I found it interesting Brown’s observation of Audrey
Hepburn’s ‘holiness’. She had played twice as a nun, in The Nun’s Story and Robin and
Marian. She also played an angel in her final role, Always. Having never seen any of these roles, this contradicts with
my personal image on Hepburn as a carefree, happy-go-lucky, blasé and almost
careless figure. In particular, her ‘holiness’ contradicts with her role in Breakfast at Tiffany’s as Holly
Golightly. Even the name, ‘Golightly’ (which she gives herself upon coming to
New York) emphasizes her blasé and carefree attitude. Holly is a drinker and a
partier and it’s more than implied that she uses sex for profit. She’s a ‘lady
of the night’ and far from holy. It takes a more wholly character (though Paul
himself has his similar vices, the film does not attribute his actions to his
personal character in the same way it does with the woman character) to change
her tramping, gold-digging ways. I’m not sure why Brown left out Breakfast at Tiffany’s in his analysis
of Hepburn, apart from denouncing it as Hepburn “outstaying her welcome” in
Hollywood. It was in the middle of her career, well before the mentioned Robin and Marian and Always, and seems a pivotal role in her
image-formation. I would think most everyone today remembers Hepburn for her iconic
role as Holly Golightly. Perhaps it may not have received such attention on the
outset, or perhaps there were cultural contexts of the time I do not
understand, but it seems a fault of the author to ignore such a large role. The
other movies I most know her through-
Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Roman Holiday, Funny Face, Sabrina- similarly seem to assert a different image than ‘holy’. In
each, she seems to kind of skate through life without real consequences because
of her charm and beauty. She always seems to live in some kind of dream where
she has no need to grow up or take any responsibility. This contradiction (holy
versus careless) only goes to show what Dyer repeatedly articulates in his
book.
No comments:
Post a Comment