Just curious, as I have not seen "Two for the Road" or "Wait Until Dark", in 1967, which Audrey Hepburn performance was better? She was nominated for "Wait Until Dark". Did she deserve the nomination instead for "Two for the Road"?
shareThe Golden Globes got it right that year - Audrey Hepburn was nominated for BOTH films.
I would say that both of her performances deserved Oscar nominations - that is, if you take the Oscars seriously. She was as good as she possibly could have been in TWO FOR THE ROAD and WAIT UNTIL DARK.
Personally, I think TWO FOR THE ROAD provided her with more of a challenge, as she had to convincingly convey five different stages in a woman's life - and she succeeded beautifully.
But I wasn't surprised she got the Oscar nomination for WAIT UNTIL DARK. Unlike ROAD, WAIT UNTIL DARK was a big box office hit. And it was released later in the year, so it was fresher in the minds of Academy voters. Plus, there have been articles written about how impressed the Academy is with actors who can "do a disability," and Hepburn worked very hard to make her character's blindness credible.
Like I said, both performances are great. But I prefer Hepburn's work in TWO FOR THE ROAD.
'wait until dark' is more of an 'academy award'-type movie/performance. it's great yes, but her performance in 'two for the road' is superior.
We're hiding like elephants when they're happy.
Two For The Road hands down. A richer more complex character in a richer more complex film (I liked Wait until Dark too but not as much as this)
But you can't beat a disability when it comes to the Academy.