Posted on 05/17/2026 9:48:00 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Lily Collins is set to play Audrey Hepburn in a film on the screen icon and the making of her 1961 classic Breakfast at Tiffany’s...
With Dickinson‘s Alena Smith aboard to adapt, the film is based on Sam Wasson’s bestselling book :Fifth Avenue, 5 A.M.: Audrey Hepburn, Breakfast at Tiffany’s and the Dawn of the Modern Woman."....With a cast of characters including Truman Capote, Edith Head, director Blake Edwards, and, of course, Hepburn herself...
One of the defining figures of Hollywood’s Golden Age, Hepburn won an Oscar for Roman Holiday and went on to star in additional classics like Sabrina and Funny Face before coming around to Breakfast at Tiffany’s...based on Truman Capote’s novella, which cemented her as a global fashion and cultural icon...
Her character, Holly Golightly, is a young New York socialite who becomes interested in a young man new to her apartment building, only for her past to threaten to come between the two. Nominated for five Oscars, with Hepburn competing for Best Actress, the film won two, in Score and Song, and entered the U.S. National Film Registry in 2012...
Currently, Collins can be seen starring in Netflix’s hit romantic dramedy Emily in Paris...
(Excerpt) Read more at deadline.com ...
You implied that we must hate and cancel anyone who doesn’t share our political opinions.
The Hollywood stars of that generation had more moral fiber / backbone, sense of dignity, and sense of decency than the current generation.
Stewart and Henry Fonda allegedly had one physical altercation early in their careers b/c of diametrically opposed political opinions - but they eventually shook hands and never discussed politics with each other again.
Regards,
Citation (i.e.: direct quote), please!
Regards,
Who will they cast to play George Preppard?
A notable exception, Sunset Boulevard.
I said about Peck and Hepburn were"both very decent people."
And you argued that he wasn't because he was a lib.
Peck was an outspoken Hollywood lib. He supported restricting gun rights. Some of his positions re. civil rights in the 1960s may have been on-base - and he doesn't seem to have made any really vitriolic or scandalous statements à la Jane Fonda et al. - but there's no need to "hagiographize" him.
"Regards"
Not announced yet. :)
I love the opening lines.
You’re right. By silent means one who does the job, acts, then stays out of the public and and refuses to get involved in any politics much to the dismay of the co stars.
Then you quoted me:
Peck was an outspoken Hollywood lib. He supported restricting gun rights. Some of his positions re. civil rights in the 1960s may have been on-base - and he doesn't seem to have made any really vitriolic or scandalous statements à la Jane Fonda et al. - but there's no need to "hagiographize" him.You have still failed to point to any statement I made denying his "decency" - or lack thereof! I said:
1. "Peck was an outspoken Hollywood lib." (Statement of fact - by FR standards.)
2. "Some of his positions were 'on-base.'" Conciliatory gesture - I'M PRAISING Peck.
3. "Didn't make vitriolic or scandalous statements akin to those by typ. raving Hollywood libs." Further conciliatory gesture.
4. "Still no need to "hagiographize" him." A pivoting statement of fact (again: perfectl acceptable according to FR standards - when a conservative has said multiple "nice" things about a lib, but then doesn't want to appear to have gone overboard).
I thus implied no such thing as "lack of decency." You, at most, INFERRED that (= bad faith). Rather, I merely observed that we conservatives don't have to MAKE A SAINT out of him. (= Moderate statement, not equiv. to claiming that he wasn't decent!)
Finally: You're the second FReeper this evening to take issue (by surrounding it with scare quotes) with my STANDARD, bland closing salutation. That's the equivalent of attacking your rhetorical opponent because of the color of the tie he wears, or how he parts his hair - how could anyone be expected to counter that?!
My STANDARD closing salutation is a - perhaps quirky, but hardly malicious - little rhetorical flourish I employ to A. remind myself to not overstep the boundaries of politeness, and B. to maintain and express a base minimum of common courtesy and respect to my fellow FReepers.
Something which apparently irks you, since you choose instead to jeer at it.
Best wishes,
So merely expressing a personal opinion that he was a decent man makes me a "hagiographizer."
Says it all right there.
Knowing current Hollywood: Pedro Pascal or Elliot Page.
And the "Buddy Ebsen" part? Will probably be played by Robert DeNiro!
("Cat" will be portrayed by a dog.)
But, frankly, the "Patricia O'Neil" part should be played by Meryl Streep!
Regards,
So you're saying that your movie star friend is a bonafide co-star (not just background character or face-in-the-crowd type), with an actual speaking role in a (lesser) Marvel franchise installment - who is not esp. vocal / chooses to not loudly proclaim his politics.
Okay!
(I suspect that most of our fellow FReepers, like me, would not have divined that meaning from "silent actor.")
Regards,
"Peck was a decent man!" My reply, "But there is no need to hagiographize him," is not a denial of his decency!
I wasn't denying his decency. Rather, I was preemptively saying that "we" don't need to escalate a simple statement of decency into praise that goes beyond the facts.
I made multiple statements that bordered on praise. I then summed up by pivoting and warning that that (my statements - and, by extension, your statements) doesn't mean that we should make a saint out of him.
Who could possibly object to that or then infer that I had malicious intent?
Regards,
Are you kidding...Stacy Abrams could have passed for Helen of Troy in the times of Odysseus!
How dare I express some respect for someone you hold in contempt!
Okay, now my gloves come off - I'm going to have to address - not your statements - but rather you as a person / your character (something which I do only as a last resort).
You are obviously trolling me! You are obviously consistently and repeatedly misrepresenting what I wrote.
I never said that I hold Peck in contempt. That's a textbook straw‑man: You're responding to a claim I never made.
Given that, further interactions between us (E. Pluribus Unum and me) wouldn't be productive, so I'm bowing out now.
Regards,
You’re a weasel using weasel words. Go ahead and vomit a bunch of words because you love to hear yourself talk so we can wrap your weaseling up.
If they don’t portray Mickey Rooney and his character in this film then it would be a boring fraud due to its surrender to PC. The movie was a big bore due to them hiding the Audrey Hepburn character as a ho’ and the George Peppard character who was as gay as Truman Capote instead of a straight guy. The Mickey Rooney character as an embarrassing stereotype of a Japanese guy was the only thing really interesting about “Breakfast At Tiffany’s.” Unless he is portrayed in the new film, I’m not watching it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.