What is it with gay dudes and worshipping this woman?How many gay guys have her as a poster?
>>42391646she’s the original girltwink
>>42391646she is pretty cool. read her biography. also she was very stylish.
>>42391646I love Breakfast at Tiffany’s
Because a huge amount of them are repressing MEF and AGP and get turned on by the voyeurism of female faghags watching them do gay shit
I'd worship her if you know what I mean
>>42391646uh. let me be clear. this only applies to gay men and trannies under the age of... thirty-five. because audrey hepburn, uh, can't actually act. i have to... concur, with >>42391844, and i'd go so far as to add, that liking audrey hepburn, at all, is a sure sign of agp, in men, and in women, in boys, and in girls, and in all people, who call this great land of ours, home. thank you all, and god bless america
>>42391646One important, very simple reason Audrey Hepburn was embraced by the gay community is that she was a celebrity ally in her lifetime. Judy Garland was too. >>42391909I think to say that Audrey Hepburn “can’t actually act” is being a touch harsh. It’s more that she was typecast in shallow roles, and she didn’t mind because she didn’t care about being taken seriously as an actress.
>>42392020i disagree. you can be typecast and still indicate depth of range while playing the type. roman holiday is a great example of why she can't act. they had to trick her into "beeing herself" to film the movie. which is the opposite of acting. the other hepburn, same problem. they were celebrities who played themselves in every role, trying to develop a brand
>>42392134>you can be typecast and still indicate depth of range while playing the type>for roman holiday they had to trick her into "beeing herself" to film the movieI’m going to give you that one. At any rate, her appeal didn’t live or die on her acting ability.
>>42392134that’s literally just how people acted back then, it’s a different style from today. getting too into the character was considered overacting
>>42392219that's true. i found it easier to project onto her as an agp repper bc she's so twiggy. that was the main thing that appealed to me about her
What about the fact that she's objectively beautiful and liking beautiful women is based.>inb4 not gay leaveI like trannies too so I'm bi stfu
>>42392240i'm assuming you're talking about the development of method acting? i think the method is just an especially perverse and effective way of developing character. it mirrors the repetitive mechanism of film. being "in" the character is something that can be achieved entirely in the absence of "the method." look at paul muni. he was probably the best actor of the 20th century and he developed a method that is essentially the obverse of today's method acting. he studied the character as objectively as possible, and thrived on acting historical figures as characters: something difficult to accomplish for the "play themselves" celebrity, and a tendency that largely relegated him to character acting. he melted too deeply into his characters and therefore couldn't be monetized as a celebrity could. which was the real problem. the studios may have called it "over-acting" but they kept employing him in roles that other "actors" couldn't handle. because a celebrity doesn't even want to become louis pasteur, because he isn't hot. joan crawford doesn't even want to play baby jane. that would destroy the parasocial relationship she has with her fans, that the studios exploit financially. the people who acted like that "back then" and profited from it are the direct intellectual forebearers of the spiritual cancer that is revenue-generating social media. it was never real acting and real actors have always existed parallel to these leeches with a pretense to artistry
>>42392406not talking about method in particular just general acting style and trend towards realism. If you watch any pre 1960 movie the actors seem really stiff compared to today, it was expected that most of the character came from the dialogue not the acting
>>42392469you are talking about method acting: the change you mention is due to the influence of kazan's actors' studio and the advent of sound. among other things. also, i don't know what you mean by>most of the character came from the dialogue not the actingdo you mean, the character came from dialogue rather than visual characterization? i think that's just as much a problem in a lot of modern films as it was in the 50s
