Theatre draws veil over naked Anna Friel Staff at the Theatre Royal Haymarket have been placed on Defcon 1 and ordered to prevent perving audience members grabbing a quick mobe snap of Anna Friel in her birthday suit, in the West End outing of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Operatives are instructed to confiscate any mobile which may present a threat to 33-year-old Friel's …
I'm not sure that even the best mobile phone from the front row would be capable of taking a picture that would show anything other than a pixelated blur. Of I could be wrong - I tend not to use my mobile for taking pix as it's only 2 M pixel.
And to be honest, I don't know Ms Friel - I'm sure that she is a charming young lady, but I have slightly better things to do with my time than try to make out what her thru'pennies look like in a fuzzy image.
If I wanted pr0n, there are a number of magazines available for a relatively low cost - but I'd rather spend my money on a bottle of wine. I still find that my imagination generates much better erotica - but that's probably illegal now.
Or am I just a Grumpy Old Man?
...with all these confiscated phones? Frankly the idea of handing over my phone to some unknown pleb in a theatre who will then have a couple of hours of idle time to play with my phone stinks. I presume they'll look through all the photos and forward on any they like the looks of, or report me to the cops if they find something "illegal"
There might be perfectly valid reasons why I have a mobile phone with me - I might have a baby sitter at home and I want to check with her at the interval that the house hasn't burned down etc.
"the insider insisted: "This is a serious production and they don't want the naked scenes to be the only talking point.""
Well then don't have popular and rather sexy actress Anna Friel getting her kit off in one of your theatre productions then or that's exactly what you'll get dumbass.
As has been said the lovely Miss Friel has no inhibitions about exposing her small but beautifully formed breasts and has done so on TV in the past. The phone grabbing though has had the desired effect and got the red tops squealing about a bit of free tit
Paris because Anna's are better
well considering it would be illegal for them to confiscate a camera/phone and would be classed as theft. All they can do, as that it is a condition of entry that photography is not allowed, is eject you from the premises. They don't even have the right to demand you delete the photo. Even the police in the UK do not have this right (even though they act like they do)
.... the fragrant Audrey Hepburn getting her baps out in the film version.
>>Truman Capote [whinge]<<
I daresay the writer's royalties cushioned Capote's disappointment.
The movie was scarcely gritty social realism but it endures as a charming, iconic and very funny film. I recommend it to any men seeking a watchable 'chick flick' to view with her indoors.
It was also the best thing George Peppard appeared in until his role as Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith in the A Team.
Is it that she doesn't want pictures of herself naked doing the rounds? If so, then what the hell is she doing acting naked in a play?
Is it that the producers don't want you to see her naked unless you pay them some monies first? If so, then what is that exactly, it's not prostitution, paid for sex show perhaps?
Or...
Is it that they want some free publicity so they say something is banned.
really quote Capote on his thoughts of the movie version. He could never get over, or see past, them casting Audrey Hepburn in place of his choice, Marilyn Monroe. But Capote said Holly was a portrait of the Manhattan socialites he new. Monroe could never have pulled off the dualism of the role (part hick, part sophisticate) as well as Audrey (or 'Moon River' for that matter) - imo proving Capote would've made the movie suck, and was just a whiny baby when he didn't get his way :p
Part of the problem with the movie (well, aside from Mickey Rooney) is that everyone remembers the happy romantic parts instead of Capote's grittier scenes - but they are there, just a bit more subtle.
Some of the responses on here explain some of the other responses pointing out the differences between treatment of men and women.
Being someone who goes to a lot of theatre, and being of the male-appreciating segment, I don't tend to get the urge to whip my phone out when a bloke's keks hit the floor. Yeah, maybe you clock the proportions, trim and trimness, but that's it. On with the play I paid to see.
With naked women it all seems different. Why the hell would you video a naked body to post on the internet in those conditions (or watch it for any kind of gratification)? Never seen one before!?
Oh, actually, it is the Reg...
All it is at the end of the day is that some member of staff has been bollocked for not watching out for people filming, so they have gotten bitter and sold it as the "they're imposing these new rules"...
nK
Shirley MacLaine could have been cast in the Audrey Hepburn part. She would have been about 26 when the film was made, which is about the right age (Marilyn Monroe was about a decade older, and the film came rather too late in her career - in fact she was dead within a year or two of the film being released). Shirley MacLaine could certainly have done the more vulnerable bits - witness her in that great film, The Apartment. She could also sing better than Audrey Hepburn (I wonder what she would have done with Moon River).
Shirley MacLaine also played a character in Sweet Charity, where there as a hinted at undercurrent of paid-for sexual favours, although less so that Capote's story (the musical was based on an Italian film where it was quite explicit this was the case). Of course Charity Hope Valentine didn't exactly exhibit much sophistication, so it would have been interesting to see if Shirley MacLaine could do that.
Where Shirley MacLaine actually talks about learning how to be stylish, "how to wear Chanel", from Hepburn, when they were together for The Children's Hour. Since it and Breakfast at Tiffany's were released in the same year, I dunno, maybe if she'd been cast for Holly only after working with Hepburn ;)
And don't get me wrong - I think Monroe is great. But I guess it's a bit hard to get past stories of her being helped by an acting coach scene by scene, or to really remember the roles where she's not playing the cliched "Marilyn Monroe" - glamorous and ditzy. Such a shame her career (and perhaps a permanent trend in her roles) didn't continue past The Misfits...
If one is going to see a play simply to gawp at an actress's naughty bits - they might at least be worth gawping at.
I do remember going to see Kelly Brook in some dreadful play about pole dancing where she played - would you believe it - a pole dancer.
Mighty lass that one (it was shortly after her breakfast TV job finished) and would have been a joyous bit of theatre if the play had been any good but was just seedy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
