Breakfast at Tiffany's and Funny Face: Centennial Collection editions (Jan. 13, 2009) (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Budgell]

From DVD Times:

Paramount Home Entertainment have announced the Region 1 DVD release of two more titles in their Centennial Collection. Arriving on 13th January 2009 is a double-bill of Audrey Hepburn starring classics –Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Funny Face.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s

* English and French audio options
* Mono, Restored Mono and 5.1
* New Extras:
o A Golightly Gathering (tbd)
o Henry Mancini: More Than Music (tbd)
o Mr. Yunioshi: An Asian Perspective (tbd)
o Behind the Gates: The Tour (tbd)
* Old Extras:
o Commentary by Producer Richard Shepherd
o Featurette: The Making of a Classic
o It's So Audrey: A Style Icon
o Featurette: Brilliance in a Blue Box
o Featurette: Audrey's Letter to Tiffany
o Original Theatrical Trailer


Funny Face

* English, French, Portuguese and Spanish audio options
* Mono and 5.1
* New Extras:
o Kay Thompson: "Think Pink" (tbd)
o This is VistaVision (tbd)
o Snapshot: A Day in the Life of a Fashion Photographer (tbd)
o Fashion Photographers Exposed (tbd)
o Behind the Gates: A.C. Lyles Remembers Cecil B. Demille (tbd)
* Old Extras:
o The Fashion Designer and His Muse
o Parisian Dreams
o Paramount in the '50s - Retrospective Featurette
o Original Theatrical Trailer
o Galleries

 

[seanOhara]

A Paramount executive commented: "Audrey is the new Duke."

A pair of triple dips, and still no African Queen.

 

[BethHarrison]

Why can't Paramount dig a little further into its vaults?

I am losing track at the number of times these films have been released.

I must be the only person who doesn't like Audrey Hepburn films.

 

[Garysb]

So the Centennial Collection editions are just re releases of stuff that is already out there. No blu-ray, no double, triple. quadruple dip, no sale. The films have been released in restored versions already. I doubt these will be new transfers.
Great films, got them already, next.

 

[Andrew Budgell]

I agree, Gary. The new features are pretty much useless anyhow.

 

[GerardoHP]

Heresy!

 

[rich_d]

Yup. Although I can't really say that Funny Face is a great film.

 

[Citizen87645]

I'll be waiting for the Blu-Ray releases, though I'm curious about the "Mr. Yunioshi: An Asian Perspective."

I agree Funny Face is not a great film, but I would love to see the colorful images in high definition.

 

[Matt Hough]

I'm a much bigger fan of FUNNY FACE than either Cameron or Rich. It has legendary Gershwin music (abetted with extra numbers by three-time Oscar winner Roger Edens, all of them winners), a dazzling production design aided by the visual acumen of Richard Avedon, and so what if the Hepburn-Astaire coupling is a May-December thing? Hepburn had already done that in SABRINA and would do it in LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON, so it was hardly anything novel, and I think we forget today that back in the day, Astaire, though never much of a sexual being alone, had only to start dancing with a partner to sweep millions of women off their feet. (And all of his partners after Ginger Rogers were young, often decades younger than he was. Hepburn was hardly unique in that.)

With truly creative production numbers, the visual kick of the fashion photography sequence, and all that marvelous dancing by both stars, I honestly think FUNNY FACE is one of the handful of great screen musicals.

I guess that's what makes horse racing.

 

[rich_d]

I'm glad you really like it.

But don't assume it's the May - December casting. Heck, if we threw out all the films with that we would be missing some great ones. No, it doesn't help particularly when it's not just an old actor but an old dancer. I love Fred Astaire but his best dancing is long gone when this movie was made. Obviously it also doesn't help that he's teamed with an actress, not a actress/dancer.

I also don't (by itself) mind the re-used music. Heck if we had a problem with that ... no more Singin' in the Rain.

I just think the promise of the first 15 minutes of film is not lived up to. The 'Think Pink' sequence is eye-candy wonderfulness. But after the 'meet cute' in the bookstore the film drags. The wedding dress dance by the stream with the hideous fog filter on a bright sunny day is awful and the dancing unmemorable. The stuff with Astaire in the goatee ... yuck. Matter of fact, the second half of the film looks like they were told to trim the budget.

The film had its moments but not enough to recommend to anyone but big Hepburn and Astaire fans.

 

[Matt Hough]

Hepburn trained as a ballet dancer in her youth but had to give it up once war broke out in Europe. So, while she didn't make dancing a career, she certainly had training and could do what was required in the dances. Astaire's dancing has charm and invention (no matter his age). And Stanley Donen's direction is sublime.

Sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree about this one.

 

[rich_d]

No problem, we will agree to disagree but your facts are incorrect. The war is not why she gave up dancing.

[source=Wikipedia]
In 1945, after the war, Hepburn left the Arnhem Conservatory and moved to Amsterdam, where she took ballet lessons with Sonia Gaskell [16] and studied drama with English actor Felix Aylmer. In 1948, Hepburn went to London and took dancing lessons with the renowned Marie Rambert. To help pay expenses while training with Marie Rambert, Miss Hepburn worked part-time as a model for fashion photographers. They had a lot to work with as she was a beautiful young woman.

Hepburn eventually asked Rambert about her future. Rambert assured her that she could continue to work there and have a great career, but the fact she was relatively tall (1.7 m, or 5' 7") coupled with her poor nutrition during the war would keep her from becoming a prima ballerina. Hepburn trusted Rambert's assessment and decided to pursue acting, a career in which she at least had a chance to excel.[/quote]

I see no reason to bash one of my favorite actresses of all time. We all love Audrey. But she didn't get that the Funny Face role because of her dancing ability any more than she got the My Fair Lady role for her singing voice (which wasn't bad either).

She got both those roles because she is both lovable and memorable. One of those special people that have 'it', even if the 'it' is hard to fully explain.

 

[seanOhara]

Weird. I never really liked the "Think Pink" number, and find the stuff in France the best part of the film.

My only complaint about the film is that they didn't get Eve Arden for the Kay Thompson role.

 

[rich_d]

I would agree that casting Kay Thompson was a complete miss.

My comment about 'Think Pink' being eye candy wonderfulness ... each to his own.

A few shots:

 

[ahollis]

I agree with the Kay Thompson being miscast in the film. She was such a talented person as a writer, composer, and arranger, but she looked very uncomfortable acting opposite Fred Astaire. Watching the two in the “Clap Yo’ Hands” number you can almost see the anxiety Miss Thompson has in doing the singing and dancing with Mr. Astaire. She only has four acting credits listed and I guess her casting was a favor from Stanley Donen (Director) and Roger Edens (Producer) since the three of them had known and worked together for several years. Mr. Edens and Miss Thompson actually shared the same birthday and their co-birthday parties were legend during the old Hollywood. Each would write a special song for the other and sing it to other one at the party.

IMO the film is very entertaining and I do like the “Think Pink “ number. I also have the last DVD release and will not be purchasing this one (although I would have to think hard about a Blu-Ray)

 

[rich_d]

Interesting. Thanks for posting that, Allen.

 

[Citizen87645]

I suspect those who said they don't care for the Think Pink number were not referring to the sequences with the fashion models.

 

[rich_d]

Agreed. However, take Kay Thompson (who we already addressed) out of the scene and all we're left with is a bunch of good looking women.

Btw, in the vein that sometimes 'a cigar is not just a cigar' am I the only one that thinks the shampoo scene (shown above) is more than a bit sexually suggestive?