Breakfast at Tiffany’s Movie

You can listen to this song, while you’re reading this:

Holy Golightly is a nineteen years old woman, who is trying to find herself, what she wants in life and what is her place in the world. Holly is a wild thing that cannot be contained; she leaves a fleeting impression of an energetic, beautiful  but yet  vulnerable person -with her red and blue means- who is an eternal traveller. She doesn’t want to be rescued or caged and by the end of the novel she charges in order to be more content with life.

In 1961, George Axelrod made the story his own, just like Capote didn’t write the story but he only wrote the character. Audrey is a much-aged-past-19 Holly Golightly. George Peppard is the flawless narrator, now named Paul. Patricia Neal as the woman who is Paul’s “keeper” (I don’t know either), who also owns him.
The film itself isn’t told through Paul’s point of view; we just get a story about Paul and his affection to Holy, which compared to the novel, the whole point wasn’t that at all. The background of Holy ‘s past is secondary and the lights are mostly on the relationship between Paul and Holy. Somehow, he appears to be the man she needs and in every circumstance, she used his help. As for the ending, I don’t want to open this subject. In Capote’s original story ends by suggesting that no character can be colored by happily ever after, and yet, Axelrod had taken the story and done nothing but make it a happily ever after. A ending in which Holly finally gets caged by someone like Paul. He’s collared the character who couldn’t be collared.

Does that mean that Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a bad movie? No.
Does that mean Breakfast at Tiffany’s isn’t worth watching? No.
Does that mean Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a horrific adaptation that has nothing to do with the book and in fact contradicts the entire point of the book? Yeah.

Even Capote thought the adaptation was pretty awful. According to Turner Classic Movies, this was his reaction:
“Even though Breakfast at Tiffany’s was a success and nominated for five Academy Awards, the one person who was not happy with the film was author Truman Capote. He was outspoken in his disapproval of what had been done with his book. He was unhappy with everything: the tone, the casting, the director. He felt betrayed by Paramount. ‘I had lots of offers for that book, from practically everybody,’ he said, ‘and I sold it to this group at Paramount because they promised things, they made a list of everything, and they didn’t keep a single one.’ Capote was unhappy with the casting. ‘It was the most miscast film I’ve ever seen,’ he said. ‘Holly Golightly was real-a tough character, not an Audrey Hepburn type at all. The film became a mawkish valentine to New York City and Holly, and, as a result, was thin and pretty, whereas it should have been rich and ugly. It bore as much resemblance to my work as the Rockettes do to Ulanova.’ After the release of the film version of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, author Truman Capote was very vocal about his disdain for the film, and especially the casting of Audrey Hepburn as Holly, a role that he hoped would go to his friend, Marilyn Monroe. Truman Capote later said that he considered actress Jodie Foster the perfect person to play Holly Golightly as he originally wrote her.”
Yeah, you know? And it’s not simply that she wasn’t the right choice for Golightly. It’s that her acting wasn’t even GOOD. It was inconsistent all over the place. Whether it’s her fault or Axelrod’s, she didn’t understand the character and that shines through in spades. I don’t know if Judie or Marilyn would be better in this role, but Audrey, in my opinion, didn’t portrayed the role as it should be, or maybe she did for Axelrod’s version. For me, Holly is a wild bird and honestly saying I loved the ending of how Capote wrote it, I couldn’t imagine a different one. In the movie, Holly seems to me a silly little girl, who doesn’t know what she wants from life.
What do you think?

8 thoughts on “Breakfast at Tiffany’s Movie

  1. Olivia says:

    I have never seen this movie before. It’s a shame that it is nothing like the book it claims to be adapted from 😦 In general it sounds like a good movie by itself but that it doesn’t carry through effectively with what it is supposed to be. I am curious to watch it myself at some point!


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s