MovieChat Forums > My Fair Lady (1964) Discussion > Am I only one who can't stand AH in this...

Am I only one who can't stand AH in this movie?

posted 12 years ago by producerbonnie-1
33 replies | jump to latest

Yes, she was very pretty, to the point of being hypnotic---- but she had a very limited range, and it was never more on display than in this movie. Her performance is an astonishingly hammy, one-note, over-the-top interpretation that somehow manages to make Eliza nothing more than annoying. Except for her beauty, there is nothing attractive in this character to make Freddy or Higgins fall madly in love with her.
Perhaps Hepburn was defensively trying to prove that she was every bit as good as Julie Andrews, who had made the part her own on Broadway (and was a genuinely talented, subtle actress who could handle both stage and screen). And part of it is the script---- Eliza is not written with much depth or appeal. But IMHO, Hepburn just makes this movie excruciating. She screams, cries and whines her way through the entire film, seemingly incapable of communicating any other way. (And damn, she had such an ENORMOUS mouth---- it seems like it's wide open for half the running time!)
I guess what bugs me the most is that Eliza may have a different accent at the beginning, but she is still the same person---- you need to see her intelligence, ambition and appeal right from the beginning. But Hepburn plays her as almost a mental idiot in the first half, screaming wildly at the idea of a bath and saying over and over, "I'm a good girl, I am!!" In the second half suddenly she is supposedly fascinating, although she's still screaming and throwing shoes as a method of communicating. YAWN.
Sorry, I know many people loved her in this but it looked like bad community theater to me. I think Andrews would have done a MUCH better job.
(Please, no snark in response. You're welcome to agree or not, but don't waste time being a jerk, thanks.)

[–] stripdip 12 years ago

I completely agree 100%. It's like nails on a chalk board.

[–] strntz 12 years ago

Please, no snark in response

I was going to suggest that you put the crack pipe down and back away from your keyboard, but I'll heed your request...

If you watch the whole movie (there's more after the intermission), you'll find that once Higgins transforms her from the unsophisticated gutter snipe to the refined lady, she does show the subtle qualities of a fine actress. If you have a problem with the screenplay's treatment of Eliza, I suggest you discuss it with Messrs Lerner, Lowe, and Shaw...

Just once, I'd like someone to call me sir without adding 'you're making a scene' ~H Simpson

[–] Emmywins305 12 years ago

The script is written that Eliza is supposed to scream wildly about having a bath. The script also said that she was supposed to throw slippers and throw tantrums. If Julie had been cast as Eliza, she would have had to behave almost the same way. It's hardly Audrey's fault that Eliza is outspoken, temperamental, and moody. She's just written than way.

Are you sure you're not just one of those Julie Andrews fans who wanted to see Julie in the role, so you can't stand Audrey in it? Audrey or Julie, Eliza is a rather gritty and unsympathetic role.

[–] Troll_Dahl 11 years ago

I'd love to hear Andrews in her prime singing this part, but I like Hepburn, too. I suppose I'm allowed to take the middle road?

[–] DryToast 12 years ago

I am a huge fan of Audrey Hepburn's, and I had a poster of her on my wall as a teen, so I am not here to bash her, I just think she is miscast. The class distinctions of England are foreign to her, and her cockney never seems authentic to me, and then when she learns to speak "properly," she doesn't speak like a proper young English girl, she speaks like Audrey Hepburn (i.e., unique and not like any social class or type). Rather than playing the part as it's conceived, she bends the part as much as possible to match her screen persona. She also does this in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Maybe she does it all the time but it's only noticeable when the role requires something so different from her own personality. As a point of reference, just watch Wendy Hiller in the film of Pygmalion to see how much the actress playing Eliza can tell us about social history in England, not just be charming and cute and enchanting.

"You must sing him your prettiest songs, then perhaps he will want to marry you."

[–] Emmywins305 11 years ago

Wendy Hiller WAS good as Eliza with a convincing cockney accent, but in the first half she's not nearly as loud or vulgar as Audrey. There are some bits on YouTube of Julie Andrews playing Eliza, and I have to say the same thing. Both Wendy and Julie technically have more accurate cockney accents, but neither come off as "savage" or "low-class" as Audrey's Eliza. In fact, I think that Audrey's Eliza transformation is by far the most profound because the contrast between her flower girl and lady is the most dramatic.

[–] gregorykeithmorris 10 years ago

I loved Audrey, too. She was a wonderful actress who did a lot of good stuff, but I just couldn't buy her in the role. She didn't fit the role. Even Hepburn agreed that Julie should've done it (she would've been able to do it because Walt Disney was willing to postpone "Mary Poppins"'s filming". The movie would've been much superior if Julie recreated her magical, majestic performance.

[–] billgbg 12 years ago

Good ideas and observations here; also the show loses narrative drive right past the middle as the entire force of the production just stops. Everything talked about while Higgins sipped coffee in the square is over: Eliza passes the test at the ball, but what about the hour and eleven minutes after that?

Nobody courts anybody for the inevitable marraige, and they pay off some subplots: like what happens to Eliza's dad...well who cares exactly? Wasn't he the bloke who was paid to go away for the price of a fiver? I suppose Cukor could have done long piece about how they needed to pave the streets so that future flower girls can be cleaner.

These is no small problem that producer of this Jack L Warner, should have cared about, but likely he was busy looking for a place to retire by then.

Nothing picks up the second half of the film except awkward attempts to get married, "see if Pickering will marry you..." that's nonsensical in terms of plot.

Warner paid these people an awful lot of money, and that's the best they could do? At least Dory Previn's husband did a good job keeping the musical numbers in tune.

[–] Yort14 11 years ago

I love Hepburn's interpretation of Eliza. There are certain moments she was capable of creating on screen,that no one,including Andrews ,could have come near. Her transformation is perfect for the "film" version. Her walk down the staircase, before the the ball, is one of those magic movie moments that completely proves she was the best choice for the movie.Imo, Audrey Hepburn is the perfect Eliza!

"Forget it Jake,It's Chinatown."

[–] rogersphilip 11 years ago

[–] dadhusfam 11 years ago

+2.

[–] robert3750 9 years ago

I love Hepburn's interpretation of Eliza. There are certain moments she was capable of creating on screen,that no one,including Andrews ,could have come near. Her transformation is perfect for the "film" version. Her walk down the staircase, before the the ball, is one of those magic movie moments that completely proves she was the best choice for the movie.Imo, Audrey Hepburn is the perfect Eliza!

I agree completely. Her bearing and her facial expressions are utterly magical and exquisite. Just watch her face as she expresses her tentative acceptance of her new role, her thankfulness to Pickering for his compliment, the wait for Higgins' approval, and the happiness when he gives it. Truly the stuff that movie dreams are made of.

[–] mr_peabody_70 11 years ago

I disagree.

Audrey was not pretty, she was beautiful, but that's beside the point. I hardly think she was trying to prove to be better than Andrews, after all, it's two different media, stage and screen. I've never undertood the hype with Julie, since I've always thought her Poppins and Maria Von Trapp seemed TOO thatrical, not adequate for screen. I concur that she was too used to act on stage and therefore, was not ready for MFL as she was not for MP or TSOM.

As for Eliza's screaming, crying and whining, that's the way the character is written and Higgins (in the book) even asks Eliza to stop her "detestable boohooing", describes her as "a woman who utters such depressing and disgusting sounds" and says that God would listen to her is she learned not to pierce his ears while praying, so Audrey nailed the loud annoying attitude of Eliza.

There's a video with Andrews playing Eliza, and to me she sounds as annoying as Hepburn in her cockney persona. Judge for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hVqUeGBPmo

[–] kmarcel 11 years ago

@mr_peabody_70 I agree with you completely (except about Julie Andrews because despite her very theatrical and dramatic style, I love her and she has a special place in my heart). In terms of Audrey Hepburn, I am the most biased person you'll ever meet because I'm also the biggest Hepburn fan you'll ever meet, but that's beside the point :) Many people don't know this, however, Audrey initially turned down the role because she, like many others, thought it was only right for Julie Andrews to play the role, as Andrews had been so successful, as Eliza on Broadway. This was an extremely noble act displaying the kind of humanistic and compassionate nature of Audrey Hepburn, who was genuinely an incredible, unique, and talented actor/woman. Of course, they told her that they wouldn't choose Julie Andrews, and if Hepburn didn't they'd find another girl. And Hepburn, understanding the reality of the situation, admitted Julie had more of a right than she did,however a random third girl had less of a right than both Julie and herself and therefore she took the role.

@Tomatish
I'll argue that if an actor gets you to dislike their character so much that you wish to physically assault them, that's pretty damn good acting (unless, of course, the actor, as a person, is disagreeable and detestable). I'm sure that if you met Audrey Hepburn, in person, she would evoke the complete opposite reaction from you because she was neither disagreeable nor detestable. This means that her acting ability was so good that she could completely disassociate her own identity from her character (a very difficult job) and become somebody else; the essence of the art of acting.

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

Obliviously Eliza was intentionally brash and irritating. However Hepburn's performance overreached making Eliza at times infuriating.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] Tomatish 11 years ago

I haven't seen Hepburn in enough movies to comment on her acting abilities in general, but in this movie she was not worth watching. I got very very annoyed with her character and wanted to slap her to get her to be quiet.

I have yet to see Wendy Hiller's interpretation of the character, but the bits I have seen of Julie Andrews' on youtube show a much more sympathetic Eliza Doolittle. Also I found Andrews' portrayal funny while Hepburn's was completely void of comedy.

[–] bradford-1 11 years ago

OK Hepburn bashers, WHO would you have cast as Eliza? And no, you can't say Ms. Andrews because she wouldn't have been on the table, Jack L. was adamant. So choose, and remember, the actress and/or singer would have to be someone who was available and known in 1963.

"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

[–] Tomatish 11 years ago

I'm hardly an expert on the 60's so I don't know who was known back then, but if I couldn't go with Dame Julie Andrews, I would have gone with Dame Maggie Smith. She's a great actor and a good singer. I'm sure she would have handled the role much better than Hepburn.

[–] snelling 11 years ago

When did Maggie Smith ever sing? If you have any links I would appreciate it.

Enter my contest! I need help for a new signature! Maybe I'll choose yours and you'll win a cash prize!

[–] DryToast 11 years ago

Maggie Smith has appeared in musical revues on Broadway and in London. Both New Faces of 1956 and Share My Lettuce have cast albums. And she sings in the movie Oh What a Lovely War and is on the soundtrack album.

She can sing, but her voice was never the kind to handle this role. And in 1964 she wasn't yet famous in the movies, so... back to the drawing board.

Maureen O'Hara has said that Harry Cohn at Columbia wanted to buy the rights and do it for her, but he couldn't afford the record-breaking sale price. By the time the movie was made, O'Hara was too old for it, but she could have sung it very well.

"You must sing him your prettiest songs, then perhaps he will want to marry you."

[–] bonidea 11 years ago

I'm not a Hepburn basher, but I would have enjoyed seeing Elizabeth Taylor, who desperately wanted this role, and Peter O'Toole. Marni Nixon could have sung the part. Very different movie.

[–] hka-3 11 years ago

I would've preferred Peter O'Toole as Higgins. After writing that sentence I remembered he and Hepburn were good together in How To Steal A Million

As for Hepburn as Eliza, I didn't have a problem with her performance. Some things I think she did better than Wendy Hiller and visa versa.

[–] Trax-3 10 years ago

As for Hepburn as Eliza, I didn't have a problem with her performance. Some things I think she did better than Wendy Hiller and visa versa.

Both are good though I would give a slight edge to Hiller.
On the other hand I slightly prefer Harrison to Howard.