Jerry should be with the comparable Milo while Jo should be with the dashing and artistic Flostre (Michael Auclair). Instead, Jerry chooses the waifish Lise while Jo lands the ancient Dick.

Astaire is old enough to be Hepburn’s grandfather which makes the romance odd.

Of course, in both An American in Paris and Funny Face, Milo and Flostre are made to be the foils. They are merely obstacles to be overcome by the preferred couple.

Another irritant is the demeaning nickname that Dick calls Jo, ‘funny face’. Hardly a dog, Hepburn is quite beautiful though the film makes the audience assume she is wrong for the modeling world. The reality is she fits right in looking perfect in every dress or costume she dons, or photograph she appears in.

A better casting choice would have been not classically beautiful singers/actors such as Barbra Streisand or Bette Midler though admittedly neither had surfaced at that point.

Though shot on a soundstage, Funny Face rebounds from implausibility with gorgeous ariel views of historic Parisian landmarks that envelope the glitter of the theme.

Shots of the Eifel Tower, Arc de Triomphe, and the broad Champs-Elysees are robust and made me rewatch this sequence again and again.

In parallel, the Greenwich Village, New York City setting where other events in the film take place is an intelligent choice to define the artistic and bookish characters.

The opening titles of Funny Face (1957) are creative and polished which reflect the maturity of the subject matter and style of the 1950s.

With no chemistry, Hepburn and Astaire carry the film as best they can with a dated and tame screenplay.

Oscar Nominations: Best Writing, Story, and Screenplay-Written Directly for the Screen, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction-Set Direction

1964 Films, Audrey Hepburn, Best Picture Oscar Winners, George Cukor, Gladys Cooper, Musical, Rex Harrison

My Fair Lady-1964

Leave a comment

My Fair Lady-1964

Director George Cukor

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison

Scott’s Review #938

Reviewed September 6, 2019

Grade: A-

Winner of the Best Picture Academy Award (it would not have been my personal choice), My Fair Lady (1964) is a very good product that is based on the stage version, in turn, based on the famous 1913 stage play, Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw.

The main negative to the musical is the casting choices; Hepburn and Harrison have only mediocre chemistry, and Hepburn does not sing, but the film is nonetheless enchanting and filled with lavish sets, colorful costumes, and earnest songs, making it entertainment for the whole family.

The iconic Eliza Doolittle (Hepburn) and Henry Higgins (Harrison) are household names to every fan of the musical genre.

Set in London, sophisticated and arrogant Professor Higgins, a scholar of phonetics, is intent on proving that the tone and accent of one’s voice determine one’s lot in society.

As an experiment, he chooses flower saleswoman Eliza, with her horrid Cockney accent, and is determined to crown her duchess of a ball.

Unaware of his scheme but soon to find out she has been had, romance eventually blooms as the song “I’ve Grown Accustomed to Her Face” becomes important.

My Fair Lady is quite the epic at a run-time of two hours and fifty- two minutes, lofty for a film.

The misty London setting adds layers of mystique and atmosphere and the cinematography drizzles with color and pizzazz, making the overall content look amazing.

Because of the length of the film and the magnificent trimmings, the production looks like a spectacle and of the elegant extravagance of the 1950s and 1960s when musicals made into films were grand and robust.

Little wonder is that this helped it win Best Picture, Best Director, and a smattering of other awards. It’s a film Hollywood loves.

When dissected and analyzed, social and class systems are a large part of the film, amid the cheery singing, dancing, and big-screen bombast. Social status and hints of socialism pepper the production rising way above the fluff that it could have been if just a “boy from the good side of the tracks meets girls from the wrong side of the tracks”.

Eliza’s father Alfred (Stanley Holloway), a waste collector, is also an opportunist, singing his story during “With a Little Bit of Luck”. The differences between the “haves” and the “have nots” are clear.

I never bought Harrison and Hepburn as a romantic duo and the chemistry between them is limited. The teacher/student angle somewhat works though always bothersome is Henry’s self-assured behavior and superior attitude making him tough to root for.

The controversy over the film includes the decision to dub nearly all of Hepburn’s singing with another singer’s voice, which devastated the actress and cost her an Academy Award nomination. Her snub is especially jarring given the dozen other nominations it received.

The story is heartwarming and in keeping with a like-minded theme of a hero rescuing the damsel in distress. Hints of Cinderella (1950) and even Pretty Woman (1990) glisten with only a mere hint of male chauvinism that does not ruin the experience or reduce the film to a dated guy film, certainly as is the case with Pretty Woman.

“I’m an Ordinary Man” describes how women ruin men’s lives and are not the most progressive or female-friendly of all the numbers.

My Fair Lady (1964) is a film of the past that begs to be viewed on the big screen so that all the qualities can be enjoyed. Like Lawrence of Arabia (1963), best viewed on a wide-angle enormous theater setting to ensure notice and enjoyment of all aspects of the scene is recommended.

It’s a Hollywood film done tremendously well. Young viewers would be wise to be exposed to this film to delight in the cinematic treats that await.

Oscar Nominations: 8 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-George Cukor (won), Best Actor-Rex Harrison (won), Best Supporting Actor-Stanley Holloway, Best Supporting Actress-Gladys Cooper, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Color (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Costume Design, Color (won), Best Film Editing

1953 Films, Audrey Hepburn, Comedy, Gregory Peck, Romantic Comedy, William Wyler

Roman Holiday-1953

Leave a comment

Roman Holiday-1953

Director William Wyler

Starring Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn

Scott’s Review #694

Reviewed October 26, 2017

Grade: B+

Roman Holiday, released in 1953, was a box office hit, pleasing legions of fans at the time, in addition to being a critical darling.

The film reaped a series of Academy Award nominations including the coveted Best Actress statuette for a young Audrey Hepburn.

A happy, uplifting story, the film is not diminished by Cinderella in the reverse storyline but rather is a charming, romantic experience immersing itself in pleasing locales of the cultural city of Rome.

Admittedly, Roman Holiday is an example of a film in which I preferred the latter half to the former but succeeds in setting the bar high in the romantic comedy genre.

Our heroine, Princess Ann (Hepburn), has it all glamorous life, gorgeous clothes, and assistants tending to her every need and want. However, she is unhappy and trapped in a rigid life that lacks freedoms or decisions of any kind, to say nothing of the fun she catches glimpses of party-goers reveling in each night from her expansive palace window.

Simply put, she is lonely and unfulfilled.

When she sees an opportunity to escape her life for a night of fun, she snatches it and stumbles upon an American reporter, Joe Bradley (Peck). The two, despite differing backgrounds, fall madly in love with one another.

At first, I found something missing in the film and the chemistry between Peck and Hepburn did not immediately embrace me. As the duo meets, Ann, drunk from sleeping pills, and Joe being the ultimate nice guy and allowing her to sleep in his apartment, the story seems somewhat lagging and lacking a good punch.

The pair drive around the city of Rome on a scooter and act childish and silly, Ann acting girlish because fun is an entirely new concept to her. At this point, the film was reasonable but little more than a farce.

As Roman Holiday plugs along, and especially through the final act, the film sheds a bit of its light skin and becomes much more poignant and meaningful.

Ann and Joe, while in love, realize they will not and cannot embark on a fairy tale ending, which truthfully, would have made Roman Holiday little more than a standard romantic comedy we have all seen before- you know the type- boy meets girl, roadblocks persist, boy whisks girl away and rides off into the sunset together.

Roman Holiday, while not a dark film, goes much deeper than a transparent, predictable ending.

Related to this point is that Roman Holiday contains a realness that sets it apart from many films undoubtedly drawn from it, but unlike this film, leans into contrived or predictable situations.

As Joe and Ann fall in love, the audience falls in love with them. The main plot hurdle- Joe’s temptation to profit off of Ann once he realizes her true identity by way of a sought-after interview- is earnestly done with a lack of any pretension.

Other similar films ought to take note of this.

Certainly, the historic and culturally relevant locales of Rome are a major sell of the film and, if these scenes were shot on a movie set, a lack of authenticity would surely have emerged.

Instead, we are treated to such fabulous location sequences as the Colosseum, the Tiber River, the Trevi Fountain, and Piazza Venezia. Such a delight is the long sequence of Roman escapades as Joe and Ann traverse the city in giddy bliss.

Enjoyable is how Roman Holiday contains no real villain of any sort.

Nowhere to be found are any physical hurdles to the duo’s relationship- no outside forces plotting to keep Joe and Ann apart, other than merely their lifestyles. Ann is in a world of royalty and pampering, but Joe is an everyman, so the chances of living happily ever after are slim to none.

Film lovers intent on discovering one of the early romantic comedies- one could argue that It Happened One Night (1934) was the first- ought to watch a feel-good, Hollywood classic from 1953 that is rich in honesty, good humor, and raw emotion without being too much of a heavy melodrama.

After a middling start, the film finishes with gusto.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-William Wyler, Best Actress-Audrey Hepburn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Eddie Albert, Best Screenplay, Best Story (won), Best Art Direction, Black and White, Best Cinematography, Black and White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

1961 Films, Audrey Hepburn, Drama, Fay Bainter, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Miriam Hopkins, Shirley MacLaine, William Wyler

The Children’s Hour-1961

Leave a comment

The Children’s Hour-1961

Director William Wyler

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner

Scott’s Review #620

Reviewed March 3, 2017

Grade: B+

The Children’s Hour is one of the earliest films to center around an LGBT theme and the subsequent scandals that the subject matter would provoke in the innocent year of 1961-pre Civil Rights and pre-Sexual Revolution.

However, since the film was made in the year that it was, homosexuality was presented as something dark and bad rather than something to be accepted or even embraced.

Still, the film, and director William Wyler are brave enough to recognize the topic- with limitations to spin a compelling film rich with well-written characters and some soap-opera style drama.

The Children’s Hour is based on a play from 1934 and written by Lillian Hellman.

The setting of the film appears to be somewhere in New England, perhaps Connecticut or Massachusetts, though the film never really says the exact area.

College friends Karen (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha (Shirley MacLaine) open a private all-girls boarding school, catering to the affluent community they reside in. They run the school along with Martha’s Aunt Lilly, a faded Broadway actress, who oftentimes hen-pecks the women.

Karen has been dating handsome obstetrician, Joe (James Garner) for two years when he proposes marriage and she hesitantly accepts, which saddens Martha.

All the while, spoiled brat child, Mary, furious over being punished by her teachers, plots revenge against Martha and Karen and embellishes a heated discussion between the ladies into a scandalous lie that she whispers to her grandmother (Fay Bainter).

The grandmother promptly tells the parents of the other students, who remove their children from the school en masse. The lie, of course, is that Karen and Martha are lovers and that Mary has witnessed the two women kissing.

Meanwhile, Mary is blackmailing a fellow student, Rosalie (Veronica Cartwright) over a stolen bracelet. Martha and Karen are then ostracized by the small town.

The Children’s Hour becomes even more compelling when one of the women begins to realize that she does indeed have homosexual feelings towards the other woman and has always harbored anger and resentment as well as feeling “different” from other women.

As well-written as the film is, the fact that the audience does not get to hear what Mary whispers to her grandmother is rather telling and prevents the film from being even more powerful than it is.

Also, the downbeat conclusion to the film sends a clear message that in 1961 audiences were not ready to accept lesbianism as anything to be normalized or to be proud of.

The decision was made to make it abundantly clear that one of the central characters is not a lesbian. Any uncertainty may have risked freaking out mainstream audiences at the time.

Since the traditional opposite-sex romance between Karen and Joe is at the forefront of the film, I did not witness much chemistry between actors Hepburn and Garner, but might have this been the point in achieving a subliminal sexual complexity?

The Children’s Hour and William Wyler deserve heaps of praise for going as far as censorship in film in 1961 would allow them to successfully offer nuggets of progressivism mixed into a brave film.

Incidentally, Wyler made another version of this film in 1936 named These Three. Because of the Hays Code, any hint of lesbianism was forbidden causing Wyler to create a standard story of a love triangle between the three with both Martha and Karen pining after Joe.

What a difference a couple of decades make!

MacLaine and Hepburn must be credited with carrying the film and eliciting nice chemistry between the women, though it is too subtle to be realized if the chemistry is really of a friendship level or a sexual nature.

And, I adore how Wyler decides to make both characters rather glamorous and avoid any stereotypical characteristics.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Fay Bainter, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White