|
|
Rating:  - Fred, baby! ... No, it's Paul, baby!
What started out as a seedy and truncated tale of a would-be New York socialite in print, turned out to be a much grander and unforgettably intoxicating film. Truman Capote seems to have been going for a Holden Caulfield with a crush, with the original short story. Anybody that's read the novella, definitely comes away feeling that Capote was reaching for the literary stars with it, but in an all too obvious way. Equally reaching though, was the screenplay adapted by George Axelrod, a Hollywood scribe who hadn't yet written his big hit, and surprisingly followed this film up with the much darker `Manchurian Candidate'. But strangely, and for the fortune of a fool, it works, and it works well ... and in both mediums. The story and the film are unconventional in its time, place and alongside its peers.
Audrey Hepburn was, in my mind, in an even greater classic film: `Charade', with a much more endearing performance as well, but most of us will always remember her as Holly Golightly with the orange cat. Holly seems like the girl that a lot of men would want to be with but won't admit. The proposition she puts to the book's Mr. Bell is to:
"Never love a wild thing, Mr. Bell ... That was Doc's mistake. He was always lugging home wild things. A hawk with a hurt wing. One time it was a full-grown bobcat with a broken leg. But you can't give your heart to a wild thing: the more you do, the stronger they get. Until they're strong enough to run into the woods. Or fly into a tree. Then a taller tree. Then the sky. That's how you'll end up, Mr. Bell. If you let yourself love a wild thing. You'll end up looking at the sky."
Holly was a contrast of a character for a time now vanished, when women were supposed to be less than their parts and quiet, too. Holly was anything but the locked-in house-frau of old America. In both versions, her past, `Doc', comes to pull her away from her independent life and remove her to lesser experiences and lesser moments, lost and wasted on an older man's desire.
Maybe Capote was saying much more than what we've given him credit for with Breakfast at Tiffany's. Maybe he was really speaking about the longing of the soul, the desperation of will, set deep within a person almost unreachable, untreatable. Maybe he was speaking to all women; women feeling carefully stitched into unbelievably cruel and untenable situations like a fourteen year old wife to a much older man on some far away farm. Or maybe he was speaking to all men. Men, who are in grey moments fading fast and isolated, wanting to reach out for some young beauty, some young prize to remind them of someone else, also long faded; older men that would wreck a young girls life unknowingly, just to fill an unquenchable need.
It's difficult to say what Capote was thinking and what he was shooting for. But watching the film and reading the book, the underlying theme is hard to block out and ignore. Hopefully, I'll keep the youthful indifferent perspective of a Paul Varjak, and not the lustful and slobbery gaze of a Doc Golightly or a Rusty Trawler.
Rating: - What a breakfast
One of my all time favorites, fantastic movie, music score and who didn't
love Audrey Hepburn, what a classy lady!!
Rating:  - how old is holly?
Overall, this is a well-done movie, with the exception of Mickey Rooney.
My problem is not in the adaptation of the Truman Capote novella--it IS a very different story than what's being told here. Could you film a version that's closer to Capote's story? Of course. But this film works as a stand-alone piece.
My problem is: how old exactly is Holly supposed to be? Audrey Hepburn was 31 when she made this movie, and while she's absolutely enchanting in it, SHE LOOKS 31. But when Buddy Ebsen shows up, he tells George Peppard that Holly was just shy of 14 when they married, and that his first wife died on the 4th of July, 1955. Since the movie is set in 1961, that would make Holly (at most) all of 20 years old.
Rating: - Tiffany's and All That Cat's Meow.
It is a timeless story about a woman who was lost and then found (herself). In fact, her apartment looked like a lost and found box, and her cat was lost then found!
This review is about the movie only. I believe there is a new release, but I do not know what extras are added.
I read somewhere, when Capote wrote the novel, Holly/Lula Mae was modeled after Marilyn Monroe/Norma Gene. That's a very important point to keep in mind in order to understand her character.
Holly didn't like herself, at least her old self, so she transformed herself into someone else. Admirable effort, but she lost her identity along the way. She really wasn't escaping to a better place, except externally/materially she felt different.
She was a mess, a real phony. She cared no one, but herself. She lacks of responsibility, but she was also everyone's inner desire....
People commented on the acting. I bet that was fashionable at the time. Nowadays it's the naturalness that's in vogue, so it may be a problem for some people. It was the period.
I can't say I like the fake Japanese character though. It's unrealistic. Have you ever met a Japanese person like that? I think the DVD should have an option to take that part out as deleted scenes. They contribute nothing to the storyline, except as a comic relief (and it has plenty of wittier ones). It was just very out of place.
The costume design is very nice. It's 1950's at its most glamorous. Glamorous but not out of place.
"Moon River" is just brilliant. A simple song that delivers so much emotion! Many of us are still drifters waiting for the right one. That's the ultimate love song for me.
I love the symbolism. When she found her cat, she found herself. Cat never had a real name, because she also had no identity.
I was very concerned for the cat in many scenes he appeared. He was dripping wet in the last scene. And earlier on, when Holly smashed stuff all over the place (she must be an Aries), Cat was walking through the shards!!! I wonder how much he was paid for the part....
In any case, it's a fancy fun for guys and gals alike. It's still relevant today (which is why I think it's good). I bet we all know someone who is just like Holly. Do they still give out prize in Cracker Jack?
Rating: - Classic for a Reason
This film's a classic for good reason. Among the reasons: the charming Audrey Hepburn, the rest of the terrific cast (including "Cat"!) the rendition of "Moon River" by Hepburn.
Need more reasons? How about: The New York scenery, the satisfying plot, the happy ending we all love to see.
It's a perfect addition to any collection of classic films!
|
|