Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

Timeless AudreyExhibit for Audrey Hepburn


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Funny Face

Funny Face

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 03:33 PM

What an amazing tribute to my muse -- Audrey Hepburn. The exhibit was shown in my city from May 16-July 20, and if it comes anywhere near you, go!!! The exhibit, called "Timeless Audrey," is divided into 5 parts: Audrey, as wife and mother; Audrey's Home & Garden; Audrey, the Star; Audrey, the Muse; and Audrey and the Children of the World. Everyone will find something that particularly appeals to them in this exhibit.

Some of her costumes, along with her wedding dresses and the outfit she wore for one of the christenings in the family, are on display. And they are not encased in glass or otherwise. It's just you standing an inch away from these treasures -- and you're on the honor system to not actually touch them. And you don't -- because they seem downright sacred. And tiny! You cannot imagine what a sprite Audrey was until you see these clothes up close. The tiniest bodices and tiniest armholes. They're all quite delicate too -- and beautifully tailored.

One part of the exhibit pertains to Audrey, the Star, with one of its features being a series of slides flashing images of Audrey dancing in "Funny Face," a picture that has everything I could hope for: Audrey, Astaire, fashion, books, philosophy, Paris, music and dance. Every shot of Audrey doing her 'impromptu' jazz dance in the Parisian beatnik club is incredible. Pure exuberance and joy. It must have been a dream come true for her -- except for the temporary row she had with choreographer Stanley Donen. Audrey was costumed in a black turtleneck, slim black pants, and black loafers. And, she was performing in a dark, smoky club. The choreographer opted to put white socks on her, believing that her movement would otherwise be totally lost in the scene. Audrey cried about this, believing that the white socks would interfere with her line. But after she saw the final product, she graciously sent a note to the choreographer, reading "You were right."

The most difficult part of the exhibit to view is the final segment -- her work with UNICEF. It's difficult in part because you realize that Audrey, holding these dying babies, is dying herself. It's also difficult because Audrey states on screen that these babies are literally dying in front of her. Up until that point, you see them as malnourished and suffering, but to have it put in the bluntest of terms, that they are literally dying in front of you, is incredibly sad. She is almost afraid to hold the babies for fear that they will break a limb in the process. One last thing that was quite moving is how Audrey walked among all the starving and suffering adults, taking their hands in hers and bending down to kiss their hands.

Incidentally, proceeds from the exhibit -- which is to travel to the Far East, Europe and America -- go to Audrey Hepburn's Children's Fund.

Edited by Funny Face, 30 July 2003 - 03:36 PM.


#2 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 03:41 PM

Thanks for that, Funny Face, and welcome to Ballet Alert!

And of course, Audrey Hepburn was a ballet dancer briefly. I just saw "Funny Face" again a few months ago and the stunning part, to me, was the final fashion sequence in Paris -- including the run down the stairs in the red dress. The kind of performance only a dancer could give.

#3 Funny Face

Funny Face

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 07:19 PM

Oh yes! She descends this enormous staircase, wearing a red gown and carrying in her arms, raised high, a marching red fabric scarf/stole. She keeps descending, exclaiming to the photographer (Astaire), "Take the picture! Take the picture!"

Well, this makes me chuckle a bit, because it reminds me of a company rehearsal I had some years back when our troupe was learning the Chinese Ribbon Dance -- an extremely aerobic dance in which you must keep jumping lightly in the air while waving these enormous red flags on long poles and making a variety of designs with them. During one rehearsal, I suddenly had the urge to shout, in my best Audrey imitation, while moving my red flag about, "Take the picture! Take the picture!" My fellow dancers got quite a kick out of this, knowing what an Audrey fan I have always been.

I think her joy throughout that picture really shows -- it was wonderful compensation for the ballet career she was not destined to have, after coming to terms with the assessment she was given of her chances.

#4 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 07:29 PM

Yes. She wasn't much of a modern dancer, in the jazz routine she did earlier. But I think fashion models are the danseuses nobles of today -- it's all about display of the body, how to walk, etc., so she did get her chance!

#5 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,843 posts

Posted 03 December 2014 - 03:48 PM

 A new exhibition of Hepburn photos and magazine covers goes on display in London.

 

And now Audrey Hepburn is to be celebrated with a photography exhibition at London's National Portrait Gallery.

 

An exhibition about the actress's life and career will open in July and include family images of her at ballet practice and pictures taken during her early days working as a model in London.

 



#6 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,843 posts

Posted 15 June 2015 - 05:00 PM

A story on the National Portrait Gallery exhibition features a photo of Hepburn in ballet school.

 

 

There are versions of the same story, but Dotti says his mother told him Madame Rambert had eventually told her she was too tall to be a ballerina and that she danced “like a hippopotamus”. “It was the one thing that she really wanted to be,” says Dotti. In his biography of his mother, Sean Hepburn Ferrer (Hepburn’s son from her first marriage to the actor Mel Ferrer), says that, “She remembered going back to her room and ‘just wanting to die’. ”



#7 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,827 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 03:13 PM

The Wall Street Journal ran a story about this exhibit recently. The paper quoted a film studies professor who said that her students totally accept [Hepburn] but they can't relate to someone like Garbo. That was interesting to read. Is Garbo now considered too cold or too remote as an actress?



#8 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,843 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 07:15 PM

I'd say Hepburn is at least as well known these days as a clotheshorse than for her film career; her image regularly crops up in fashion magazines, online sites, and Vanity Fair more for that reason than anything else.  Young people may not actually have sat through Breakfast at Tiffany's, not that I blame them, but they have seen Hepburn in stills from the picture. The skinny waif look that she exemplified rarely goes completely out of style and her Givenchy outfits are still (relatively) recent have held up well. Garbo was a great camera subject but she wasn't a mannequin.

 

As far as not being able to relate to a star like Garbo - well, your loss, kiddies. Not everybody is "relatable" and Garbo wasn't everyone's cup of tea even at the height of her US popularity; by the end of her career it was her European grosses and her prestige value that made her valuable at MGM. There is also the paradox, which I mentioned previously, that although old movies are more readily available upon request than ever before via DVD or online, they're no longer ubiquitous as filler for TV downtime as they once were. If you don't have TCM, they're hardly present at all, except for Westerns. Bette Davis told Dick Cavett that television had brought her new generations of fans. I don't think that's happening any more on the same kind of scale. Not too long ago I was standing in line in a repertory theater listening to a woman behind me explain to her millennial daughter who Katharine Hepburn was. 

 

It's also true that many of Garbo's movies are interesting primarily because of her presence and have not aged well, so even people who seek them out may be underwhelmed, at least initially.

 

I'd hope that a skilled and knowledgeable film studies prof could help them overcome that, however.



#9 sandik

sandik

    Diamonds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,698 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 01:55 AM

There is also the paradox, which I mentioned previously, that although old movies are more readily available upon request than ever before via DVD or online, they're no longer ubiquitous as filler for TV downtime as they once were. If you don't have TCM, they're hardly present at all, except for Westerns. Bette Davis told Dick Cavett that television had brought her new generations of fans. I don't think that's happening any more on the same kind of scale. Not too long ago I was standing in line in a repertory theater listening to a woman behind me explain to her millennial daughter who Katharine Hepburn was.

 

 

You've put a finger on a very true thing -- for all that DVDs and the internet give us incredible access, I think that many younger members of the audience are less well "read" in film history.

 

Not only did Hepburn keep working in film much longer than Garbo, she had a much more visible life after film -- her humanitarian work kept her in the public eye.



#10 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,843 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 06:23 AM

Strictly speaking Hepburn's time as a star wasn't that much longer than Garbo's. From Roman Holiday through Wait Until Dark is about fourteen years. Garbo quit at 36, Hepburn was pushing 40, not unusual retirement ages for female stars back then. About the same amount of time as that between The Torrent and Two-Faced Woman. Doesn't seem like a long time but actually a very good run at the top for female stars of that era (and this one, for that matter), even though both careers ended prematurely.

 

And I should note I don't mean to knock the DVDs or the internet - TV would likely have moved away from the Late Late Movie programming model anyway, and at least this way the material is out there and accessible. But there's a difference between "accessible" and "unavoidable." 



#11 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,827 posts

Posted 11 July 2015 - 08:58 AM

Garbo is at a decided disadvantage to Audrey Hepburn given when each of them worked.

 

Of the 25 movies Garbo made for M-G-M between 1925 and 1941, 10 were silent films, which only appeal today to old Hollywood movie nerds like me.

 

The next eight films she made (beginning with Anna Christie in 1930 and concluding with As You Desire Me in 1932) all occurred in that transitional period between silents and full-on talkies when movies were very static and, also, aren't of much interest today outside of pre-Code Hollywood devotees.

 

So, that really only leaves 7 films (Queen Christina, The Painted Veil, Anna Karenina, Camille, Conquest, Ninotchka and Two-Faced Woman) that, conceivably, could appeal to modern day audiences. Of those 7, I would only recommend the mid-30s trifecta of Queen Christina, Anna Karenina and Camille plus the 1939 Ninotchka to 21st century audiences. That's a pretty small legacy to build off of for latter-day audiences compared to the more accessible legacy from Hepburn. (I don't mean better -- just more accessible.)



#12 pherank

pherank

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 14 July 2015 - 03:04 PM

So, that really only leaves 7 films (Queen Christina, The Painted Veil, Anna Karenina, Camille, Conquest, Ninotchka and Two-Faced Woman) that, conceivably, could appeal to modern day audiences. Of those 7, I would only recommend the mid-30s trifecta of Queen Christina, Anna Karenina and Camille plus the 1939 Ninotchka to 21st century audiences. That's a pretty small legacy to build off of for latter-day audiences compared to the more accessible legacy from Hepburn. (I don't mean better -- just more accessible.)

 

Ummmmm, Grand Hotel !!!

 



#13 canbelto

canbelto

    Sapphire Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 14 July 2015 - 07:09 PM

Garbo was always a rarefied taste even in her prime. She was aloof and rarely seen in public. Audrey Hepburn also was not publicity seeking in a crass way but she was much more public in her support for certain designers (Givenchy), causes (UNICEF), and was never a recluse. 

 

But I think what makes Audrey a style icon so many years later is that her look isn't impossible to replicate. Of course you don't look like Audrey Hepburn but many women can throw on a little black dress, shades, and kitten heels and go out in NYC. 



#14 Quiggin

Quiggin

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 918 posts

Posted 15 July 2015 - 02:54 PM

Before Audrey Hepburn was in Hollywood movies, she had a rather distinguished Broadway career - in Anita Loos's adaptation of Gigi and in Giraudoux's Ondine - sort of a cross between Midsummer Night's Dream and Giselle.

I was sorry she did My Fair Lady - very controversial casting at the time, and it does seem she's out of her range, which is a narrow but very special one. The movie is way too over scaled, even for the original musical. Interestingly in 1951 George Cukor was originally supposed to make his Broadway comeback by directing the stage version of Gigi.

#15 Lynette H

Lynette H

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts

Posted 17 July 2015 - 02:05 AM

There is currently a Hepburn exhibition on at the National Portrait Gallery in London. Details here

 

http://www.npg.org.u...epburn/home.php




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):