The Readventurer
  • Home
  • YA Reviews
  • Adult Reviews
  • Contests and Giveaways
  • Policies
  • About Us
    • Flannery's Challenges
    • Catie's Challenges
  • Contact Us

Book vs. Movie: Kelly from Stacked on Breakfast at Tiffany's

7/1/2012

26 Comments

 
Breakfast at Tiffany's book cover

Book vs. Movie: 
Breakfast at Tiffany's

   
Written by Truman Capote and published in 1956.

Directed by Blake Edwards, screenplay by George Axelrod. Released in 1961.
Breakfast at Tiffany's pink DVD cover
Today, we're happy to welcome brilliant librarian/blogger Kelly Jensen from Stacked for a Book vs. Movie comparison of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Take it away, Kelly...

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, I can properly talk about how great it was to read Breakfast at Tiffany’s by Truman Capote then follow it up with a screening of the film. 

The premise of Capote’s 1958 novella is exceedingly simple. The nameless narrator, a young male writer, receives a phone call from a former friend, and it’s through reconnecting with the former friend wherein the narrator realizes what a great story he has to tell about Holly Golightly, the girl who had been his neighbor just a few years prior. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a roughly 100-page character sketch about a girl who talks a big game but who is at her core exceptionally sad, lonely, and empty. Golightly likes to spend her time around socialites, around money, and she throws parties with the best of them. Her apartment lacks furnishing, and the only thing she keeps close to her is her cat. Each time the narrator attempts to forge communication with her and tries to get to her to open up, he is thwarted. Which is not to say he’s a hero in the story - he’s not. He pushes her too hard and he cares far too much about a girl who does not wish for that sort of relationship. 

Nineteen-year-old Golightly is a complex character. She presents herself as anything by throwing these parties, by associating herself with wealth and luxury and fascination with little things. She does it even further through her job, which can best be described as a liaison among a bunch of men who are into drugs. Yes, there’s an air of intrigue about her, but she presents herself as simplistic because it is easiest. It’s the narrator who chips away at this facade though, as he continually pushes her to talk with him. To let him inside the cage she’s built for herself. 

See, Golightly has built this world around her so she can distance herself not just from other people but so that she can distance herself from her worst enemy - herself. Her life. Where it looked like she was treating everyone around her as worthless, as artifice and throwaway, what the narrator learns about Golightly was that she was really treating herself as such. It was just easier to project upon those around her. This comes full circle with the story of the cat, Golightly’s one true possession. When she’s preparing to leave New York City, to leave the past she’s already ditched elsewhere, to leave the former marriage and children and responsibilities that show up to remind her that she is worth something to other people and to herself, Golightly dumps the cat in Spanish Harlem. Tells the cat it was a great run but no one belongs to anyone else and so now he has the chance to start fresh. 

Just like her.

Capote’s novella is a character sketch, but it’s not just a character sketch of Golightly, but of the writer. The narrator is a writer, yet somehow Capote is able to take the narrator and make him a commentary on writing and on narration as craft, too. Here’s a character writing about a pained, removed, relationship-avoiding girl and as much as he tries to crack her open, she is beyond his control. As much as he wants to have a relationship with her and allow her to see her value and worth and her autonomy and her ability to be cared for and treated with respect, he is only the writer. He can only do so much for her. He can sprinkle his depiction of her with pretty words and descriptions - and this is a huge strength of the novella - but ultimately, Golightly is a character who has to play out her story the way her story is meant to be played out. He can only direct her so far. The rest is up to her... and to the reader. 

In other words, Capote’s given us the writer’s experience with writing. With creating a character and a back story and a world. Then he lets it go. What’s masterful about how he does this is that he himself is never the actual narrator in the story -- he’s not the one writing Golightly’s story. He’s writing the story of the narrator who is then writing Golightly’s story. 

It’s meta!  
Breakfast at Tiffany's DVD cover
In 1961, George Axelrod took a stab at taking Capote’s character sketch and turning it into a film starring Audrey Hepburn as a much-aged-past-19 Holly Golightly; blue-eyed George Peppard as the flawless and swoon-worthy narrator, now named Paul; Patricia Neal as the woman who is Peppard’s “keeper” (yeah I don’t know either); Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi; and most noteworthy 
Breakfast at Tiffany's snoozin' cat
Putney, who played the role of Cat.

As is the case with the bulk of film adaptations, Axelrod made the story his own. He borrowed a bit from the source material, but he made this story his own. Which makes sense because Capote didn’t write a story -- he wrote a character writing a character. 

In this adaptation of the story, Paul (who Golightly calls Fred throughout because he reminds her of her “brother” Fred) meets Golightly near immediately. There’s not a passage of time, but rather, he runs into her as he moves into the apartment complex where she dwells. Paul is a writer, but he’s not writing Golightly’s story in the film; rather, he’s writing “novels” and “other things.” He’s also a kept man. And boy, who wouldn’t want to keep a man like that? He’s dreamy. Whenever he bats his eyes, the angels sing and the world opens up and all women just flock to him. Neal is really lucky in her role as his keeper - she has him on a leash. He’s all hers. I want it noted right now that Hepburn and Neal are only three years apart in age but boy, did Axelrod play up an age difference.  
Breakfast at Tiffany's Neal
Breakfast at Tiffany's Audrey Hepburn orange dress
We can agree though that Hepburn is definitely not playing a 19-year-old in the movie. 

The film itself is not told through Paul’s point of view. We get a story about Paul. But really, that doesn’t matter; what does matter is that Golightly is the object of Paul’s affection. Because he’s so dreamy, he can just chase what it is he wants. Oh and does he try. He attends Golightly’s parties - where she is certainly engaged in the crowd, enamored with the wealth and glory that rubbing elbows with socialites brings - and he tells her on more than one occasion just how much he loves her and cares about her. He doesn’t want her to have the autonomy to chase the money (err... men) she wishes to. He keeps reminding her that, you know, there’s a really attractive man living right beneath your nose you can have. 

Lucky for Paul, after enough pushing, Golightly changes her mind. She was wrong all along, silly girl. Maybe he was right for her and maybe he did know what was best for her.  
Breakfast at Tiffany's kissing in the rain
I jumped ahead, I know. We do get to know some of Golightly’s back story in the film. However, it’s secondary. It’s hardly even a blip on developing her character at all. It’s sort of shoved in the middle of the film that Golightly was a married woman who fled her family and that Paul’s meant to be the messenger about her much older husband being back to retrieve her and remind her that he loves her and that people back home depend upon her. It’s also sort of shoved in there that she feels lost and lonely and like her life is meaningless.

Actually, no it’s not at all. 

At the very beginning of the film, I felt like Hepburn was really channeling Capote’s character. There’s a genuine listlessness, and she plays it so well. But the minute Paul enters her life and starts to be the Man She Needs, suddenly Hepburn’s portrayal of the sad and lonely Golightly changes. (See what happens when the writer inserts himself in the character?)

During the pivotal party scene, where her apartment is littered with rich people and things, Golightly engages with her fellow attendees, and she’s an active part of the festivities. 

The moment when Hepburn cuts ties with “brother” Fred and the life she left before moving to NYC, the emotions ring false. And while this is a clear moment of portraying just how phony she’s become (paging Holden Caulfield), the inconsistency with her character up to this point and the lack of development of this pretty important back story, Hepburn failed to advance her character. We know she’s going to run to Paul, and it was impossible for me to not sigh after this scene because after Fred leaves, Golightly gets drunk and becomes Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG). She transforms! She’s free from her past! She’s attractive! Watch her sparkle!

She never feeds her damn cat when he is hungry! DID SHE NOT HEAR HIM MEOWING? ALL HE WANTED WAS SOME FOOD! 
Breakfast at Tiffany's cat
So after this transformation, when Golightly and Paul have their day - the one day that is the iconic piece of what people remember of the film and where she goes to Tiffany’s and lusts after finer things which isn’t really what Capote meant by the whole thing in the book - she’s not at all removed from the situation. She is fully invested in the story and in her life. Hepburn doesn’t portray her as playing along reluctantly; she’s not playing at all. She’s living and engaging. She’s playing the customers and management at the dime store where they steal the masks from. This girl isn’t sad or removed from herself or her life. She’s been shown the way by a pair of baby blue eyes. 

Thank god.

I could go on about the ending and about how it’s the happily ever after that gets a crowd going and leaves viewers with a sense of hope about love. But it was so disingenuous to not just Capote’s story, but to the characters, too. Golightly goes from being the kind of character Capote envisioned into what it is society thinks that a woman should be. Or maybe that’s not fair - she becomes the romanticized idealized MPDG to Paul. And that he gets her to bend to his will and succumb to the realization that yeah, he was the love of her life and that she needs him? Man I love a satisfying ending like that. Particularly when it’s so true, that indeed, Golightly IS a woman who can be caged and protected by someone like Paul.

Wait, what?

This is the total opposite of what Capote intended. TOTAL. OPPOSITE. His story ends by suggesting that no character can be colored by happily ever after, and yet, Axelrod has taken the story and done nothing but make it a happily ever after. He’s corralled the character who couldn’t be corralled. Which -- if you’re a screenwriter making an adaptation of a film, you have total control over storylines and melding it to be your own vision. But to take a storyline and drop it entirely on its head? Why then have a source material at all? 

Let’s talk about a couple other minor quibbles I have: what about the amazing portrayal of the exotic in the film? It makes sense because Golightly is trying to be a socialite and an elite member of the NYC world that she would want to surround herself with Asians, with Brazilians, and she’d want to spend time at a dance club where she could then watch something foreign before her. But what the hell was this Mickey Rooney character? 
Mr Yunioshi Breakfast at Tiffany's
A racist. That’s what. 

This was incredibly uncomfortable to watch, and not just because it was sheerly racist. While the story took place in a time where that kind of portrayal might have been acceptable in society, the fact is, Mr. Yunioshi in the book is NOT the stereotypical Asian as he’s made to be in the film. In fact, he plays a bit of a bigger role in the book in that he tries, too, to engage with Golightly. He isn’t some insensitive neighbor working to bust up her fun - he actually wants her to, you know, live. 

That he’s then just a throw away stereotype in the film is unfortunate. 

There’s terrible pacing in the movie, and there’s an odd jump in passage of time that happens near the end, where we don’t know what had happened to Paul nor what happened to Golightly. But we know that Golightly is happy and is going to get married and Paul won’t let that happen. Blah blah blah, then they are together. Time apart only made their feelings stronger, you know. 

Most importantly, I think what Axelrod’s film could have done with is much more Cat and much less Hep. Because did you see the acting by Cat? It was great! Not just the acting was impeccable, but the fact he was so horribly mistreated by Hepburn also merits some applause.  
Breakfast at Tiffany's feed your cat
Breakfast at Tiffany's kissing with the cat between them
That cat does not look happy. And that’s more authentic emotion right there than is shown throughout the rest of the film.

Then there is this moment in the film, and I let it speak for itself: 
Awesome cat climbing in Breakfast at Tiffany's
Now that you’ve endured my lengthy critique of Axelrod’s adaptation of Capote’s work, I hope it’s obvious that these aren’t the same story, not even a little bit. Maybe Axelrod had hoped to take this character and give her a story and play around with the notion of the writer and the lives his characters can take when left to do so. But Axelrod didn’t do that. He told an entirely different story, and he kept a tight leash on his characters and how they were allowed to move and think and feel. And those things all fell into predictable and ugh-worthy tropes. 

Does that mean Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a bad movie? No. 

Does that mean Breakfast at Tiffany’s is not 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? Yep.

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? Jodie Foster as Holly Golightly would have been THE RIGHT CHOICE. Not the light-on-her-feet, MPDG-playing Hepburn. 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.

Okay, so. If you want a fantastic character sketch that showcases the furthest thing from a MPDG as possible, pick up Capote’s novella. It is dark, complicated, and utterly satisfying to think about. If you want a love story, watch Axelrod’s film. Just do not connect the two.
To round out this post, I’d like to remind you about this:  
I think this might be the faithful adaptation of Capote’s book. If it were set in the 90s, with bad hair, bad fashion, and way-too-catchy lyrics.  

Final Rating: 
Picture
"Barely tolerable, I dare say. But not handsome enough to tempt me." 
(From Pride & Prejudice, by Jane Austen and directed by Joe Wright in 2005)
We'd watch this, but only to make fun of it. 

Kelly would like it to be known that she wishes she could give it 1.5 stars but that she rounded up "for the cat's sake."

Well, it certainly sounds like someone else felt the same way about this movie that I did. I'm of the opinion once is enough. And I'm so glad someone finally had the guts to give Putney the cat the kudos he so richly deserved. Including that song which shall not be named was really uncalled for though.  But I suppose it couldn't be helped.

What do you all think? Have you read the book?  And what the heck was Mickey Rooney thinking with that?

Thanks for visiting, Kelly! Don't forget to visit her at her usual blogspace, Stacked and on twitter.
26 Comments
Kelly link
7/1/2012 01:15:17 am

So you know, Putney (or Orangey -- I'm so confused about who the real cat actor was in this film and IMDB is leading me on a chase here!) won a Patsy for his role in the film. The Patsy IS the animal equivalent of an Oscar.

Thanks for having me for this enjoyable BvM experience.

Reply
Catie (The Readventurer) link
7/1/2012 04:40:32 am

Haha, awesome. Well deserved! Great analysis here, Kelly. I'm glad you didn't hold back with Mickey Rooney. Racist indeed!

Reply
Kelly link
7/1/2012 05:54:31 am

I was shocked how racist the role was, and I wondered if I'd missed something in the book. I went back and reread the book (again) and realized that no, it wasn't me.

The article from the Turner Classic Movies went into it a little more, too. They were embarrassed by the role. And rightly so!

Sune link
7/23/2012 08:43:16 am

So sad the Patsy was shelved. Nowadays we only have the Palme Dog and I guess cats can't really qualify for that no matter how great they act. BTW, enjoying your post. I read the story 4 years ago and when I saw the film today I had the feeling something was very wrong - the ending was not at all how I remembered it and your post illuminated why.

Reply
Tatiana (The Readventurer) link
7/1/2012 05:51:17 am

The way you put it, Kelly, my prejudice against the movie adaptation just grew exponentially. It seems there is much less of the Capote's story in it than I ever thought...

Reply
Kelly link
7/1/2012 05:55:28 am

Really, it was just a borrowing of the title and character names. There was no "adaptation" about it.

Reply
Amy @ Turn the Page link
7/1/2012 07:25:56 am

I loved the cat in that movie!!! The rest of it bored me, I must admit! I've never read the book, but I think Id like to now :)

Reply
Kelly link
7/1/2012 07:58:53 am

I found myself extremely bored for a lot of it! I didn't remember feeling that the first time I watched it (years ago). I definitely recommend the book. It's really short, but it's a punch.

Reply
Belle link
7/1/2012 04:14:30 pm

I saw the movie before reading the book, and I was quite young, so I was disappointed that the book didn't have the HEA of the movie. I'd be interested to go back and see what my reaction is to it now that I, y'know, know stuff.

Reply
Kelly link
7/2/2012 05:37:05 am

I recommend it! I read and saw the book/film in high school, and now that I'm a few years out and have had actual life experience, it was a totally new thing.

Reply
Knight link
7/3/2012 10:56:51 am

I've always loved the movie and this year I wanted to do something fun in my class, by having a film study where I cut out select scenes from the short story and had them compare it to the movie.

It's on my to-read list, so I worried I wouldn't have enough questions to compare the two, but skimming and looking for specific scenes I was shocked. The few scenes I made copies of for my class were so strikingly different from the Holly on film, I realized they were two different animals altogether.

I'm still a fool for the movie adaptation, but I know had I actually read the Capote version first, I would have hated the film. I'll admit I'm pretty happy I saw the movie first and have the book in my room waiting to be read. (Otherwise, that huge Tiffany's poster in my room would be pretty ridiculous.)

Reply
Lily
5/5/2014 12:07:12 pm

The film and the novella are so strikingly different because the film has to be. It is a business in which one must make money and the audience is the targeted market. Blake Edwards, the director of the film, had to make the changes to the film (ie. Character, plot, time, and setting) or else people would not have come to see the movie and it would not have been the overwhelming success it is to this day. I agree that the movie is not faithful to the novella at all and should basically not even have the same name because the story is vastly different, but Edwards needed to make these changes to the plot. Without the changes he would not have made money. Getting an actress like Audrey Hepburn costs a lot of money but she is worth it because she brings in a large audience. Large audiences equal large money. Little did Edwards know it was a success and my friends, a generation later, still know the impact of a little black dress and what it has brought to society, becoming a staple in the closet’s of women across the country.

Reply
Kimberly
12/28/2012 11:01:39 pm

Thank you for this Book vs. Movie review. I rather enjoy Capote's work, and so I thought I'd take a stab at Breakfast at Tiffany's, even though I was forbidden to ever watch the film because of Mickey Rooney's character. I was shocked at how different (read: much better) the book was to the movie, especially Mr. Yunioshi. I'm glad you brought up that his character was much more of a regular person in the book; people don't realize that. In fact, Capote writes Japanese-Americans in a favorable way.

And, yeah, Audrey Hepburn? It's too bad she's basically synonymous with "Holly Golightly" now. If I were Capote, I'd be pissed too.

Reply
Ashley Grey
5/2/2014 12:09:51 am

I agree fully about everything that was said in the article except that Audrey Hepburn was a wrong choice for the role of Holly. I think Audrey Hepburn, if given a script with more complexity could have played the complex character of Holly Golightly. I believe this because there are many points within the film where she exemplifies this. I think the greater issue is the conversion of the piece into film. The screenwriter feeds into the social norms of the society which Capote steps out of so that he can write a piece that comments on this same society. The screenwriter is simply trying to make money rather than explore the character that Capote creates in his novella. The screen writer reduces Holly to basic and simple, someone whose position on love and life can easily be changed. She isnt the outspoken Holly in the book, that so easily reads people. She is the common women in a love story, weak and defenseless in someway (in this case, emotionally) who needs a prince, Paul to save her from her self. The narrator omits all ideas of sexuality and race within the book, never really getting to the core of sexual liberty which Capote's book highlights. Race factors into the film in some ways. That's because of the Mickey Rooney character that the writer of this article expounds on. Yunioshi is the blunt of a stereotype. He is exactly the type of stereotype that Joe Bell sees him as in the book, a Jap, fiery, always angry Japanese man wearing his Japanese clothing. Yunioshi in the book is no where like this. Capote uses Yunioshi to exemplify the differentiation that white Americans of the time tried to make between someone of Japanese decent born or living in the US and an American. He shows how people try to disassociate Japanese Americans from their connection to America to justify the stereotypes they make of them. Let us not even try to touch on the fact that there was no reference to people of African descent within the film. The book, on the other hand comments on how white males feel about interracial couples and people of african descent on a whole which is 100% opposed. Joe Bell cannot even believe that any woman he could be interested in could be interested in someone of African descent. All in all, the film feeds into the society that Capote disdains in "Breakfast at Tiffanys," and becomes a drone to this society by perpetuating stereotypes and pushing women in society, even the most independent of them all, into the arms of a man rather than into the arms of self exploration and definition.

Reply
Sophie
5/2/2014 12:26:23 am

I agree with the idea that the film borrowed some material from the novella but is really an independent entity. In fact many people are familiar with the iconic film, however are surprised to find out it was trans-coded from a novella. This is all due to the fact that all of the iconic attributes (the little black dress, tiffany’s, and extreme thinness) can be found in the novella; however they are iconic because of how the movie portrayed them.

Reply
Sophie (continued)
5/2/2014 12:33:23 am

Although the film is a less provocative adaption of Capote’s novella; it is more culturally significant. While transcoding the novella to film, Edwards left out some controversial content which one might think would lessen the relevance of the film in modern times, however that is not the case.The film was extremely innovative, in the sense that it created the labels for these trends that we know today. In fact, the film initiated the commercialization of these trends, allowing them to become marketable.Today, fifty years after the film was released, we are still living with the effects of the movie. I look in my closet today, and I have not one, but a few little black dresses hanging in my closet. In fact it has become such a staple in a girl’s wardrobe that the acronym LBD is a common term in their vocabulary. In addition, the tiffany’s store is to this day one of the most popular up-scale jewelry stores in the nation. And finally, one of the less glamorous attributes which has unfortunately lasted for half a decade after the film, is the idea of “chic thinness.”

Reply
Devon
5/2/2014 05:08:11 am

I essentially back up Kelly’s entire article. One of the key points that I thought was interesting was the possible choice of Jodie Foster for a later adaptation. Although I hadn't thought of it before, I think she'd be a great choice, especially considering her role in Taxi Driver as a great example of what she would have been able to accomplish in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I too have strong feelings of the wrongs that were committed in this film that basically insult Capote and his work. Yunioshi goes without saying…although Mickey Rooney was a good actor, I honestly think he should be ashamed of this character. Mr. Yunioshi in the novella was from California, not even Japan. His heritage was from Japan but he wasn’t actually from there. The whole thing was so entirely frustrating! Had I watched this on my own time rather than for a class, I don’t think I would have continued. I personally enjoyed all the ambiguous aspects of the novella; the writer, Holly’s background and motives behind what she did, and the many people that go in and out of Holly’s life, giving her various amounts of attention and satisfaction, etc. I love coming up with elements in my own imagination, I don’t like it when people lay everything out for me in either a movie or a novel/novella. That’s what I loved so much about the novel, I could imagine what and why Holly, or any character in fact, was doing. I personally think that Kelly should make her own version because I think she has a great image of what it should look like and we all know how it shouldn’t look…

Reply
Cate
5/5/2014 12:11:42 am

As said in the review, I agree the film went on its own tangent from the novella and created an interesting story, but nothing similar to what Capote had written first. When reading the novella and then watching the movie, I initially noticed the difference in the relationship between Holly and Paul in the movie verses the two in the book. As stated in the review, I believe the book focus on Holly and her forced life as a New York girl when in reality she is only just a farm girl trying to work the world around. Her relationship with Paul is not really a relationship at all for her – she seems him as her brother, someone to remind her of the past. He sits there to listen to her, to fill up her time, and when the time is up, she moves on to someone else. His role helps lead the readers to understand more about Holly and how fake her life really is on the outside. Moreover, with his questionable sexuality and inability to connect with Holly, his role can be rather unnecessary to Holly. In the movie, however, his role is the usual pretty boy fighting for the girl and then winning her over with a kiss in the rain. The viewer learns nothing about Holly through Paul, rather, he is just another man in her life trying to win her and convert her to a happier stage. As covered in the review, Holly has an empty and uncomfortable position and emotions in the novella; on the other hand, she seems happier and easily convinced in the movie

Reply
Elizabeth
5/5/2014 12:46:08 pm

I agree with Kelly in that the novella and the movie are completely different. The book is not meant to have a story, but then the film is made to completely contradict the book by having a plot that doesn't match the ending of the book. The film is a lot different from the novella in that Holly and Paul's relationship is completely romanticized. In the novella "Fred" is homosexual and at the end, like Kelly said, we are convinced that Holly will never get married again because of her disbelief in a "happily ever after," but Axelrod changes Capote’s story entirely. By ending the film with Paul and Holly kissing instead of no longer speaking, the screenwriter changes the meaning of the novella. Another way that the story is romanticized is when Holly dumps cat out of the taxi. Although she goes back to find him in the end, the novella and movie show this in completely different ways. In the novella Holly calls for the cat and doesn't find him herself. Instead someone comes into the scene with the cat saying that he will give it to her for a fee. But to make the film ending seem more romantic, Holly finds the cat herself before sharing a kiss with Paul. I also agree that Audrey Hepburn is not the right character to play Holly Golightly in the film adaptation; however, I do believe that she is a good actress to play Holly with the changes that the author and screenwriter made to form a completely new story.

Reply
Shelby
5/5/2014 02:26:54 pm

I agree with many of the points in this post, especially the role of cat and the idea that when Holly ditches it on the way to the airport in the novella, she trying to rid herself of something that might “belong” to her. She is relinquishing all ties to her life in New York, trying to convince herself that she is still a wanderer that does not need to be tied down so that she start over again in Brazil. In the film, Holly also fears the feeling of “belonging” and the “cage she’s built for herself.” Yet one major choice by the director Blake Edwards and George Axelrod in the film was to constrain Holly’s free-spiritedness. Rather than having her life still a mystery to the narrator and Joe Bell, in the film Holly allows Paul’s love to trap her and put her in a cage. She allows Paul to convince her that she should let him be a part of her life, and in deciding to stay with him,. By allowing Paul to convince her that she can belong to something (namely, him) and that she should stop running away from herself, the film loses an aspect of Holly’s free, independent attitude that Capote had been building throughout the novella. The film’s casting of George Peppard for Paul also contributes to the romantic comedy-style of the film. His heterosexuality allows the film to place greater emphasis on the narrative arc of Paul and Holly’s relationship rather than the character sketch of Holly that predominates the novella. I agree that the film makes Paul with his handsome casting to be the “man she needs,” and as a result, the character of Holly loses an aspect of her feminine independence, as mentioned earlier. The post mentions the “emergency exit” type ending that is used in the film, which to me seems inauthentic to the characters and thrown into the movie as a move to please the audience. This ending, as the blog mentions as well, also does not convey the message that Capote wished to in his novella. Rather than fall in love with the man who “saved” her from her identity-crisis, the novella ends in irresolution, which seems appropriate for the character of Holly in the novella.

Reply
Lee
5/5/2014 10:54:49 pm

I definitely support the idea that the film is not entirely based on the novel; however, I do not agree that Audrey Hepburn was the wrong choice for Holly. Whether or not this opinion is influenced by the fact that Audrey has become the celebrity icon of this classic film, I don’t think the world could see anyone else as Holly Golightly. I thought that as long as the film and novella are judged as separate works, both are fantastic. Given that the novella is such a classic, the film would naturally be judged more harshly and more on fidelity, but Blake Edwards never articulated that accuracy to the plot of the novella was his intention. The film has a happily-ever-after ending because that is what film audiences prefer, while the novel does not have to posses this ending because of the freedom of literature. Capote was able to avoid clichés and insert more questionable themes into the novella; however, Edwards was not able to integrate these into the film because of the nature of film audiences. Capote ends the novel with Holly more or less independent/mysterious, but the film ends with a kiss in the rain as she falls in love like a classic female lead of film. Ironically, was Edwards’ film seems to be less provocative; he incorporates obvious racism with the casting and presentation of Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi. Overall the film should not be judged based on accuracy to the novella, and when it is judged as its own work, is a great work “inspired” by a great novella.

Reply
Avery
5/6/2014 12:21:42 am

I agree with this blog post in that the novella and movie were very different story lines. The novella emphasizes Holly as an independent “need-no-man” type yet who mingles with the best of them. She lives an unstable lifestyle but she embodies the take-charge nature that is so apparent throughout the book. The movie, however, portrays “Fred” as a love interest who seemingly babysits and keeps a watchful eye on her but simultaneously tries to make her realize that he is the one she should love. In the end, they kiss in the rain and live happily ever after with the cat. These two story lines are extremely different from one another both in content and in message, one is a love story and one is about independence. Another major difference is the time period. The novella was set in the 40s during World War II while the film was set in the 1960s, two decades about as different as they could be. What was acceptable in the 60s was not acceptable in the 40s. Holly’s character was meant to be extreme, her lifestyle, her views on sexuality; her character does not quite seem as extreme in the 1960s and she would have during the war in the 40s.

Reply
Adithi Reddi
5/9/2014 04:08:19 am

Kelly Stock makes some agreeable comments about the addition of a romance in the film, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, but I believe she does not completely understand Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi. First George Peppard, the dreamy blue-eyed male lead, acts as a supportive Fred for Holly but is still Paul, the man in love with Holly who continuously tries to admit this to her. The whole point of Capote not creating a love life was to show how her view of independence did not make her the happiest she thought she could be. The only way she believed she could rely on a man was for his money but emotionally, she is independent. By the end of the film, Paul brings happiness to Holly’s life by loving her but this is the complete opposite of what Capote was trying to show the reader. But the most important part about Fred that the film missed is Fred’s homosexuality. Fred being gay is what takes away the element of romance from the novel to make the reader see how Holly restrains from expressing her true emotions as a sign of weakness. I agree with Kelly Stock when she says that adding the romantic element does not make Holly’s character successful from the novel.
However, what Stock did not understand was Mickey Rooney playing Mr. Yunioshi because his portrayal was not racist but added for comedy. In the novel he is a Japanese American from California but Rooney portrays him as a Japanese immigrant. Rooney wears buck teeth, goofy glasses and acts clumsy. Blake Edwards does not necessarily envision Japanese people in such a stereotypical manner but many people during the 1960’s did so to distract the audience from the seriousness of Holly’s life, he wanted to make a successful film by adding elements of romance and comedy.

Reply
Caroline
5/12/2014 05:42:11 am

I agree that the film seemed to really lose the message that Truman Capote delivered in the text. Capote wrote Holly Golightly in such a way to appeal to almost every young socialite in New York City to establish the character as relatable as possible so when she liberates herself at the end of the novella from society, her past, and her demons, she in turn liberates each and every single girl out there like her, or at least helps them begin the process. Holly Golightly is a representation of these women, not an ideal to which they must live up to in order to find a mate, but rather an example of the self-acceptance achievable by each one of them (in the novella at least, in the film, not so much). Maybe American audiences did not desire a film about female liberation and self-discovery. Maybe Hollywood studios did not feel ready to feature such subtle feminism in a film just yet. Or maybe the plethora of straight men who comprised the film’s crew did not see the necessity of such ideas. Or maybe they did not see the profitability in portraying the film honesty. Nevertheless, Edwards directed a blockbuster which in all honesty was probably his original intention as is with many Hollywood execs.

Reply
Ashley Clark
5/13/2014 03:03:29 pm

While I do agree that the film was adapted from and used substance from Capote’s novella, I believe the film was an adaptation in the truest form of that word. The filmmaker collected inspiration from the film, but nothing more. Edwards had his own ideas about the majority of how it should be filmed and what information should be in it, so, of course, being the director and having full power over the film, his views are the ones that showed in their entirety throughout the iconic film. He left out much of the controversial dialogue and added in more of the partying side of Holly’s life. I agree with Kelly in that Edwards somewhat insulted Capote when he disregarded the majority of the novella, it created a difference in feel between the two mediums. The novella leaves you with a more empowering and vague ending, while the film simply leaves you with a happy ending, much like all the other movies throughout American cinema from then till now. Regardless of how Capote and Edwards feel about the finalities of the film, it was a huge success in popularity and in bringing to light cultural discriminations that needed to be spoken about that could not have been easily spoken about without this movie/book duo being created. The duo, mostly the film, has had, and still has, is due to its’ iconic attributes that are still considered beautiful or fashionable today. Hepburn is the ideal body type for models, which is the most popular kind of body to have presently. The film also reveres Tiffany’s and brings about the little black dress appeal that is the classic attire for any formal event nowadays.

Reply
Rossi munoz
10/13/2014 08:36:49 am

I just would like to make sure what u said about Truman Capotes choice of actress to play Holly, you mentioned Jodie Foster, how is this possible as I think she is very young, was she even born then? Did you mean another Jodie may be?
Thank you so much for this explanation of Capotes book which I though, seen the movie, didn't match at all the writing that I believe he was known for. I even thought that the movie was made by accidentally using the same name of Trumans novel.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Follow Us On:

    Facebook Twitter Feed

    Subscribe:

    Subscribe
    Follow on Bloglovin

    Subscribe via email:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    What We're Reading:

    Blood of my Blood cover

    Flannery

    Goodreads
    Monstrous Affections cover

     Tatiana

    Goodreads
    Rules of Civility cover

      Catie

    Goodreads

    Archives 

    March 2014
    September 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011

    Categories

    All
    Author Spotlight
    Book Events
    Book Vs. Movie
    Catie's Adult Reviews
    Catie's Y.A. Reviews
    Contest Or Giveaway
    Flannery's Adult Reviews
    Flannery's Y.A. Reviews
    If You Like This Maybe That
    Library Quest
    Odds & Ends On The Web
    Randomness
    Readalong Recaps
    She Made Me Do It
    Tatiana's Adult Reviews
    Tatiana's Y.A. Reviews
    Three Heads Are Better Than One Or Two
    Year Of The Classics


    Blogs We Follow

    Angieville
    Anna Scott Jots
    Badass Book Reviews
    The Book Geek
    The Book Smugglers
    Book Harbinger
    Books Take You Places
    Bunbury in the Stacks
    Chachic's Book Nook
    Clear Eyes, Full Shelves
    Collections
    Cuddlebuggery
    For the Love of Words
    The Galavanting Girl Books
    Inkcrush
    Intergalactic Academy
    Ivy Book Bindings
    The Nocturnal Library
    Rainy Day Ramblings
    The Readers Den
    The Reading Date
    Realm of Fiction
    Sash and Em
    Stacked
    The Unread Reader
    Vegan YA Nerds
    Wear The Old Coat
    Wordchasing
    Wrapped Up In Books
    Young Adult Anonymous 

    Grab A Button

    The Readventurer
    <div align="center"><a href="http://www.thereadventurer.com" title="The Readventurer"><img src="http://www.weebly.com/uploads/7/8/9/9/7899923/custom_themes/149267861480723643/files/TheReadventurer.png?1321429794244" alt="The Readventurer" style="border:none;" /></a></div>

    Parajunkee Design
    SiteLock
    Since 2/4/2012

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Photos used under Creative Commons from savillent, vue3d, vue3d, ljcybergal