Movies of the 80s: 'Why Would I Lie(?) The Wild Ride of Actor Lisa Eichorn
Lisa Eichorn shot to fame on a lie and cut her own path in a Hollywood that tried and failed to keep her in line.
Researching the little known movie Why Would I Lie has led me to discover actor Lisa Eichorn, a true character among early 80s actresses. Searching for stories about the movie on Newspapers.com leads to a number of articles with interesting details about this little remembered, little regarded actress. For one, she and I share the same birthday, February 4th. More importantly however, this research revealed an actress of uncompromising integrity.
Lisa Eichorn was a brilliant person before she became a brilliant actress. Born in Glens Falls, New York, Eichorn earned her way from there all the way to the famed English University, Oxford. From there, her talent earned her the opportunity to join the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, one of, if not, THE most prestigious acting school in the world. After RADA, Eichorn found a home at the Queen’s Theater where she played roles in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, among other high profile roles for a then unknown actress.
It was at the Queen’s Theater where Eichorn met Midnight Cowboy director John Schlesinger. Schlesinger was casting for his next movie, titled Yanks, and starring Richard Gere. Schlesinger was seeking an English actor to play opposite Gere. Taking a chance, Eichorn pretended to be English and fooled Schlesinger so well, he hired her almost immediately. Her lie fell apart almost immediately as Eichorn felt awful about not telling the truth. As the film was in the midst of pre-production, she finally confessed her ruse to Schlesinger who admired her honesty and her talent and kept her on the movie.
The role in Yanks would earn Eichorn Two Golden Globe nominations for Best Actress in a Motion Picture Drama and Best New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture. She would not take home either award but Lisa Eichorn was definitely on the map as a rising star. Eichorn didn’t stop to smell the roses however. Just as she completed work on Yanks, she was already on her way to her next Award-worthy role in The Europeans, working for the team of Merchant-Ivory and Jhabvala.
The Europeans would lead to a BAFTA nomination for Best Supporting Actress for Eichorn who was soon getting offers from all corners for her next starring role. It was about this time that Eichorn left England for New York City and, in a fortuitous twist of fate, Eichorn sublet an apartment from none other than her soon to be co-star, Treat Williams. Williams happened to be leaving New York City for Spokane, Washington where he was set for the lead role in Why Would I Lie(?). Through Williams, Eichorn landed a screen test for Why Would I Lie(?) and soon she too was off to Spokane for the shoot.
Immediately after wrapping Why Would I Lie (?)Eichorn caught the eye of actor Jeff Bridges who encouraged director Ivan Passer to hire Eichorn for thriller Cutter’s Way. Here again, Eichorn’s integrity shines through. When director Ivan Passer came to shoot a topless scene, Eichorn refused. She told the director that she felt that the scene was needless. When he replied asking her if she was ashamed of her breasts, she replied no, but that doesn’t mean the scene is any less unnecessary. It wasn’t that she was shy, she’d done a brief nude scene in Yanks. No, Eichorn simply assessed the script and determined the topless scene wasn’t needed and it was cut.
Eichorn’s nonstop whirlwind of roles was to continue after Cutter’s Way with a role opposite Gene Hackman in a romance called All Night Long. After clashing with the director Jean Claude Tramont, Eichorn was fired. She was soon replaced in the role by Barbra Streisand who took the hand-me-down role as a favor to her high powered agent, Sue Mengers, the wife of Jean Claude Tramont. As for Eichorn, she’d once again stood her ground against a domineering director and she still walked away with her $250,000 paycheck for the film.
That said however, it’s clear that the clash on the set of All Night Long did slow down Eichorn’s momentum. Whether it was Mengers flexing her muscle to punish Eichorn is only speculation. What's true is that Lisa Eichorn would struggle to find work over the next few years, making the move to television and finding mostly supporting roles. By 1986, the former Golden Globe nominated leading actress was appearing for one season on the popular soap opera, All My Children, the strongest symbol yet that she’d been pushed out of the Hollywood stratosphere over her willingness to stand up for herself.
That doesn’t mean that the lesson is to keep your head down and do what you're told. Not at all. Regardless of whether Lisa Eichorn was a Hollywood star or struggling for TV work, she was cutting her own path. She worked when she wanted, moved into producing and generally only worked on projects she wanted to work on. She returned to the stage in both London and Broadway and she took up teaching while raising a family.
Her career includes a most unlikely and fascinating turn when, as a screenwriter and producer, Eichorn championed Latvia’s 2009 Academy Awards submission, Defenders of Riga. It was the most expensive film in the history of Latvia and she was the only American on the movie. The film didn’t get a nomination for Best Foreign Film but the film was a strong symbol of just how Lisa Eichorn was an uncompromising, unconventional, Hollywood personality.
If you love the movies of the greatest decade ever, the 1980s, then you will love our YouTube channel, Movies of the 80s. Two short videos daily deliver tiny info-dumps on lost, obscure, and beloved movies of the 1980s. It's all about keeping these 80s movies alive. Subscribe to Movies of the 80s on YouTube by following this link.
About the Creator
Movies of the 80s
We love the 1980s. Everything on this page is all about movies of the 1980s. Starting in 1980 and working our way the decade, we are preserving the stories and movies of the greatest decade, the 80s. https://www.youtube.com/@Moviesofthe80s
Keep reading
More stories from Movies of the 80s and writers in Geeks and other communities.
Movies of the 80s: Top Critic Insults Aimed at 'Xanadu'
If you grew up as a Gen-X-er living through the 1980s then you remember Xanadu as that soundtrack record everyone's older sister loved. The movie was there too, I guess, but it was the soundtrack on every turn table that was the lasting legacy of Xanadu. The music by star Olivia Newton John, burnished by the slick production of producer Jeff Lynne and his band, The Electric Light Orchestra, proved to be the one thing people kind of liked about Xanadu.
By Movies of the 80sabout a year ago in Geeks
Not Just For Clean Up: A History Of The MCU's Department of Damage Control
Initially an organisation that seemed to exist to help the heroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, from Phase Four onwards, the Department of Damage Control has shifted into a more antagonistic role. Most recently seen in the Wonder Man series, the current incarnation of Damage Control seems to target superpowered individuals, regardless of whether that person poses an active or intentional threat.
By Kristy Andersona day ago in Geeks
Washington Signals Readiness for Dialogue with Tehran
In a development that may reshape diplomatic calculations in a volatile region, a senior United States official recently informed reporters that Washington remains “open for business” should Iran decide to pursue negotiations with the Trump administration. The statement, while cautious, reflects a distinct shift in tone from confrontation to conditional engagement, underscoring a complex interplay of domestic politics, regional security dynamics, and long‑term strategic interests. For years, U.S.‑Iran relations have been marked by deep mistrust, competing geopolitical aims, and periodic escalations that have threatened broader instability. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — represented a rare point of cooperation between Tehran and a group of world powers including the United States. Yet under former President Donald Trump, the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018, reimposing sanctions and adopting an “maximum pressure” campaign intended to compel Iran to accept broader limitations on its nuclear and missile programs. That policy, while aimed at curtailing Iran’s strategic capabilities, also contributed to increased tensions, including proxy conflicts in Yemen and Iraq, attacks on commercial shipping in the Gulf, and the U.S. killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020. In this context, any signal of willingness to talk — even one carefully framed — is notable and merits careful analysis. A Calculated Offer, Not a Promise The U.S. official’s comment that Washington is “open for business” with Iran is deliberately nuanced. It stops short of announcing a formal offer of negotiations or outlining specific terms. The phrasing suggests that the United States is prepared to engage if Iran takes the initiative, but it leaves the responsibility for starting dialogue on Tehran. This approach provides Washington with strategic flexibility while signaling seriousness to both domestic and international audiences. Such diplomatic language serves multiple purposes. It reassures U.S. allies in the region — who are wary of sudden shifts in American Middle East policy — that engagement will not come at the expense of their security. It also conveys to Iran that opportunities for dialogue remain available, even amid ongoing disagreements over nuclear activities, ballistic missile development, and regional influence. Iran’s Response: Cautious but Interested? So far, Iranian officials have offered mixed reactions. Some hardliners in Tehran continue to reject engagement with the United States outright, insisting that Western powers cannot be trusted. Others, particularly voices within Iran’s diplomatic corps, have expressed pragmatic interest in negotiations that could ease economic sanctions and improve conditions for the Iranian public. Iran’s economy has struggled under heavy sanctions that limit oil exports, foreign investment, and access to global financial systems. For many Iranians, the economic impact of these policies has translated into unemployment, inflation, and constrained access to essential goods. Against this backdrop, the prospect of negotiations that could lead to sanctions relief holds significant appeal — provided such talks respect national sovereignty and core strategic interests. Strategic Patience and Global Perceptions The United States’ willingness to appear open to negotiation reflects a broader strategy of patient diplomacy. Rather than demanding immediate concessions or imposing unrealistic preconditions, Washington appears ready to create an environment where Iran can engage without fear of precipitous escalation. This stance aligns with broader American interests in managing regional conflicts, ensuring the free flow of commerce through key waterways like the Strait of Hormuz, and fostering stability that benefits global markets. From a global perspective, the United States’ statement may also be aimed at reassuring other actors — including the European Union, China, and Russia — that Washington is not abandoning diplomatic avenues in favor of perpetual confrontation. Following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, European signatories endeavored to preserve the agreement while maintaining channels of communication with Iran. The latest U.S. position may complement those efforts by demonstrating that engagement remains a viable option for all parties. Domestic Political Calculations Domestic U.S. politics play a significant role in shaping foreign policy. For the Trump administration, which is preparing for an election year, foreign policy achievements — or at least the avoidance of new conflicts — carry political weight. By signaling openness to negotiation without committing to specific terms, the administration may be attempting to appeal to a broad constituency that favors strength tempered with diplomacy. This approach also allows Washington to manage expectations at home. Hardline critics of engagement with Iran remain vocal in American political discourse, insisting that Tehran must first demonstrate substantive changes in behavior. By framing the offer as contingent on Iranian willingness to negotiate, the administration can address domestic concerns about appearing weak or overly conciliatory. Regional Implications and Security Considerations For Middle Eastern countries, particularly U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel, the notion of U.S.‑Iran negotiations prompts both hope and apprehension. On one hand, reduced tensions between Washington and Tehran could lessen the likelihood of wider conflict and create space for cooperative security arrangements. On the other, these countries fear that negotiations might sideline their own concerns or lead to compromises that do not adequately address Iran’s regional activities. In the security realm, issues such as Iran’s ballistic missile program and support for non‑state armed groups remain top concerns for the United States and its allies. Any future negotiations would likely need to address these issues alongside nuclear constraints, requiring careful balancing of priorities and pragmatic expectations on all sides. The Path Forward: Opportunities and Obstacles The path toward meaningful negotiations between the United States and Iran is strewn with challenges, but it is not impassable. Key factors that will influence the trajectory include: Political Will in Tehran: Iran’s leadership must decide whether engaging with Washington is more advantageous than continued resistance. Internal debates between pragmatists and hardliners will shape this decision. International Support and Mediation: Third‑party actors, particularly European countries, may facilitate dialogue by offering forums, confidence‑building measures, or incentives for both sides. Clear Objectives and Phased Engagement: Both parties will need to establish realistic goals. A phased approach that begins with limited, confidence‑building measures could pave the way for broader negotiations. Managing Regional Stakeholders: Ensuring that Middle Eastern allies feel included or at least heard in negotiations will be critical to maintaining regional stability. Conclusion: Diplomacy Remains on the Table The recent U.S. official’s comment that Washington is “open for business” if Iran wishes to negotiate is more than a simple soundbite. It reflects a deliberate diplomatic posture aimed at preserving options, reducing risk, and signaling to a wary world that engagement remains possible even amid complex disagreements. While the path to substantive negotiations will not be straightforward, this moment offers a reminder that diplomacy, even when cautious and conditional, remains a vital tool in addressing some of the most entrenched international conflicts of our time. Whether Iran chooses to take the first step toward dialogue will be a decision with far‑reaching implications — not just for Tehran and Washington, but for the broader Middle East and global security alike.writing...
By Saboor Brohi 7 days ago in Geeks
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.