I am far from a fan of Audrey Hepburn as an actress. In fact, I agree with Emma Thompson, who finds her "fantasically twee", and not a good actress. I can't get over the speaking voice, which sounds so contrived, even though it was really her.
That said, she was excellent in this film. I give the credit to the director, Fred Zimmerman, who also directed From Here to Eternity. Zimmerman had a talent for intelligent epics. We are in exotic locations with high stakes situations, but he films them in a down to earth way, and he never tries to force anything or amp it up. I always feel I am there, in the day to day, not watching an "epic." I am really experiencing that place.
This was a very smart film. I was impressed with the respectful way it treated nuns; they were all intelligent, fairly worldly women. The relationship between Peter Finch's doctor and Audrey's nun was perfectly done. I understand the Catholic consultants Zimmerman worked with were concerned about that relationship, and never wanted it to be titillating. It never was. It was never inappropriate. Still, the chemistry was clear, and there were times I wished the movie would become cheesy and do something about it between them. The things Hepburn communicated really well were her character's commitment to being a nun, her passion for surgery and her pride in being her father's daughter, her intelligence and talent, and her understanding of her vows, even when it meant disappointment. She was truly wonderful in this.
reply
share
Pipeman_Toronto
8 years ago
In fact, I agree with Emma Thompson, who finds her "fantasically twee"
The amusing thing here is that Emma Thompson is a decent actress who can give workmanlike performances in the right vehicles. She's a dab hand at comedy (Nanny McPhee, etc), but in drama she invariably gives almost the exact same performance over and over again. See "Sense and Sensibility" and "Howard's End". Same bloody performance right down to the way she cries.
Her turn as the "Mary Poppins" author in the dreadful "Saving Mr Banks" coupled with interviews I've read and seen, make me think she is a rather outspoken and self-absorbed twat.
Because she was involved in writing a 2010 adaptation of "My Fair Lady" (what ever happened to that project anyway, Emma?- Oh right, it never got off the ground)she felt she had the right to publicly dismiss Audrey's entire career as "twee". It's fine if the great Emma thinks Hepburn was a lousy actress, but who does it serve for her to go around trumpeting her hollow opinion of the woman's talent (or lack of same)?
Acting abilites aside, Emma doesn't have an ounce of the CLASS that Audrey had.
reply
share
claudiaeilcinema
8 years ago
Audrey Hepburn may not have been Old Vic material but on film she's eternal. I wonder if Emma Thompson's brilliant as she is will be revered in the future as Audrey Hepburn is and I suspect will be for ever and ever.
reply
share
forlorn_rage (163)
7 years ago
I wonder if Emma Thompson's brilliant as she is will be revered in the future as Audrey Hepburn is and I suspect will be for ever and ever.
While Audrey is revered as an actress, the sad truth is her image endured strongly for purely superficial reasons, like Marilyn Monroe: mass commercialism. The image Hepburn in a black dress with her hair up and smoking a long cigarette in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" endures stronger than the rest of the entirety of her career put together.
It's not really fair to expect Emma Thompson to compete with something like that. I don't think she would even want to.
reply
share