Hi, I saw the second half of this movie on Saturday with my mom. She was really excited to see this movie since she saw it as a kid. So I did not get the whole movie. Anyway, she told me she noticed that Hepburn's character always wears low shoes (not high heels) - why is this? Wouldn't she preferably use high heels? My mom thought it was strange because whe thinks she would look much better and elegant. ¿Is this true? or ¿why is this? Your opinion, please.
shareThat was Hepburn's personal preference. If you notice she wears kitten heels or flats in pretty much every movie I can think of. She was known for it. Think of the famous scene in Breakfast at Tiffany's when she has "Fred" looking for her shoe, the kitten heel crocodile pointed-toe. She turned it into a trend and it is one of the things that have contributed to making her a fashion icon. She also worked with closely with Givenchy who dressed her in seven movies as well as in her personal life. They had a very close relationship and he knew what she liked to wear so he designed around her personal preferences and together they became a famous fashion duo. As for why she wore a low heel, it could have been because she was a little taller than average at 5'6 1/2 and may not have wanted to be any taller with high heels.
shareHepburn also hated her feet, considering them too big.
That, and she was an eminently practical woman, and did an awful lot of running around in this film, so flats would be far more comfortable.
Yes, in fact she did have relatively large feet, and the flat shoes make it less noticeable (as well as easier to walk).
shareShe wore high heels in her first two movies and in two of her last four movies
I wondered that too. Much as I hate high heels for myself, I thought that her elegant Givenchy wardrobe cried out for heels. And she wasnt' all that tall.
Maybe she had bad feet?
[deleted]
It's one of the many reasons why I love Audrey Hepburn.
Heels don't always equal elegance, especially the 6 inch ones these days. Girls look awkward in them. Sorry but I'm not buying into this trend, although it looks like it's going to stay trendy for a long time, sadly. It just looks like the shoe belongs wrapped around a stripper pole... A low heel is much classier, especially if the skirt is short short...
Hepburn was so classy in all her movies! I wish we had more style icons like her! She always looked incredibly put together without looking uncomfortable, or in intense pain from wearing 6+ inch heels. Loves it!
You make a great point. As a woman, I'm not into high heels either, although I don't know about the stripper pole thing. But it was unusual then, when women used to be depicted using vacuum cleaners, etc. in spike heels. In fact, in height-and-weight charts, the height charts for women were always noted as assuming "in 2-inch heels" as though these shoes were surgically attached to our feet!
shareHeels are not a trend. They've been around for many decades. And I agree completely that they don't always equal elegance. Often, they make a woman look awkward and clumsy.
(trend == "direction of change")
And women would be better off with knee covering skirts like Hepburn preferred even in times of the mini, which is 50 years old and so it´s what your grandma wore and with very low heels or flats. Women today - 2015 - look like hookers.
shareAudrey Hepburn was someone's guest in the late 1960s, probably her future husband Dr Andrea Dotti, and when the maid unpacked Miss Hepburn's clothes, she asked where the skirts were ; there were only blouses — mini-dresses !
shareHer dancers background meant that she was very comfortable in them. Also, she was very self-concious about how thin she was, so looking taller would only make her look thinner. And she was quite tall, taller than most actresses of her time (saw a picture with her and Liz Taylor and Taylor in spike heels is a head shorter). Any way, that's why I think she wore flats nearly all the time
shareAlso IIRC Grant was not as tall of a man, normal height though...and Hepburn with heels might have been of a very similar height to him if not taller. Not sure actually, id have to check again.
Anyway nothing wrong with a tall gal ;) It suits her
6'1" give or take a 1/2 inch.I think that's tall for normal people, but perhaps actors are taller?
shareSome were. In this film with Hepburn's flats and Grant, Grant was taller by about 2-3 inches perhaps. Hepburn would have been close to his height if she wore heels.
This is just Charade Im referring to btw, some male leads were shorter like Bogie in some scenes (Sabrina) and Cooper (Love In The Afternoon)
Are Hepburn's shoes actually flat? i.e. with a leather heel shaped similarly to the heel on a man's dress shoe. Or are they low heels that taper very steeply and end with a diameter about the same size as a stiletto heel? It is likely that they are the latter, as this sort of heel came into fashion in the early 60s as a more comfortable alternative to stilettos, particularly for younger teenagers, and for tall women who didn't want to emphasise their height. Another poster here has referred to them as "kitten Heels".
"great minds think differently"
Hepburn, actually, sported a lot of dresses, coats and jackets in the movie.
So I'm not positive that ALL mises had flat shoes - but ballerina shoes were much in evidence.
Honestly I'm not positive for some of the party dresses, while dancing with the orange and later on the "bateau" on the Seine, but I don't remember any low heel shoes.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Cary Grant was a tall man, at least 6 feet. His biography on IMDb states his height as 6 feet 1 1/2 inches.
shareIn Charade, Grant did not look particularly tall as compared to Kennedy and Coburn. I was a little surprised. Seemed like the camera angles were always high on Cary.
I'm not a woman much less Deanna Durbin, but the old-time glam-shot appeals to me.
Both Kennedy and Coburn where taller than Grant. Kennedy was a large man at 6'4", Coburn was 6'2".
~Come to my room in a half hour and bring some rye bread~
Audrey Hepburn had enormous personal style. I would say that it was her preference. She wore heels in this film. The first scene in the light gray coat; those are heels, just low. Her heels were higher in subsequent scenes. Red coat, red suit, black sleeveless dress. I read she preferred low heels as she was about 5.7 and felt that was tall enough. 2 inch heels were as high as she'd go. Also, that was the style. A lot of women wore lower heeled shoes after 1962. Jackie Kennedy too. Also, being bone thin, she did not need the elongating and slenderizing effect high heels have for average women.
shareThere's something about in flat shoes Hepburn that I find really classy. I always thought her best look was in the left bank cafe dance scene in Funny Face.
shareI just rewatched it.
It's somewhat diffucult to say, as full figure shoots are few.
But definitely Hepburn wore small, tapered black heels at least when she searched the hotel rooms with the annoying little kid (cream colored sleeveless dress) and in the end, white shoes with the eletric blue tailleur, when she walked into the embassy.
I'm almost sure she had small heeled shoes also in the red complete with white gloves while chatting along the Seine (she throwed her ice cream on Grant's coat)
Not really sure when she had the orange trapeze overcoat, and in the night club.
[deleted]
Bumping an old thread, but I would think most women in Paris would wear lower heels for two reasons: (1) it's a city made for walking, and low heels are clearly more practical (without being sneakers); and (2) there are and have always been a lot of prostitutes in Paris, and high heels have a stigma about them where a woman is just walking about, as opposed to soliciting.
shareFunny but I noticed the shoes too. I thought the low shoes looked good.
High heels are stupid anyway. And very restrictive walking and RUNNING.