I was watching Charade the other day, not for the first time, and was noticing that the action scenes with Cary Grant (human fly, and fighting George Kennedy) really weren’t very convincing.  Age. But think what it would be like today: we’d see Audrey Hepburn kicking the living shit out of Kennedy, probably cutting his throat with his own claw – while still being utterly adorable.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Charade

  1. MawBTS says:

    Are we doing Cochran and Harpending at the Movies now?

    It would be interesting to read a blog that critiques movies (Avatar, The Gods Must Be Crazy, whatever) from a hbd/voldemortean perspective. Sort of like what Pumpkin Person does, except not retarded.

    • magusjanus says:

      the biggest HBD/realistic critiques I have of movies/tv:

      NASA/tech/hackers/phds/science people on the screen have an overrepresentation of women and minorities, instead of the more realistic overpresence of asian and ashkenazi males. To the point where it’s hilarious.
      100 pound skinny women punching, wrestling, going toe-to-toe and knocking out 250 pound muscle bound men. And I’m not talking in-world “superpowered” women like say Buffy, I’m talking even in shows like Agents of Shield you see a trained but still “normal human” women take a punch from a guy and return the favor knocking him out. Yeah, good luck with that.

      A lesser but still annoying difference is the what Sailer calls the the CSI white criminal… someone somewhere with too much time on his hands analyzed the avg distribution of violent criminals in CSI and like shows adn shows how whites are WAY overrepresented as bad guys, whereas in the real world blacks/hispanics show up in much greater numbers.

      The most egregious case of said PC is of course The Sum of All Fears, where the (pre 9-11) book has the very believable muslim terrorists as the bad guys, but the producers changed it to white nazis and used Haider’s election in Austria as an excuse, no joke.

      • TWS says:

        Somebody on Sailer worked it out that whites killed more people on Law and Order than actually murdered people in New York over the span of the show.

        • Konkvistador says:

          Fascinating cultural anecdote if true, can you link me to this. I don’t want to share it in case it isn’t true.

          • Anonymous says:

            Let’s start with today. There are about 500 murders each year in NYC. 10% of known suspects are non-hispanic white. Can we extrapolate to unknown suspects? This is a difficult step, but 7% of victims are white, which might be a better number. Sticking with 10% gives 50 homicides by whites. There are about 50 episodes per year of the two ongoing series. If every murderer is white and there is one murder per show (assumptions which probably cancel out), then that’s also 50. So it’s close.

            Back in 2001-2010 when there were three ongoing series, it was probably was true. Over the course of its history, it averaged just under two series per year, but the murder rate used to be higher, even the white murder rate, so TWS’s claim is not plausible. If you restrict to murders of blacks by whites, it is probably true.

          • TWS says:


            That’s the link. It was Steve back when there were three shows. Whether it is true now or not who knows however even if it were true just at one time it is a pretty sad indictment of the show.

          • TWS says:

            7148 murders since 2001. 800+ Episodes of the Law and Order franchise. 10% Caucasian murder rate. Looks like it is plausible.

    • BurplesonAFB says:

      Cochran and Harpending at the Movies?

      Of course today if they needed Cary Grant to fight someone, they’d get him a personal trainer and a doctor who would prescribe him enormous doses of “testosterone replacement therapy” and HGH. Look at Stallone. He’s 68 and he’s got less body fat and more muscle than he did 40 yrs ago in Rocky.

  2. Sean says:

    Yes, but women don’t find that stuff believable, they like Liam Neeson in Taken or Matt Damon heroics. I think the trope of aggressive athletic women is only common in movies made for the younger male audience, and is intended to convey that the heroine is a sexual firecracker and ‘available’.

    The Mossad agent tasked with getting Mordechai Vanunu subtly attracted his attention in a busy street, she got him to come to her thinking it was all his idea.

  3. Jim says:

    Infantile fantasy is the basis of our culture.

  4. Justin says:

    I learned from Game of Thrones that tiny women can draw 60 lb recurve bows for lethal effect. As a friend says, boiled leather is a social construct. They’re also great at brutal melee, can take down 6’6” 250 lb Scotsmen.

    • Patrick Boyle says:

      When they raised the ‘Mary Rose’ they found that no modern archer could string the bows. Medieval longbowmen have deformed skeletons like modern power lifters except in different parts of their skeletons. All movies get this wrong.

      The King required the archers to practice – not so as to maintain their accuracy – but to maintain their muscles.

      • TWS says:

        I used to own a yew long bow. I had been practicing archery since I could hold a bow and I am a large and strong man. I wound up injuring my shoulder pulling that sucker back and could only handle a handful of shots after that before my muscles started twinging.

        I eventually traded it away.

  5. pyrrhus says:

    The whole plot of Charade is silly, but Grant and Hepburn make it worthwhile…Maybe you should write a screen play for the remake?

  6. Patrick Boyle says:

    You remember what they said about Grant – ‘When I was a boy he was a man. Now that I’m a man he’s still a boy”.

    Grant always looked young – that was his major alent. He had been some kind of acrobat when he actually was young – but we all age. James Garner looked great in ‘The Rockford Files’ until he ran. John Wayne who stumbled around for the last quarter of his career like a drunken fat man had originally been renown for his physical grace. Hard to believe.

    It can be worse for action stars as Jackie Chan has said. He has bemoaned his fate compare with Dustin Hoffmann. Jackie isn’t going to switch to dialog rich parts when his helicopter kick is gone.

    • Toddy Cat says:

      One old-time actor who really aged well was Mike Connors, the guy in “Mannix”. Watching some of those, it’s hard to believe that he was in his late 40’s when the show was at its peak. He’s still around, by the way, still playing golf at 89…

    • gcochran9 says:

      “Grant always looked young – that was his major (t)alent. ”

      What’s Arcturus really like? The real Arcturus, not the touristy parts?

  7. RCB says:

    Since you brought it up, I just have to say: Audrey Hepburn is the worst. Although maybe it’s better to say that the characters she played in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Sabrina are the worst. That’s the limit of my exposure.

    • gcochran9 says:

      de gustibus non est disputandum

    • magusjanus says:

      “Audrey Hepburn is the worst”

      them be fighting words son.

      Stunningly beautiful, the most endearingly mixed accent, one of the few EGOT winners, incredibly graceful, fluent in many languages, and an earnest dedication to charity (though with my HBD/hard econ views perhaps I’m somewhat skeptic of the efficiency of such efforts).

      It’s not for nothing long after her death she still tops polls of “most beautiful women”:,8599,1580936,00.html

      Check out Roman Holiday… she’s adorable. or just this screen test and try not falling in love:

      • RCB says:

        I haven’t seen that much of her, to be honest. I’m sure she’s a great actress, talented, blah blah blah. I just couldn’t get halfway through the two aforementioned movies solely because of her annoying characters. A large part of it is the “endearingly mixed accent,” which I find to be totally grating. The worst. Maybe grown women acting “adorable” just isn’t my thing.

        As for beauty… I don’t get it. My hypothesis is that some people fetishize what they see as old-fashioned, classic, classy, etc. Critics feel the need to give old things great reviews. Is Metropolis, a 1927 silent film, REALLY the best ACTION film of all time? ( (Notice the top 5 are all pre-1960. Critics feel that “doing it first” = “doing it best”.)
        Audrey Hepburn was the classiest lady of classic Hollywood film, so for people who get off on that, she’s tops. She’s also a fancy European – wow! I suspect a random poll of men in the US would not put Hepburn anywhere near the top of a beauty list. It’s all a matter of taste of course.

        Okay, I’m done.

        • Toddy Cat says:

          “I suspect a random poll of men in the US would not put Hepburn anywhere near the top of a beauty list.”

          I’d put her in the top ten, but the again, I’m not a random man…

        • Matt says:

          RCB: Is Metropolis, a 1927 silent film, REALLY the best ACTION film of all time? </i
          Is Up the 6th and the Hurt Locker the 10th, or Star Trek (2009) the 13th? Taking number of reviews weighted against quality of reviews within a loose genre constrait seems not so likely to find the best anything.

          • keypusher says:

            The category is “Action and Adventure,” and it’s a bit of a grab-bag. Most critics wouldn’t put “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” and “WALL-E” in the same genre.
            And Rotten Tomatoes’ selection criteria, as described by Matt, is not going to generate a meaningful ranked list. Metropolis is very famous, it’s a landmark film, and it also was restored fairly recently, leading to a lot of critics to review it. And of course none of them were going to give it a bad review. Lots of uniformly positive reviews = #1 ranking.

            An interesting project, I think, would be to see how Rotten Tomatoes’ movie reviews break down by genre. I assume rom coms and action movies tend to get rated rather low. I suspect a lot of Jewish/liberal critics really couldn’t give “Passion of the Christ” a fair review because they disliked Mel Gibson and conservative Christians.

  8. Patrick Boyle says:

    I guess I’m a little surprised that no one has mentioned the connection between epigenetics and Audrey Hepburn. According to most popular articles the single irrefutable argument for the reality of epigenetics effects everywhere is how thin Miss Hepburn was.

  9. Say It's Not So says:

    It’s baffling why conservatives don’t just buy out Hollywood. They don’t even have to be the creatives–merely greenlight only what serves their interests. It’s do-able. Hollywood’s capitalization is an an order of magnitude smaller than just about every industrial sector.

    • magusjanus says:

      Because theyre not really in it to win. Same reason they donate so much money for borderline irrelevant impact on republican candidates, etc. The reality show of “politics” and “fighting the liberals” siphons away money that could be used to actually fight and heck maybe win.

      The progs play to win. They dominate most of academia, civil service and the mainstream media and Hollywood. They are ruthless about chasing out opposition there, absolutely merciless. When you have all that it’s almost irrelevant who is President at any given point in time and they still get the President half the time.

      Look at “gay marriage” for instance as a case study. Notice how the country during 8 years of W (including many years of having Congressional majority and a majority of historical Supreme Court appointees being Republican appointed) continued to head culturally in a more “left” direction despite surface opposition from “conservatives” on the issue.

      And don’t even get me started on immigration.

      Compare the cost of say Prop 8 or heck a Representative campaign with trivial cost of funding research into pathogen hypothesis of obligate male homosexuality. Which has the bigger bang for the buck in the long run?

      Ultimately changes to incentive structures (social/political/technological) seem like the better bet to me for those wanting to actually “change” things rather than pretend to do so i.e. ideological masturbation.

      • namae nanka says:

        Nothing new under the sun.

        At the back of it lies something even more tragic: the imminent fear in the American noncommitted right that the left, so nicely rooted in American folklore, after all, is riding the Wave of the Future. How, otherwise, could one understand that temperamentally very conservative boards of trustees of colleges and universities have repeatedly hired professors notorious for their leftist ideas? How could one understand that archconservative American businessmen have sent their sons and especially their daughters to institutions of learning equally well known for their exorbitant rates and their extreme leftism, a leftism pertaining to politics, history, philosophy, economics-and morals? How often do well-paid Marxists in such places indirectly and even directly tell intellectually innocent maidens-at their hard-toiling fathers’ expense-that their procreators are real scoundrels and blood- suckers? Yet the hard-toiling fathers know all this and both parents accept this state of affairs with a sigh: it is, after all, the “proper thing to do” to provide the dear little thing with a highbrow education in a college with high social rating and to acquaint her with all “advanced ideas.” They might hope that, once safely married to an equally hard- working stockbroker, the good girl would wake up from sweet leftist dreams and end up as secretary of the local Women’s Republican Club.

        One apparently has to leave “brains,” “ideas,” and “new vistas” to those budding leftist eggheads (even if they stand badly in need of a haircut). How, otherwise, can one explain the fact that newspaper owners, editors-in-chief, or radio station proprietors, who have safely overcome their adolescent flirtations with leftism, again and again employ wildly leftist reporters, columnists, and commentators?

  10. Steven Wilson says:

    Like Irene Adler to Holmes, Audrey Hepburn was “the woman” to me. She ruined my life. It was just like Adler and Holmes except that she was real and I was real and we never met but other than that it was just like Holmes and Adler. And she ruined my life (sob).

  11. Thiago Ribeiro says:

    “But think what it would be like today: we’d see Audrey Hepburn kicking the living shit out of Kennedy, probably cutting his throat with his own claw – while still being utterly adorable.”

    To be fair, if Batman can solve Gothan City’s crime problems (how Giuliani never thought of dressing a man in a bat costume?), Rambo can basically win the Vietnam War alone twice, Rocky can defeat people twice his size and sending Bond is a better idea than sending the British equivalent of the SEALs (or just Kim Philby), I could live with Audrey Hepburn performing at current standards of fight choreography (it demands as much suspension of disbelief as believing West’s Batman could actually beat someone).
    At least, I know what Scarlett Johansson is supposed to be doing (even if it is useless in a world of living gods, enhanced soldiers, Hulks, Iron Men, firearms and SEALs). I still have no idea how shooting tricky arrows is better than carrying a gun.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s