What is Hepburn? Just a regular person? A fashion icon? A survivor of Nazi occupation? A philanthropist?
Probably all three. Hepburn is one of a kind. A Hollywood starlet who refused all but British citizenship. She’s both flat-out-broke Holly Golightly and royal Princess Anne (though she’s not the British actress of that generation who did become a Princess, that being Grace Kelly). She’s also creepily revived in a Galaxy chocolate advert that was probably my first encounter with Hepburn.
My second encounter was, of course, Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I wanted to see it due to my love of the song Moon River. It’s probably the best thing I can play on guitar, as I went out of my way to learn the tab. When I was a kid, I had an old MP3 Player, and the first time I read Tom Sawyer - the part of the book when he struts through ol’ St. Petersburg after running out of the house due to his brother tattling on him going swimming, Moon River fell in maybe one of the most lucky “shuffles” I’ve ever had. It made me ENCHANTED with the song. The film is horribly problematic, making George straight and the whole landlord of it all, but Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is instantly charming, yelling “timber” as her socialite friends drink themselves to a black out. She’s able to, more than switch between charming and tragic, but be charming and tragic all at once.
The third encounter was Roman Holiday. Roman Holiday FUCKS. It’s not stuffy at all - it’s got more in common with Totally Fucked Up from the ‘90’s than its contemporaries. Yeah, there’s a plot, but most of it is a hang out movie. And - I LOVE a hangout movie. After that, there was no going back, in regards to Hepburn.
The only reason this is notable is due to Hepburn’s small role as an airplane attendant. She’s in it for maybe three minutes. She does good with what she’s given, shows off her bright infectious smile and outshines everyone else.
If you’ve come to the end of Hepburn’s filmography, and need one more hit, though - this ain’t it. Swear to God. I think she did a TV show where she narrated over a bunch of gardens? Watch that instead.
Now, on one hand, I feel a bit bad for the people behind this film. Imagine dedicating your blood, sweat and tears to making a film, just for it to end up as the answer of a trivia question based on an actress who had a bit role. But on the other hand - the film kinda fucking sucks. I watched it on YouTube with their generated English subtitles, so maybe THAT’S why I didn’t dig it fully, but… Nah, it’s just a boring thing. It’s like if Borat wasn’t SBC, but like… Kid Rock. It tries to have its cake and eat it too by being extremely patriotic towards the Netherlands, but still making fun of it. It has that “oh, our wee island” feeling that you’d get in the Nativity movies (the second with David Tennant’s okay), but honestly, it’s not worth your time. If you felt this review of it was a bit of a snooze-fest, brother (or sister or non-binary cuz) - I hate to be the guy to inform you about this, but this is TEN TIMES better than that Dutch propaganda! Keep to making Legos (that’s Denmark, actually), or whatever it is the Dutch do.
Review TBA
Audrey Hepburn’s role is, and this is not trying to diminish it, is to be disappointed when a creepy older guy doesn’t marry her. Does she know the creepy older guy before her expectation of a proposal? No. And HE rejects HER for not being pretty enough. The reason why she expects a marriage is a more realistic premise than him turning her down - he has to get married to the next woman he talks to or he doesn’t get his share of the will of a dead relative. Hepburn is technically the next woman he talks to, and with her expression, it wouldn’t be a “no”, but he instead decides to chase after a woman who - Spoiler, but please don’t watch this movie - is secretly the niece of the older guy’s butler.
She has two scenes - the first, when she gets rejected, and the second, when she gets rejected by the same guy for a second time.
The rest of the film is… it’s okay. It’s a slapstick movie without the slapstick. I’m not like, a massive slapstick fan, so if you have me screaming at the screen for slapstick, the film’s gone wrong. There’s a couple of plots, of a timid bank clerk trying to rob the place he works at, a paperback writer who’s trying to get arrested for 30 days, and a Emily Gilmore-type who has to be employed as a maid.
They did a remake in the 60s or 70s. I didn’t watch it. If you do, comment about it in my guestbook, I’d love to see how a different take on the premise and if it worked.
This is Audrey Hepburn’s third, and first Academy Award winning movie. But, she doesn’t have much to do with that, seeing that it was a screenwriting Oscar. This film is also on a list created by the Vatican. Not that this is a very Catholic flick.
It’s a very good movie. Hepburn’s first good film (but not her last). Essentially, it’s a con-artist movie, where everything … goes right. Yes, I know that’s the tagline for The Asphalt Jungle, and the two films are very similar, but I feel like this one eeks it out, very slightly, in terms of quality. But they are very similar - Asphalt Jungle has young Marilyn Monroe in a small role to match Lavender Hill Mob’s Hepburn. A key difference would be that Lavender Hill Mob is more of a comedy than Asphalt Jungle. Asphalt Jungle’s more of an ironic dark comedy, or maybe a dramedy with moral elements and themes (crime doesn’t pay) while Lavender Hill Mob, especially in a scene that takes place in Paris and involves a school trip, is happy to use all tools at it’s disposal to make you laugh (made me laugh, at least).
This is maybe the first Hepburn film when I was okay when she wasn’t in it. It’s a genuinely fun time, and would be fondly remembered with her. That’s not as big of a dig at Hepburn as it sounds, she has a smaller role here than she did in Laughter in Paradise (apologies for reminding you about Laughter in Paradise).