.jpg?mode=max)
You’ve seen the posters. Audrey Hepburn, draped in empire-waist gowns, looking every bit the Russian aristocrat. It's the 1956 adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s behemoth novel, and honestly, it’s a weird piece of cinema history. People usually lump it in with her "Golden Era" hits like Roman Holiday or Sabrina, but the reality of Audrey Hepburn War and Peace is way more chaotic. It was a massive, $6 million gamble that tried to squeeze 1,200 pages of existential dread and Napoleonic warfare into a Hollywood romance.
Did it work? Well, it depends on who you ask.
The $350,000 Gamble: Why Audrey Said Yes
In 1955, Audrey was the biggest thing on the planet. Paramount knew it. Dino De Laurentiis, the legendary Italian producer, knew it. To get her to sign on as Natasha Rostova, they offered her $350,000. That sounds like a bargain now, but in the mid-fifties? It was one of the highest salaries ever paid to an actress.
Adjusted for inflation, we’re talking over $4 million today.
🔗 Read more: Why Eric Church Like Jesus Does Lyrics Still Hit Harder Than Most Modern Country
But there was a catch. She didn't just want the money; she wanted her husband, Mel Ferrer, to play the male lead, Prince Andrei. This is where things got kind of messy. Mel was a talented guy, but critics at the time—and many fans today—felt he lacked the "it" factor next to Audrey’s radiant energy. Their real-life marriage was already under a microscope, and playing lovers on a grueling, months-long shoot in Italy didn't exactly help the vibes.
Henry Fonda in a Hairpiece: The Casting Chaos
Let’s talk about Henry Fonda. He played Pierre Bezukhov, the soul of the story.
Fonda was 51 years old. Audrey was 27.
He was playing a character who is supposed to be a bumbling, idealistic youth at the start of the book. Fonda himself later admitted he felt miscast. He reportedly hated the glasses he had to wear and felt the script stripped away all the philosophical depth that made Pierre interesting. If you watch the movie now, you can see it in his face. He looks like he’d rather be literally anywhere else, preferably back in a Western.
Meanwhile, the production was a literal army. De Laurentiis didn't do things halfway. He hired the actual Italian army to play extras in the battle scenes. We’re talking thousands of soldiers in wool uniforms, charging across fields in the heat of an Italian summer, all to recreate the 1812 scorched-earth retreat of Napoleon.
✨ Don't miss: Understanding the One Hundred Years of Solitude Family Tree Without Losing Your Mind
Why Audrey Hepburn War and Peace Still Divides Fans
If you’re a Tolstoy purist, this movie probably makes your skin crawl. Hollywood basically took a book about the "oneness of all things" and the "unavoidable flow of history" and turned it into a love triangle.
The 1956 version cuts almost all the "War" and focuses entirely on the "Peace" (the ballrooms and the flirting).
The Natasha Factor
Despite the script's flaws, Audrey is... well, she’s Audrey. She captures the "waif-like" spirit of Natasha Rostova perfectly. In the book, Natasha is a girl who lives entirely on impulse. She’s joyous, then she’s suicidal, then she’s a mother. Audrey nails that wide-eyed, breathless quality.
Critics often argue she was too "chic" for the role. Maybe. But when she walks into that first ball in the film, it’s easy to see why Prince Andrei (and the audience) loses their mind.
The Soviet Revenge
Here is a fun bit of trivia: the Soviet Union hated the 1956 American version so much they decided to make their own. They felt Hollywood had "stolen" their national epic and turned it into a shallow soap opera. This led to the 1966 Soviet version directed by Sergei Bondarchuk.
That version was seven hours long. It used 12,000 soldiers. It won an Oscar.
But even with all that "authenticity," the Soviet version lacked one thing: Audrey. There is a reason the 1956 Audrey Hepburn War and Peace remains a staple on TCM and streaming services. It has a specific, lush Hollywood glamour that just doesn't exist anymore. It’s a Technicolor dream, even if the history is a bit fuzzy.
What to Look for Next Time You Watch
If you decide to give it a re-watch, keep an eye on the cinematography. Jack Cardiff, the man behind the camera, was a genius with color.
- The Hunt Scene: It’s one of the few moments where the movie captures the Russian spirit of the book.
- The Retreat from Moscow: The visuals of the French army freezing in the snow are genuinely haunting.
- The Costumes: They are historically "inspired" rather than accurate, but they cemented the "Hepburn Look" for the late 50s.
The Actionable Takeaway for Film Buffs
If you want to truly appreciate this era of cinema, don't just watch the movie in a vacuum. Compare it.
- Watch the 1956 version first to appreciate the star power and the sheer scale of 1950s Hollywood.
- Read the first 100 pages of the novel. You’ll quickly see what they kept and, more importantly, what they threw away to make Audrey the star.
- Check out the 1966 Soviet version if you have seven hours to spare. It’s the perfect "corrective" to the Hollywood gloss.
At the end of the day, Audrey Hepburn War and Peace isn't a perfect adaptation of a masterpiece. It's a snapshot of a time when movie stars were bigger than the stories they told. It's messy, it's overlong, and it’s occasionally boring. But watching Audrey twirl in those gowns? Honestly, that’s enough for most of us.
For the best experience, find the restored 4K version. The colors of the Italian-shot "Russia" are vibrant in a way that standard definition just can't handle. It turns a flawed epic into a visual feast that reminds you why we still talk about Audrey seventy years later.