There's an article critiquing the November issue of Harper's Bazaar (the one with Natalie Portman in Audrey's dress) here. While the author says good things about the dress and Natalie's short article, she doesn't much care for the rest of the magazine. The reason? The women in it are too thin. Thankfully, she doesn't cast blame with Audrey, but still, it's a glossy fashion magazine -- what were you expecting?
We also have a new submission to the lookalikes page, which you can see here. Don't forget that the lookalikes is totally run by you, the fans, and I don't submit any of my own. So if you know of an actress or other well-known person that resembles Audrey, send your suggestions to us! There may be voting on the lookalikes soon, to rate which ones look the most like Audrey . . .
And lastly, to make up for my spotty updates the past few days and the lack of any good news, here's the Roman Holiday documentary from the special edition DVD. It's very fun to watch!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
*edit* At Ankit's suggestion, I've updated the Moon River Wikipedia entry to properly reflect the Huckleberry Hound reference. I've also taken the liberty of linking Audrey's Wikipedia page to this site, because it couldn't hurt. :) I would have done it sooner, but I thought it was a lot harder to update than it really is.
It turns out the drugstore up the street does carry Harper's, along with other chi-chi magazines you wouldn't expect next to trashy romance novels. I decided to flip through the November Natalie issue real quick just to see what all was in it, and I found an extra little article that no one seems to have mentioned. So I suffered and bought the magazine just to razor out the pages and scan it for everybody. Actually, it wasn't all that bad at $3.99 -- I think Mad Magazine nearly costs that now, and it's about a quarter the size of Harper's. And now you all know that I read Mad on a regular basis. Right.
And next up is the full Natalie Portman article, which is actually disappointingly short, and has no other pictures than the ones we've all seen. But still, here's everything:
There's a short article talking about Audrey's newfound popularity, especially with the recent Gap ads and the new Treasures book. It's very short (I've told you pretty much all that's in it already), but you can see the full article here.
Next up, thanks to the Audrey Hepburn Circle, I've found that the Gardens of the World miniseries now has their own website up! It's a very Audrey-centric site, and goes more into detail on what's in the new special edition DVD set, but the best part is Audrey's full written introduction to the original series and an interview with her about the series. All in all it's a nice site and definitely worth sharing, so click here to visit for yourself.
The last news article of the day is pretty interesting, actually. According to the New York Post's gossip column, 200 replicas of Audrey's multi-strand pearl necklace from Breakfast at Tiffany's were made and sold for charity. Natalie Portman is supposedly wearing one on the Harper's cover (though it's hard to tell, since you only see the back, just like the dress and the rest of Natalie), and the proceeds went to City of Joy, the same charity that stands to benefit when the B@T dress is sold. Someone's doing well this year! Click here to read the whole story. Below is a high definition picture of the Harper's cover, minus some of the annoying text:
Has anyone seen any alternate pictures of Natalie in the dress and necklace, preferably from the front? It's sort of annoying that they've only shot her from the back.
A lot of people have been searching for more pictures of Natalie Portman in the Breakfast at Tiffany's dress from Harper's Bazaar and find this picture, thinking it's the front of the dress:
But if you actually look at this dress, then you'll notice that the fabric is completely different, more of a linen than satin (or, more simply, not shiny versus shiny). While Natalie does wear Givenchy in the rest of the photo shoot, there's no way this is the front of the same dress. Also note the stitching across the bodice, which would show on the sides and back of the other pictures. And the fact that her hair and jewelry are different. Just thought I'd point it out, since it's been bugging me. :) And if you're interested, you can see a little bit of the article from Harper's here. The rest you can just read in the magazine aisle of your local bookstore, like I probably will. ;)
Secondly, I finally watched Charade with the commentary on, and it's honestly as fun as watching the movie. It's on the Criterion edition of the movie and it's with screenwriter Peter Stone and director Stanley Donen, and they are hilarious! They're constantly insulting each other (in a friendly way), and have such great stories to tell about the film. I don't want to give anything away, but here's one of my favourite bits:
"Audrey was very tall. How tall was she?" "Five-eight." "No!" "Probably. When she was standing on her money."
There hasn't been much Audrey news lately, but tomorrow there might be a large photo gallery coming up for your enjoyment . . . Also, if you want to win a good prize in the next contest, you'd better go vote on what you want! So far we're getting one vote for each suggestion (and multiple voting is disabled).
Firstly, I need to apologize. I'd promised pictures yesterday and today, but the building I work in caught fire today while we were in it, so I'm a little tired and smelly and choky from smoke. Tomorrow, I promise! Thank you for being patient.
Second, an article has come up saying that Natalie Portman decided to wear the Breakfast at Tiffany's alternate dress that will be auctioned soon in the hopes that it would drum up more interest for the dress, therefore earning more bids and raising more money for charity. I have nothing against Natalie and I even sort of like her, but isn't it a little vain to think that you wearing the dress would interest more people than Audrey Hepburn herself? Maybe I'm just tired and smelly. Anyway, here's the link to the full article.
I found another short article on Natalie Portman wearing Audrey's Breakfast at Tiffany's dress (actually, one Audrey didn't wear), which you can find here. It has a couple more pictures of Nat in the dress, including a full-length which shows her wearing ugly shoes. They look like deck shoes, but with a heel. Ick.
The next article is actually about Italian shoe designer Salvatore Ferragamo. Audrey discovered him early in her career and was a loyal customer (he was responsible for a great deal of her chic flats, which are still wildly popular today), and after building a large celebrity clientele, he is being honored on Rodeo Drive. His name on a plaque will be added to other famous designers on a sculpture at the corner of Rodeo and Dayton Way. You can see more information here.
Lastly, here's a quick article on the two latest Audrey books out (though it wrongly cites Audrey Hepburn: A Life In Pictures as a new book). What makes it worth pointing out, though, is the beginning of the article, which speculates that maybe the reason why Audrey is still so popular today, and is even experiencing a revival after the Gap exposure, is because she's such a breath of fresh air after hearing about the Paris Hiltons of the world for so long. Maybe the public is tired of looking, reading, and listening to trash and would rather see a rose. Here's a hint, though: if you ignore her and stop paying her to appear places, she will disappear. And if I have to tell you that I'm talking about Paris and not Audrey, then you're at the wrong website, buddy. The full article is here.
P.S. I'm sorry I didn't get to post any picture galleries today. Maybe after work tomorrow. :)
I've seen these articles come into my inbox quite a few times now, so I thought I'd share. Apparently Natalie Portman wearing Audrey's dress is a big deal, leading many to call her our generation's Audrey Hepburn and Audrey's clone. Unlike some starlets, Natalie has openly admitted that she could never fill Audrey's shoes and doesn't even want to try, which is nice and refreshing and really what people need to hear. She has also said she would never play Audrey in a biopic, so get that idea out of your head. Audrey clone or not though, we could do a lot worse on role models for young women. To view the article, click here.
Another article I'd like to share starts out as a review for the Spoto biography, but quickly morphs into something completely different. It's a sort of lovesong for Audrey and her uniqueness, and it's very lovely. The author even throws in a brief -- but very good -- biography of Audrey at the end, which would make it very hard for any casual reader to not be curious about her afterwards. The article can be found here.
The last article is just a quick add-on. Its main point is that Audrey always seems to be in style, which is nice, but I was personally very intrigued by the last half of the piece. It compares Audrey with the starlets of today, especially the D-listers like Paris Hilton (may I never mention her name again) and Jessica Simpson. The interesting part is the author's hypothesis that even Audrey herself wouldn't have emerged unscathed from the tabloid machines today, who take any innocuous happening and turn it into the basest trash. That's something I've always wondered about myself, really. You can read the full story here.
And if this doesn't make you mad (or ill), nothing will.
I know it's old, but it never ceases to be irritating. What was it Mag Wildwood said about "a piece of cheap Hollywood trash"?
