Honest question, was she indeed an outstanding actor, or was she basically just portraying herself on all of her movies?

Honest question, was she indeed an outstanding actor, or was she basically just portraying herself on all of her movies?

Attached: Katharine_Hepburn_promo_pic.jpg (2100x2632, 2.3M)

Honest quonest, was she indeedly an outstandly actorino, or was she basicallito just portraynesting hershelf on all of her movilie-rinos?

What about him, for that matter?

Attached: 170px-Cary_Grant_Indiscreet_1958.jpg (170x232, 11K)

yes, she was good as an actor, if you watch The Lion in Winter you will get it.

but she was apparently insufferable as a human being, as far as sources regarding her seem to display.

She was a great actor. Her mannerisms became part of a star persona only when she realized she needed one, and relaunched herself with The Philadelphia Story. Prior to that, she's not being put forward as any one type of character, but carries qualities through each picture. Every actor has their mannerisms.

Great actor. The Grant star persona didn't solidify until The Awful Truth. Before that, he had some of those qualities but it hadn't yet all come together, but you can see his talent as an actor in those films long before his light comedy manner was established. Once it was, he did great work within that persona, as with Hepburn. Admittedly she did more outside it, but there was an incredible range of psychologies possible just within Grant's double-breasted suit, debonair figure.

I would describe her as one of the most charismatic actors of all time, but not necessarily one of the most technically skilled. Acting isn't really a zero sum game in that manner.

What would be some examples of times when you think her technique falls short?

>Hepburn was famously dismissive of the young Streep's talents, describing her acting as “click, click, click” (suggesting that her performances were so transparent you can see the cogs moving in her head) and labelling her as “my least favourite modern actress.”

based

Wow, I like her even more now. I'm afraid I get a similar impression watching the often-Hepburn-compared Blanchett - she's very good at playing transparently disingenuous people, but when you see her "as herself" anywhere you realize those are all her own mannerisms.

She was an outstanding actor. She was not portraying herself in every movie. She was portraying a character in everyday life that she continued to portray herself as in every movie.

It's not that she falls short, it's that there are are enough actors that I think are more technically gifted that I couldn't describe her as one of the best technical actors. There's no aspect of her acting that's even close to mediocre, tho

based, she said what everyone thinks, deep down.

She is not the best Hepburn.

>actor
>not actress

Attached: 88457843.jpg (988x1059, 181K)

She helped make my dad's favorite movie even better so she's great in my book.

Attached: on golden pond.jpg (300x453, 41K)

literally WHO

True. Also Vivien Leigh. Her over-the-top, Shakesperean performances in "Gone with the Wind" and "A Streetcar Named Desire" are very divisive; some critics would call her the best female actor of all time, due to her passion in giving herself to these roles, whereas others would dimiss her as an awful actress, unable to make a transition of acting mannerisms from the stage to the screen.

Original English was gender neutral, the French changed it to actress. Actress is a word for whores. Katharine Hepburn was an actor. Get it?

the scene on which she jumps on the pond for real, in desperation, to see if everything's okay with based Henry Fonda, is something that I will never forget. brilliant.

>some critics would call her the best female actor of all time
What moron has that opinion? Even if they prefer that stage overacting, Renée Jeanne Falconetti is generally considered the best that ever gets.

I get that you're an idiot, and you have a lot of idiot friends.

Audrey was lovely as a human being, but her only genuinely great movie performance was in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Katharine has dozens of great performances.

Who would be some more technically gifted people you can think of within that era? I'm interested in this because I can see how people in eras since then have surpassed her school of acting in verisimilitude, though that's partly just changing social mores full stop (ie. people, not just actors, act differently in different eras), but I can't think of many in her own era who were technically better.

Audrey Hepburn was a great star, no question, but she's usually the same in every movie and we wouldn't want her not to be. I say usually cos I've not seen everything, but so far, she's always Audrey.

No, the people who call her the best female actor are talking about her technique, not her "passion".

The people who'd call her awful have watched maybe five or six other classic era movies. That acting style isn't theatrical, you just assume it is because it's not like modern movies - it's as precisely calibrated to the medium as anything now.

>within that era?
Nobody that I've seen on film.

Who are the people since who've surpassed her technically, in your view?

>mfw that scene near the end where Norman runs out of breath and Ethel tries desperately to get paramedics out to the home while being terrified of him dying
I'm so fucking glad he didn't die and leave her alone

Attached: 1517355830614.jpg (441x441, 84K)

Yeah but she's also more attractive.

She was incredible... and nobody that willing to use their physical frailty for a performance, rather than wield it defensively in apology for not giving one, will come along again.

actor is the right term though, we don't have doctresses or teachtresses

personally, to me she was amazing in both of these movies, even if it seems a bit of an overacting at times.

This is a reddit tier reply, but I'm watching There Will Be Blood again at the moment and Daniel Day Lewis just constantly astonishes me, how he controls himself. Every movement is perfect.

Katherine Hepburn was a whore, though.

We're talking about acting talent here, pleb.
I guess Audreyfags were the Robertsfags of the past.

I'm afraid the last time I saw him do anything new was Gangs of New York, and he played such a ham there that it seems to have permanently colored his style. He seems very intentional in most of his more recent performances, and a lot of the time he's being given character dynamics that induce a feeling of repetition, for me at least.

can't believe it's been almost 40 years. Jane Fonda is now older than they both were at the time of filming. A beautiful movie.

Not at all, and I don't think arguments for original English are a great idea, unless we want to insist on only using the word "cunt" for vagina. I wouldn't mind, but I suspect the women who hate the word "actress" would dislike it. I'm happy to use the word "actor" for both genders, but let's admit that it's purely fashion that dictates this. Just as "person of color" made a baffling comeback from the era of the Reconstruction for no apparent reason, we're currently afraid of feminine endings.

When you're that good, you're an actor.

perhaps because Katharine lived over three decades longer than Audrey, and had much more opportunities to show her talent.

She was good in The Aviator.

Watch They All Laughed. She's amazing in that.

>Actress is a word for whores.
By that standard, "actor" is a word for fags.

And the word is French/Latin in derivation, anyway, not English, so in fact it wasn't gender-neutral to begin with.

Or maybe because Audrey traded far more on her looks than Katherine did (or could: even in her prime, she wasn't even close to the most beautiful actress in the industry).

Audrey mostly stopped doing films after the mid-'60s by her own choice, not because of lack of opportunities. She lived another quarter century, but she chose family and charity work over acting.