In honor of Audrey Hepburn’s birthday, I decided to watch and review Funny Face. Funny Face follows a bookshop owner, Jo (Hepburn), on her journey of love and discovery with photographer Dick (Fred Astaire) as he takes her around Paris and turns her into a fashion model. And all this unfolds in the form of a musical. Initially, Jo was resistant to becoming a model for Kay Thompson’s Maggie Prescott; however, Dick manages to smooth talk his way into convincing her to take a chance and believe in him. On the promise that she would get to meet her philosophical idol in Paris, she agreed to go.
Funny Face passes the Bechdel Test with flying colors. The majority of the times that Maggie and Jo interact they are discussing fashion or Paris, and same goes with the other women who work for Kay. Bechdel Test aside, I believe that the female characters in this film are overall positive representations, and I have few criticism of the film as a whole from a modern feminist standpoint, especially considering it was made in the late 50s.
Being a film based around Paris and a fashion magazine, it is hard not to notice the costuming of the film. Besides the obviously stunning gowns they put Hepburn in for the photoshoots within the film, the outfits that are distinctly Jo’s own are very fitting to her character; modest, simple, but put together. Same holds for Maggie’s haute and sophisticated and form fitted attire.
One of my few critiques actually happens in the opening number with Maggie, “Think Pink!”.
My primary criticism surrounds this idea that plays heavily into a woman’s vanity as if it is the be all end all. I attribute this flaw to the film being made in the 50s when part of media’s job was to tell a woman how she should look and what she should strive for. That being said, I do appreciate that since this was the case, that it was a woman behind the decision. That aside, I believe Maggie to be a very strong character. She is ambitious in getting what she wants, and she’s not afraid to take control, as we saw when she barged into the bookshop and kicked Jo out.
However, although she isn’t afraid to be a warrior at work, we also see a sympathetic side when she inevitably helps Jo reunite with Dick. She is not a cold hearted witch who only cares about the success of her fashion show, she cares about the people she works with as well.
Turning to Jo, our leading lady, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by her. Jo is not only intelligent, independent, and free thinking, but she’s kind hearted and curious without being too naive. When we’re first introduced to Jo, it is in her bookshop when she is on a ladder that get’s pushed across the stacks. It’s rather reminiscent of Belle in Beauty and the Beast actually. She quickly proves to be the philosophical type.
Turning to Jo, our leading lady, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by her. Jo is not only intelligent, independent, and free thinking, but she’s kind hearted and curious without being too naive. When we’re first introduced to Jo, it is in her bookshop when she is on a ladder that get’s pushed across the stacks. It’s rather reminiscent of Belle in Beauty and the Beast actually. She quickly proves to be the philosophical type.
Later, when she is in Maggie’s office about to be made over, she is not afraid to put her foot down and tell them that no, they would not be altering her eyebrows or cutting her hair because she rather likes them as they are. It’s a very strong and powerful moment, that proves a powerful reminder that we are in charge of our looks and bodies. It also makes a great contrast to the idea that Maggie and her team are in charge of telling a woman how she should care to look.
Another moment of strength can be seen when she hits Professor Flostre over the head with a statue when he won’t quit his advances after she’s made it quite clear she had no sexual interest in him.
What’s important about this is just moments before Dick had come in to rescue her, but she told him that she was quite capable of handling that herself, and clearly she was. She is not a damsel in distress, nor did she feel stupid or naive when it proved Dick was right. She wanted to see the good in the professor since he was her philosophical idol, and yes that did blind her, but the way she handled the revelation was mature and did not weaken her character at all.
Another critique I have lies within Dick and Jo’s relationship. My biggest issue is the age difference. At the time Hepburn was 28 and Astaire was 58, and that 30 year age difference, quite frankly is slightly unsettling. This of course is in part do to Hepburn’s famously youthful look, but on another level it slightly taints the “fairytale” of their romance.
He is always trying to protect her and guide her, when she continually proves she can take care of herself. The way he talks down to her, like in the cafe, in order to prove his superiority is both a product of 50s culture and almost paternal in a way. Perhaps if the story had a couple more specific moments that would show why she would fall for him, then I might feel differently, but the arc of their romance feels very sudden and as if it’s there namely because this is a musical romance film. And I would argue that the only times Jo ever appears to be “childish” in reaction or demeanor, is when she’s arguing with Dick.
In his review of the film, Bosley Crowther of the New York Times made note of Astaire's age in passing, not spending too much time dwelling on it, and thought that the film was overall lovely. Of Hepburn he said that she “has the meek charm of a wallflower turned into a rueful butterfly” and that Thompson “is fantastic and fun”. I must say that I agree with his praise of the actresses and despite my modern criticisms of the film, overall found it to be very enjoyable.
Looking at any film from the 50s as a 21st century viewer, it is easy to find critiques. It is also important to note that just because some of the problems are in part from the film’s time period, that doesn’t mean I’m excusing them, it just helps to gain an understanding. Any criticism aside, I found Funny Face to be a very fun and uplifting film with wonderful female characters that I can get behind.
Looking at any film from the 50s as a 21st century viewer, it is easy to find critiques. It is also important to note that just because some of the problems are in part from the film’s time period, that doesn’t mean I’m excusing them, it just helps to gain an understanding. Any criticism aside, I found Funny Face to be a very fun and uplifting film with wonderful female characters that I can get behind.
Works Cited
Crowther, Bosley. "'Funny Face' Brings Spring to Music Hall; Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire Star Gershwin Songs Add Lilt and Frolic Crime at Palace." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Mar. 1957. Web. 04 May 2017.
Holt, Jennifer. "The Ideal Woman." The Ideal Woman (n.d.): n. pag. Https://www.csustan.edu. Stanislaus State. Web. 4 May 2017.
"Women in The 1950s." Khan Academy. Khan Academy, n.d. Web. 04 May 2017.
Crowther, Bosley. "'Funny Face' Brings Spring to Music Hall; Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire Star Gershwin Songs Add Lilt and Frolic Crime at Palace." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Mar. 1957. Web. 04 May 2017.
Holt, Jennifer. "The Ideal Woman." The Ideal Woman (n.d.): n. pag. Https://www.csustan.edu. Stanislaus State. Web. 4 May 2017.
"Women in The 1950s." Khan Academy. Khan Academy, n.d. Web. 04 May 2017.