The first film to pair up Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon, and the one that got Matthau his Oscar, was 1966's The Fortune Cookie. (But at what cost? Matthau suffered a heart attack in the middle of filming. Production stopped while he recovered, and he is visibly underweight in the scenes that were filmed after his return. Oddly, this was director Billy Wilder's second consecutive film which had to stop mid-filming due to his lead actor suffering a heart attack.) The film was also nominated for Best Original Screenplay (Billy Wilder).
Jack Lemmon plays Harry Hinkle, a CBS cameraman who is accidentally tackled by a player while working the sidelines at a football game. Matthau plays Willie Gingrich, Hinkle's brother-in-law, a shady lawyer who convinces Hinkle to fake an injury in order to turn the incident into a million dollar lawsuit. Hinkle is reluctant at first, is won over to the plan by the belief that he might regain the affections of his ex-wife, but his determination wavers when he sees the toll that guilt is taking on Boom Boom Jackson (Ron Rich), the player who tackled him.
I am usually a big fan of both Wilder and Lemmon, and Matthau has never really done me wrong, but somehow this film just didn't click with me. Matthau was very good here, certainly deserving of the Academy's recognition, especially considering the difficulties that he went through during filming. The story just didn't do it for me, though. Given the talent involved, it just fell below expectations. As a comedy, it just didn't have many laughs. As a con-game, it was predictable. As a satire, it lacked punch. As a drama, it lacked a real emotional connection to the characters. It's not that this was a bad film. It had some laughs and some good moments. It just wasn't a great film. But given the talent involved, given the greatness of the collaborations between Lemmon and Wilder previously, and the great partnership between Lemmon and Matthau afterward, this film being anything less than great is a bit of a disappointment.
Movie trivia question: In the history of the Oscars, five people have won the statue for non-speaking roles. Only one of those was a male. Who is the only male to win an Oscar for a non-speaking role?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Oscar Tie, Part 2
The other (and please, feel free to read that as lesser) Best Actress of 1969 was Barbra Streisand, who won the award for her debut film performance in Funny Girl. (She later went on to become the only person to date to win Oscars for an acting performance and Best Song.) The film was also nominated for Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress (Kay Nedford).
Streisand plays Fannie Brice, a poor girl from the Jewish slums of 1920s New York who rises to stardom as a vaudeville comedienne, but struggles to hold together her personal life, as her husband bristles at the idea that his wife finds greater success than he does. It's essentially a retelling of A Star is Born, made that much less necessary by the fact that, a few years later, Streisand starred in a direct remake of A Star is Born.
I have to wonder how the Academy voters could possibly have felt that this performance was the equal of that given by Katharine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter. Hepburn's performance was brilliant, a masterful balance of funny and heartbreaking, of sympathetic and coldly manipulative. Streisand, as Fannie Brice, had a few funny lines, but was mostly just annoying and obnoxious. She relies a bit too heavily on silly voices for her comedy here, and her drama relies too heavily on her ability to cry and sing at the same time. The story is one that has been told a million times before. As such, it depends on a unique, winning performance from its star in order to separate itself from the others. This film, in my opinion, simply does not have that distinctive performance. I suppose, if you're a fan of Streisand's singing career, the songs are good. I'm not a fan of her singing, so they didn't really do much for me. In short, this film is really just a star-making vehicle for Streisand, so if you are not a fan of Streisand, there is not much reason to watch it. Two and a half hours long, and I sat through it with no real enjoyment or emotional involvement. The things I sometimes do for you, my faithful readers!
Movie trivia question: Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau were a classic comedy pairing. They starred in 8 movies together (not including cameos together and a film in which Lemmon directed Matthau to a Best Actor nomination). Their first pairing, one of their lesser-known films, captured a best Supporting Actor Oscar for Matthau. What was the film?
Streisand plays Fannie Brice, a poor girl from the Jewish slums of 1920s New York who rises to stardom as a vaudeville comedienne, but struggles to hold together her personal life, as her husband bristles at the idea that his wife finds greater success than he does. It's essentially a retelling of A Star is Born, made that much less necessary by the fact that, a few years later, Streisand starred in a direct remake of A Star is Born.
I have to wonder how the Academy voters could possibly have felt that this performance was the equal of that given by Katharine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter. Hepburn's performance was brilliant, a masterful balance of funny and heartbreaking, of sympathetic and coldly manipulative. Streisand, as Fannie Brice, had a few funny lines, but was mostly just annoying and obnoxious. She relies a bit too heavily on silly voices for her comedy here, and her drama relies too heavily on her ability to cry and sing at the same time. The story is one that has been told a million times before. As such, it depends on a unique, winning performance from its star in order to separate itself from the others. This film, in my opinion, simply does not have that distinctive performance. I suppose, if you're a fan of Streisand's singing career, the songs are good. I'm not a fan of her singing, so they didn't really do much for me. In short, this film is really just a star-making vehicle for Streisand, so if you are not a fan of Streisand, there is not much reason to watch it. Two and a half hours long, and I sat through it with no real enjoyment or emotional involvement. The things I sometimes do for you, my faithful readers!
Movie trivia question: Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau were a classic comedy pairing. They starred in 8 movies together (not including cameos together and a film in which Lemmon directed Matthau to a Best Actor nomination). Their first pairing, one of their lesser-known films, captured a best Supporting Actor Oscar for Matthau. What was the film?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Oscar Tie, Part 1
At the 1969 Oscar ceremony, there was a tie for the Best Actress category, the only true tie in Oscar history. (At the 1933 awards, the Best Actor category was credited as a tie, but only because of a technicality. Frederick March actually won the award by 1 vote over Wallace Beery, but the rules at the time stated that a win by less than 3 votes would be considered a tie. The rules have since been changed so that only an exact tie will result in awards going to multiple winners.) One of those winners, Katharine Hepburn, also made a record that year for most lead performer Oscar wins, taking home her third Oscar for her performance in The Lion in Winter. (She still holds the record today, having increased her count to 4 Best Actress Oscars when she took home the statue for On Golden Pond.) The Lion in Winter also won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (James Goldman), and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Anthony Harvey), and Best Actor (Peter O'Toole, in his second time being nominated for playing the same character, King Henry II, the first being for Becket, which I reviewed a couple of weeks ago).
The Lion in Winter tells the story of King Henry II's attempt to choose a successor to his throne from among his three sons. The power struggle amongst this most dysfunctional of families makes this film like a strange combination of King Lear and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Reunited for Christmas of 1183, England's royal family engage in lies, manipulations, and wars of words as each attempts to grab all of the power that they can get. Hepburn plays Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry's Queen, and his prisoner for 10 years, trying to pull the strings in order to arrange her own freedom, and needling her husband in every way possible. She is trying to get Henry to name her favored son, Richard (Anthony Hopkins, in his debut performance) as heir to the throne. Richard is a war-mongering general, a conquering hero with the strength to hold the kingdom together. Henry favors his youngest son, John (Nigel Terry), a weak, foolish puppet, not really fit for the throne, but favored by the King as the only son he has had a hand in raising. Middle son Geoffrey (John Castle) favors himself for the throne, manipulating his brothers in an attempt to get them to disqualify themselves from the throne or destroy each other, leaving himself to pick up the pieces. Adding fuel to the family's fire is the visiting King Philip of France (future James Bond Timothy Dalton, in his debut performance), trying to shatter the British Empire so he can sweep in to conquer it for France.
The performances are absolutely peerless. Hepburn astounds with her ability to earn sympathy despite her evil manipulations and her cutting sarcasm. ("Every family has it's ups and downs," she says to herself following an argument with her husband in which she suggests that she had a sexual relationship with his father.) O'Toole delivers a much richer performance this time around as King Henry II, capturing the same character as in his previous portrayal, but revealing many more layers of the character's personality than in the previous film. Hopkins, in his first major role, left no doubt that he had an amazing career ahead of him.
Goldman's award-winning screenplay is brilliant, managing to carefully balance the complex schemes and manipulations of six different characters while maximizing each character's potential for both pathos and dark humor. Once again, I find myself surprised at just how absorbed I am by a period piece about a historical era in which I don't have any particular interest or knowledge. Some might complain that there is not much action in this film, but drama doesn't get much better than this.
Movie trivia question: Part 2 of this review's question. With whom did Kate Hepburn tie for the 1969 Best Actress Oscar, and for what film?
The Lion in Winter tells the story of King Henry II's attempt to choose a successor to his throne from among his three sons. The power struggle amongst this most dysfunctional of families makes this film like a strange combination of King Lear and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Reunited for Christmas of 1183, England's royal family engage in lies, manipulations, and wars of words as each attempts to grab all of the power that they can get. Hepburn plays Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry's Queen, and his prisoner for 10 years, trying to pull the strings in order to arrange her own freedom, and needling her husband in every way possible. She is trying to get Henry to name her favored son, Richard (Anthony Hopkins, in his debut performance) as heir to the throne. Richard is a war-mongering general, a conquering hero with the strength to hold the kingdom together. Henry favors his youngest son, John (Nigel Terry), a weak, foolish puppet, not really fit for the throne, but favored by the King as the only son he has had a hand in raising. Middle son Geoffrey (John Castle) favors himself for the throne, manipulating his brothers in an attempt to get them to disqualify themselves from the throne or destroy each other, leaving himself to pick up the pieces. Adding fuel to the family's fire is the visiting King Philip of France (future James Bond Timothy Dalton, in his debut performance), trying to shatter the British Empire so he can sweep in to conquer it for France.
The performances are absolutely peerless. Hepburn astounds with her ability to earn sympathy despite her evil manipulations and her cutting sarcasm. ("Every family has it's ups and downs," she says to herself following an argument with her husband in which she suggests that she had a sexual relationship with his father.) O'Toole delivers a much richer performance this time around as King Henry II, capturing the same character as in his previous portrayal, but revealing many more layers of the character's personality than in the previous film. Hopkins, in his first major role, left no doubt that he had an amazing career ahead of him.
Goldman's award-winning screenplay is brilliant, managing to carefully balance the complex schemes and manipulations of six different characters while maximizing each character's potential for both pathos and dark humor. Once again, I find myself surprised at just how absorbed I am by a period piece about a historical era in which I don't have any particular interest or knowledge. Some might complain that there is not much action in this film, but drama doesn't get much better than this.
Movie trivia question: Part 2 of this review's question. With whom did Kate Hepburn tie for the 1969 Best Actress Oscar, and for what film?
Monday, May 10, 2010
Fargo (1996)
Winner for Best Actress (Frances McDormand), Best Original Screenplay. Nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Joel Coen), and Best Supporting Actor (William H. Macy).
A man makes a mistake. He makes a bad plan, and it backfires on him. He tells a lie to cover up his mistake. The lie is about to be discovered, so he comes up with another plan, makes another mistake, bigger than the one before. He tells another lie, comes up with another plan to cover his tracks, and so on. In a way, it is easy to see how Jerry Lundegaard (Macy) got in so far over his head in this film. I imagine that Lundegaard's original sin was fairly minor, but that is far behind him by the time the viewer meets him. When we meet Jerry, he is arranging the kidnapping of his wife in order to collect the bulk of the million dollar ransom for himself, paying the kidnappers a paltry $40,000 and a stolen car. He is arranging this, in part, in order to pay off over $300,000 in fraudulent financing monies for cars that don't actually exist. Where did that $300,000 go? Who knows? Gone to pay off his previous scheme, presumably. The plot, in terms of the criminal plan, is ludicrous. While you have to admire Lundegaard's chutzpah, it is criminally stupid to believe that you could get away with taking out loans on cars that don't exist. Especially if you're as bad a liar as Jerry Lundegaard is.
The plot, in terms of the story, is pure genius. I fell totally in love with this film from the first time that I saw the trailer. The screenplay not only richly deserved the Oscar that it won, but may actually be the best that the Coen Brothers have ever written - a bold statement, as the Coens are on my short list of the best filmmakers of this generation. In a film like this, the portrayal of ineptitude can be a very fine balance. Characters must behave in a manner that is inept enough to ensure the failure of their plans, but not so inept as to make it entirely unbelievable that they would even attempt to concoct such a scheme. Fargo walks this balance without a single misstep. It simultaneously walks a similar tightrope of balancing a very funny comedy with a brutally violent suspense film.
The performances are all top-shelf. A particularly underrated highlight to me is Harve Presnell, playing Lundegaard's millionaire father-in-law, a heartless, distant businessman. So shrewd a businessman is he that he feels the need to try to low-ball his daughter's kidnappers on their ransom demand. Frances McDormand, playing the pregnant police chief investigating a triple homicide that was an unfortunate side-effect of the kidnapping, delivers possibly the highlight performance of her career. But the real scene-stealer is William H. Macy, an actor I have always admired, who in this role masterfully plays one of the biggest low-lifes ever to grace the screen. His nomination here, for Best Supporting Actor, is one of those nominations that really makes me wonder how the Academy decides what is a lead role and what is supporting. I mean, not that McDormand doesn't deserve a lead actress award for this film, but she doesn't even make her first appearance on screen until 34 minutes into the film. Lundegaard, on the other hand, is present throughout the entire duration of the film. More importantly, his character is the driving force behind the entire story. The entire film is about his criminal plans, and the disastrous effects they have on everybody around him when they go wrong. How was he not a lead performer in this film?
Movie trivia question: One of only ten performers in Oscar history to be nominated for best lead and supporting performances in the same year, Jessica Lange was an Oscar darling in the 1980's, winning a Supporting Actress Oscar and being nominated for 4 Lead Actress Oscars during the decade. But it wasn't until almost halfway through the following decade that she finally took home a Best Actress statue. What was the film that finally got her the gold?
A man makes a mistake. He makes a bad plan, and it backfires on him. He tells a lie to cover up his mistake. The lie is about to be discovered, so he comes up with another plan, makes another mistake, bigger than the one before. He tells another lie, comes up with another plan to cover his tracks, and so on. In a way, it is easy to see how Jerry Lundegaard (Macy) got in so far over his head in this film. I imagine that Lundegaard's original sin was fairly minor, but that is far behind him by the time the viewer meets him. When we meet Jerry, he is arranging the kidnapping of his wife in order to collect the bulk of the million dollar ransom for himself, paying the kidnappers a paltry $40,000 and a stolen car. He is arranging this, in part, in order to pay off over $300,000 in fraudulent financing monies for cars that don't actually exist. Where did that $300,000 go? Who knows? Gone to pay off his previous scheme, presumably. The plot, in terms of the criminal plan, is ludicrous. While you have to admire Lundegaard's chutzpah, it is criminally stupid to believe that you could get away with taking out loans on cars that don't exist. Especially if you're as bad a liar as Jerry Lundegaard is.
The plot, in terms of the story, is pure genius. I fell totally in love with this film from the first time that I saw the trailer. The screenplay not only richly deserved the Oscar that it won, but may actually be the best that the Coen Brothers have ever written - a bold statement, as the Coens are on my short list of the best filmmakers of this generation. In a film like this, the portrayal of ineptitude can be a very fine balance. Characters must behave in a manner that is inept enough to ensure the failure of their plans, but not so inept as to make it entirely unbelievable that they would even attempt to concoct such a scheme. Fargo walks this balance without a single misstep. It simultaneously walks a similar tightrope of balancing a very funny comedy with a brutally violent suspense film.
The performances are all top-shelf. A particularly underrated highlight to me is Harve Presnell, playing Lundegaard's millionaire father-in-law, a heartless, distant businessman. So shrewd a businessman is he that he feels the need to try to low-ball his daughter's kidnappers on their ransom demand. Frances McDormand, playing the pregnant police chief investigating a triple homicide that was an unfortunate side-effect of the kidnapping, delivers possibly the highlight performance of her career. But the real scene-stealer is William H. Macy, an actor I have always admired, who in this role masterfully plays one of the biggest low-lifes ever to grace the screen. His nomination here, for Best Supporting Actor, is one of those nominations that really makes me wonder how the Academy decides what is a lead role and what is supporting. I mean, not that McDormand doesn't deserve a lead actress award for this film, but she doesn't even make her first appearance on screen until 34 minutes into the film. Lundegaard, on the other hand, is present throughout the entire duration of the film. More importantly, his character is the driving force behind the entire story. The entire film is about his criminal plans, and the disastrous effects they have on everybody around him when they go wrong. How was he not a lead performer in this film?
Movie trivia question: One of only ten performers in Oscar history to be nominated for best lead and supporting performances in the same year, Jessica Lange was an Oscar darling in the 1980's, winning a Supporting Actress Oscar and being nominated for 4 Lead Actress Oscars during the decade. But it wasn't until almost halfway through the following decade that she finally took home a Best Actress statue. What was the film that finally got her the gold?
Friday, May 7, 2010
Groomsman,Part 2
Sorry for the delay in part 2 of this post. I'm sure that all of my faithful readers have just been dying from the suspense. Quick addendum to part 1, by the way - yes, as I forgot to mention but my brother pointed out, Michael Caine did indeed miss out on his opportunity to be at the Oscars to accept his first win because of filming obligations to make Jaws 4.
Anyway, Caine's second win for Best Supporting Actor was for 1999's The Cider House Rules. The film also won for Best Adapted Screenplay (John Irving's adaptation of his own novel), and was nominated for Best Picture and Best Director (Lasse Hallstrom).
The film tells the story of Homer Wells (Tobey Maguire), a young man who tries to set off on his own after growing up in an orphanage in Maine. Caine plays Wilbur Larch, the doctor who runs the orphanage, secretly performs illegal abortions, and gives Homer an apprenticeship until he decides to leave. Homer sets out full of vigor and enthusiasm, but soon finds 1940s Maine to be disillusioning, beset with racism, dishonesty, and betrayal. Before long, he learns that the ethical issues that he thought were so clear-cut from the orphanage are much more ambiguous in the outside world.
The film is full of wonderful characters. Maguire is exceptional in one of his earliest starring roles, and Charlize Theron gives a great, complex performance as the woman who takes Wells in, falls in love with him, but then must choose whether to stay with him or to abandon him when her fiancee is paralyzed during the war. Delroy Lindo is very convincing in the challenging role of a morally confused apple-picking coworker of Wells, as is Erykah Badu in the equally challenging role of his daughter. Even the child actors, Wells' fellow orphans (including Kieran Culkin and Erik Per Sullivan, better known as youngest brother Dewey from the sitcom Malcolm in the Middle), are very impressive.
Even in the midst of this cast, though, Caine is a stand-out in his performance. Even aside from his accent (which is a perfect Maine accent, a rare departure from Caine's natural British accent), Caine is very impressive in this role. His Dr. Larch is kind, caring, and generous, but he is also flawed. He cares very much for his wards, Homer included, but he stubbornly cuts Homer out of his life when the boy sets out on his own, insisting that he should stay on at the orphanage and eventually take over for Dr Larch, effectively cutting himself off from the outside world. Larch performs illegal abortions for fear of the safety of the women who would otherwise have to go to a less experienced abortionist, but his moral objections to what he is doing force him to drug himself with ether in order to sleep at night.
Movie trivia question: In what many people believe to be the biggest snub in Oscar history, the subject of my last review, Audrey Hepburn, failed to receive even a nomination for the one role that seriously challenges Breakfast at Tiffany's for the title of Hepburn's most iconic role. For what film did Audrey Hepburn get snubbed, and why?
Anyway, Caine's second win for Best Supporting Actor was for 1999's The Cider House Rules. The film also won for Best Adapted Screenplay (John Irving's adaptation of his own novel), and was nominated for Best Picture and Best Director (Lasse Hallstrom).
The film tells the story of Homer Wells (Tobey Maguire), a young man who tries to set off on his own after growing up in an orphanage in Maine. Caine plays Wilbur Larch, the doctor who runs the orphanage, secretly performs illegal abortions, and gives Homer an apprenticeship until he decides to leave. Homer sets out full of vigor and enthusiasm, but soon finds 1940s Maine to be disillusioning, beset with racism, dishonesty, and betrayal. Before long, he learns that the ethical issues that he thought were so clear-cut from the orphanage are much more ambiguous in the outside world.
The film is full of wonderful characters. Maguire is exceptional in one of his earliest starring roles, and Charlize Theron gives a great, complex performance as the woman who takes Wells in, falls in love with him, but then must choose whether to stay with him or to abandon him when her fiancee is paralyzed during the war. Delroy Lindo is very convincing in the challenging role of a morally confused apple-picking coworker of Wells, as is Erykah Badu in the equally challenging role of his daughter. Even the child actors, Wells' fellow orphans (including Kieran Culkin and Erik Per Sullivan, better known as youngest brother Dewey from the sitcom Malcolm in the Middle), are very impressive.
Even in the midst of this cast, though, Caine is a stand-out in his performance. Even aside from his accent (which is a perfect Maine accent, a rare departure from Caine's natural British accent), Caine is very impressive in this role. His Dr. Larch is kind, caring, and generous, but he is also flawed. He cares very much for his wards, Homer included, but he stubbornly cuts Homer out of his life when the boy sets out on his own, insisting that he should stay on at the orphanage and eventually take over for Dr Larch, effectively cutting himself off from the outside world. Larch performs illegal abortions for fear of the safety of the women who would otherwise have to go to a less experienced abortionist, but his moral objections to what he is doing force him to drug himself with ether in order to sleep at night.
Movie trivia question: In what many people believe to be the biggest snub in Oscar history, the subject of my last review, Audrey Hepburn, failed to receive even a nomination for the one role that seriously challenges Breakfast at Tiffany's for the title of Hepburn's most iconic role. For what film did Audrey Hepburn get snubbed, and why?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Breakfast At Tiffany's
I know, I still have three movies to review to answer trivia questions, but I haven't gotten around to watching them yet. And true, this movie didn't even win any of the major awards (though it did take home Oscars for Best Score and Best Song for Moon River), but it was nominated for Best Actress (for Audrey Hepburn, of course) and Best Adapted Screenplay. I plan on reviewing the nominees after I finish the winners, and since I happened to watch this one on date night with my lovely fiancee last night, I figured I might as well get the review done now.
Hepburn plays Holly Golightly, a fun-loving girl drifting through her life in New York City, sleeping through the days, partying through the nights, and bilking her nightly dates for $50 a pop for "change for the powder room." (In the book, Golightly was clearly a prostitute, but the film made the issue a bit more ambiguous in order to get around the censors.) She meets her new neighbor, Paul (though she calls him Fred because he reminds her of her brother), a struggling writer who is (for some reason less ambiguously) prostituting himself to his "designer," the rich, married woman who pays for his rent and clothes, until he gets his big break. The two, of course, fall in love, despite his discovery of her shady past, and her desperate resistance to being caged in by "belonging" to anybody.
Hepburn's performance walks a truly delicate balance here. Holly Golightly is the type of flaky hipster (my fiancee insists that this is not the proper use of the word, but I still think it fits) who thinks that it is too conventional to own a pet cat, but feels that it is not fighting the convention of pet ownership to simply not own a cat, so she owns a cat for the purpose of not naming it, so she can point out to others that the cat has no name because she doesn't own it, so she had no right to name it. Obnoxious, right? She drifts through life with no purpose other than to marry a rich man for his money. And, though Paul spends the entire movie being a friend to her, putting up with behavior that most people wouldn't tolerate, she says things to him that are downright cruel, just to keep him from getting too close. And yet, for all of that, she manages to remain likable, lovable, and heartbreaking. To say that there is a stand-out performance in the career of somebody as talented and appealing as Audrey Hepburn is truly a bold statement, but this is the performance that she should be remembered for, and definitely one that she should have won an Oscar for.
Hepburn plays Holly Golightly, a fun-loving girl drifting through her life in New York City, sleeping through the days, partying through the nights, and bilking her nightly dates for $50 a pop for "change for the powder room." (In the book, Golightly was clearly a prostitute, but the film made the issue a bit more ambiguous in order to get around the censors.) She meets her new neighbor, Paul (though she calls him Fred because he reminds her of her brother), a struggling writer who is (for some reason less ambiguously) prostituting himself to his "designer," the rich, married woman who pays for his rent and clothes, until he gets his big break. The two, of course, fall in love, despite his discovery of her shady past, and her desperate resistance to being caged in by "belonging" to anybody.
Hepburn's performance walks a truly delicate balance here. Holly Golightly is the type of flaky hipster (my fiancee insists that this is not the proper use of the word, but I still think it fits) who thinks that it is too conventional to own a pet cat, but feels that it is not fighting the convention of pet ownership to simply not own a cat, so she owns a cat for the purpose of not naming it, so she can point out to others that the cat has no name because she doesn't own it, so she had no right to name it. Obnoxious, right? She drifts through life with no purpose other than to marry a rich man for his money. And, though Paul spends the entire movie being a friend to her, putting up with behavior that most people wouldn't tolerate, she says things to him that are downright cruel, just to keep him from getting too close. And yet, for all of that, she manages to remain likable, lovable, and heartbreaking. To say that there is a stand-out performance in the career of somebody as talented and appealing as Audrey Hepburn is truly a bold statement, but this is the performance that she should be remembered for, and definitely one that she should have won an Oscar for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)