Although I think it's a fine movie, it's a bit of a stretch picturing Audrey Hepburn as the virginal young thing she's supposed to be in the early flashbacks. After all, she was 38 when the movie was made. Jackie Bisset [in the choir] was 15 years her junior.
Then again, she looked fine as the older Joanna, and I guess you can't have it both ways. A very nice performance no matter her age.
[deleted]
ke2571985 got it right..
Audrey Hepburn turned 38 about 10 days after TWO FOR THE ROAD was released; she was 37 when the film was being shot.
And as others have commented, she was thoroughly convincing playing a woman in her early 20s. Very few could pull this off successfully, but Hepburn was always in a class by herself.
I agree with Marisa. At the beginning she seemed old, but then, in the flashbacks I completely believe her being twentysomething...When they were in the bus singing she looked like 'Liesl' in "The Sound of Music" :P
The Bride: Where's Bill?
Juno MacGuff: I'm pregnant
I don't think she looked too old, at least not so old that I couldn't forgive it. You have to take it with a grain of salt - the movie spans a significent amount of time. Yes, Audrey didn't look 20, but I don't think she looked 37 either. I thought she looked fantastic regardless. One has to remember that unlike most celebrities of today, she had absolutely no plastic surgery or botox or whathaveyou done, so what you see is what you get. Plus, she was rather thin and age tends to show more on thinner women. And she was a heavy smoker. Yet despite all this, I thought she looked much younger than her years and close to the same age as Finney. He didn't exactly look 20 either during his years as a "boy".
In their younger years, I thought Finney looked a lot older than Audrey actually. And then in their later years, Audrey looked older.
share<< I don't think she looked too old, at least not so old that I couldn't forgive it. You have to take it with a grain of salt - the movie spans a significent amount of time. Yes, Audrey didn't look 20, but I don't think she looked 37 either. I thought she looked fantastic regardless. >>
I think this sums it up well. No, she doesn't appear really really young in the earlier scenes...but then, she looks young enough to keep that part of the story going. It's not like you think, "Jesus, she's a GRANDMOTHER!"
It's really hard to cast actors in stories that span such a stretch of time. Even if you get someone right in the middle of a character's age arc (as I suppose you might call it), they're probably going to be more believable at one end of the scale than the other. It's just a reality of life.
OT: For decades, various producers have spoken of doing a film based on Jean Seberg's life. Jodie Foster and Kirstin Dunst have both been mentioned at times. But since Seberg's most interesting periods were when she was a fresh faced teen starlet and then a suicidal woman coming unraveled in middle age, it will probably be impossible to ever find an actress who can convincingly play both. Does anyone agree?
[deleted]
The hairstyles, makeup and costuming was done very well to portray her in the different times in their marriage.
Jo really did look younger with the slightly longer then shoulder-length hair behind her ears and wearing bright clothes with jeans definately made her looking younger.
I personally thought it worked, Jo did look older in the shots with the shorter hair. And 12 years is not a whole lot of difference in looks regarding to age. They didnt have to try too hard to make her older/younger. It still worked I thought.
[deleted]
First of all, I don't think a younger actress could have pulled it off-a part like Joanna is not so much about looks than about emotions. And Audrey was just incredible: she made the bitterness moments very convincing and poignant but in the early courtships scenes, like the one in which Jo and Mark stop at the auberge for coffee , I completely forgot her actual age and situation. She seemed so much like a young girl discovering love for the first time. She made it seem real.
Still, looks-wise, I think Audrey did look much younger than her years, specially considering the time the movie was shot. I've read somewhere she wore very little make-up and wanted her transforming character to appear as natural as possible. The hairstyles and the clothes helped of course, but in the youthful scenes, she really looks like she did ten years ago in Roman Holiday. And in the mature scenes, she has the sophisticated assurance of How To Steal A Million. Neither Albert Finney nor Jackie Bisset (maybe because she was dubbed by an older woman ?) seem younger in comparison.
" You ain't running this place, Bert, WILLIAMS is!" Sgt Harris
If you think that, be grateful that director Donen's first choice for this role didn't accept...Elizabeth Taylor. (Taylor and Donen had been lovers in the early 1950s.)
Although Hepburn was a bit older than Taylor, she could get away with the modern fashions and the illusion of youth in the flashbacks. La Liz, while still a gorgeous woman, was by this point matronly and in no way could have pulled off those flashbacks. (Unless Donen had her locked up away from food for a month!)
It's one of my favorite Hepburn films.