This line gave me big Joni Mitchell vibes- you could say Holly is “on a lonely road... looking for the key to set [her] free” or that “she’s too busy being free” or she “loves her lovin but not like she loves her freedom”. In both Tiffany’s and Mitchell’s work, that longing for freedom is what holds her down, you’d think it would be the opposite but it’s her tragic flaw.
Capote's ending: the narrator expressing he wishes he could tell Holly he found her one eyed cat having found a home and seeing him looking out of the window of a seemingly nice apartment is so beautiful
I love Audrey as Holly and, as you said, the movie is what it is 100% because of her. However, with everything we know about Marilyn, imagining her standing at the doors of Tiffany with a hopeful glint in her eyes as she dreams of a better life... Idk man I just wanna cry
I agree. Marilyn had the perfect tone of vulnerability for that character. I tend to think that the heaviness beneath her bubbly blond persona (probably the reason that Capote wanted her) could have absorbed too much of the film. That opening scene with Marilyn would have definitely tasted of a lonely and unglamorous morning after. It just would have been a different film. Maybe someone should make it now, as a character piece.
Wow. I never considered that. What a beautiful imagery! Her soulful eyes as Holly has stories to tell; has seen things in this life; she’s a survivor. Audrey is beloved beyond measure, but Marilyn as Holly Golightly would have given the groundedness to the adaptation. Marilyn as Holly telling Doc “I’m just not Lulu Mae anymore” would have broken my heart. Thank you for sparking such an intriguing image for me.
My older sisters saw this movie on dates and loved it. Everybody talked about it, young girls tried to be Holly, with the guitar and the shades and the insouciance. But my uncle was furious about it, and with good reason. My aunt and cousin were Japanese American, and my aunt had been in Manzanar. I remember a big blowup with my uncle storming out of the kitchen. Mother told us not to discuss the movie with him. When I finally saw Breakfast at Tiffany's I too loved the romance of it, but thanks to my uncle I looked twice at Mickey Rooney, and today it makes me sick. I read the book; the Japanese photographer upstairs is a man of talent and dignity, far more believable than Rooney's grotesque caricature. It's a real blight on what would have been a good movie.
@@colleenconger5265 For those of us of "a certain age", it's Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Of the tail end of that age I tend to add American Graffitti to that list. What else should be on it?
I can't show the movie to the Asians in my family they will be VERY offended by the Mickey Rooney bit. Otherwise a good movie. Maybe just skip the first scenes.
@@ivangreen3995 I'm Asian and when I first saw the movie, I wasn't offended (distracted by Audrey's beauty and the awesome Moon River song) and I understand that movies need comedic relief regardless of race. But at the time I didn't even realize that a white actor was playing the character, and also knowing the marketing campaign behind that definitely spoils it for me. This was clearly racist. Mind you, I'm usually one of those conservatives who often sigh at the overtly sensitive liberal politically correct stuff.
What I find astonishing is the idea of Patricia Neal as an “older woman”, even though she’s only three years older than Audrey Hepburn and two years older than George Peppard.
Astonishing? people in tv shows, target to teens, where parents are in their 30's and the kids are in their 20's, portreying 14 or 15 years old hischoolers.This is going on forever.Older women in entreteinment are doomed.
Angela Lansbury played Laurence Harvey’s mother in The Manchurian Candidate and she was younger than him. Same with Eileen Herlie as Laurence Olivier’s mother in Hamlet. Nina Foch as the seemingly older woman in An American in Paris was younger than Gene Kelly. And Ann Bancroft in The Graduate was, I forget, only 7 or 8 years older than Dustin Hoffman. This kind of thing was very common.
"The Powder Room" was about birth control. The diaphragm can be put into place up to 2 hours before sex. If her sugar daddy of the evening gave her powder room money (ladies room), she would put in the diaphragm in anticipation of an encounter. It was more common then for there to be a maid in the ladies room whom one might tip, but not $50 (the equivalent of about $500 today).
So, asking for the money is "code" for "are we doing it?". If he gives her money, she puts in the diaphragm. Is she tipping the ladies room maid to stay quiet?
@@2degucitas It's not code. She isn't sending a signal so much as she is requesting payment in advance. Also, none of that money is for the washroom attendant, hush or otherwise. There is an attendant, however, so in this way anyone looking on from the restaurant, bar, or club might assume the innocence of or at least allow themselves to explain away the exchange of cash between a man and his unmarried escort (date).
In "Goodfellas", when Ginger asks for money for the powder room, is given $50 by Ace, and later gives a bs answer why there isn't any change, it's more cut a dried and without question who is getting what for what.
I think this is a classic example of the movie not being better or worse, but just completely different and that's OK. The emotional payoff at the end with the cat is worth it, IMHO, and it's hard to imagine an Audrey Hepburn film without a happy ending. It's ironic that the other film she made at this time - "the Children's Hour" - is far more daring, even if the director did cut out a lot of the play, and was one of the films that effectively ended the Hayes Code. (Spoiler) her character also doesn't end up in a happy place - the ending is very ambiguous. It includes, however, the finest bit of acting I think Hepburn ever put on film, at the moment of tragedy.
Didn't both Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn push for the original ending to the film? Actresses have a long history of this, like Jessica Lange fighting to include the incest/sexual abuse of Patsy Cline's by her biological father, Glenn Close fighting for an accurate representation of a woman with BPD/C-PTSD/DID in Fatal Attraction instead of the murder mess they made of a "single white female" BS stereotype of ~all womEn Are CraaaZy~ (clearly invented by men at the dawn of time, no thanks to Freud, the asshole) and used in the film? SO many more examples....
@@ImnotassweetasIusedtobe Oooh. Alex having BPD instead of OLD or ROCD sounds really compelling (I'm not sure how much it was discussed during the 80's.) It's hard to believe that they were considering Gilda Radner instead of Glenn Close because they thought that Glenn Close couldn't play sexy.
Oh god her performance in children's hour is phenomenal. Her and Shirley MacLaine played off each other brilliantly, I actually can't think of another film where she has an extended scene partnered with a woman besides Kay Thompson in funny face and that's very succinct.
If any film cries out for a REMAKE, it’s this one. Imagine the possibilities. Why hasn’t it been considered? And, of course, it should be as close to the book as possible. Another great episode!
I'm having a hard time feeling Audrey Hepburn was miscast. Yes she often did a sort of cinderella effect, but that happened in the book too, it just predates her meeting the author. I always feel like My Fair Lady and Breakfast at Tiffany's depicted the same sort of person, just at different times of their transformation and in different eras/locales. Interestingly, both have a close queer male character that at the last second is expected to have a romantic involvement with her. I think Audrey would have portrayed the LGBTQ positive Holly Golightly in the book well if she had gotten that script and the hollywood censors had allowed it.
Thats the problem. There is no romance in the story. Paul is gay and Holly is Bisexual in the book. I don’t think its a coincidence that the weakest element of the film is the “Romance” or lack there of. Because it was shoehorned into the plot by the filmmakers. Its supposed to be story of friendship not romance. Audrey Hepburn could have definitely done a film closer to the book. It would have probably been a way better movie. Instead we got a mediocre movie with a Great filmsaving performance by Audrey Hepburn.
@Randy White Eh came off more gay than Bi in the book to me. Also Truman Capote based the character on himself. Without question Capote was gay. Fun fact: Truman Capote wanted to play the Paul character himself.
I'm hugely confused as to who the close queer male character in My Fair Lady is supposed to be. (Higgins wasn't. There is a stab at awkward romance in the original play, too, only unlike in the musical, it's not resolved.)
Audrey Hepburn is also perfect. Nobody deny the fact that Marilyn Monroe is a good actress. Call me crazy but I just can't imagine if Holly Golightly is not played by Audrey Hepburn
Capote was friends with Marilyn Monroe. I recall reading in Gerald Clarke's biography that Capote had actually written the story with Marilyn in mind for any potential film adaptation.
I love her performance too. I just wish it was in a different movie that fit the character. Everything in the movie you can tell it was meant for someone else. Audrey is the only good thing in the movie.
I hate that song (I understand why people like it though, just saying it's not the kind of music I like) but I watched this video yesterday and I've had the song stuck in my head. It is definitely catchy.
@@michaeldebellis4202 On it's own l didn't get the song until "Holly" sang it. Audrey was not allowed to sing in other movies like My Fair Lady. She finally got her chance here. Apparently they suggested deleting it from the final cut but she put up a fight and it stayed. I'm glad she sang it. I dislike the operatic sound of the singers she had to lip sync in other movies.
@@heidibee501 Yes, it really does fit the revised more wholesome but still kind of stretching proprietary limits for that time. Audrey Hepburn was just IMO in a class by herself. She had such grace and charm and beauty. There was one line I never got until this last time when it was stuck in my head: "Huckleberry friend". I think it means as in Huckleberry Finn and Jim. Two drifters just heading down the beautiful river turning their backs on the traditions and morality of the time. (Huck thought he was doing the wrong thing by helping an escaped slave but he did it anyway, love that book)
The irony about Mr. Yunioshi is that when I watched this for the first time, I was interested in seeing Mickey Rooney, unaware of his actual role. I kept waiting and waiting, trying to figure out where he was. I figured maybe it was a small cameo appearance. But I also kept seeing this really obnoxious slapstick Asian character reappear. Then all of a sudden, I got this sinking feeling..... You could've knocked me over with a feather when I figured it out. 🙃😵🙃
Same here. It took me several viewings and then when I found out....🤦 all I remember was that character was so over the top and annoying, with little humor.
Same. I'm not sure if the makeup department should get an award or be thrown out an airlock. Maybe just throw the director out an airlock. 90% of those Micky Rooney scenes could be cut in the original and nothing would be truly lost plot nor tone wise. It very much distracts and afterwards is mostly forgettable.
It would be cool to see studios remake “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”, “Rebel Without a Cause”, etc. But make them faithful to the source material with the more mature themes.
Absolutely! I really think it's just about the best way. And let's be honest, studios are not shy of remakes now days and especially cult favorites. I never realized how much I wanted to see that until now! I really love the whole platonic loving relationship they seem to have in the book as I relate heavily to that relationship with my best friend who you would think we were lovers from afar but in reality we just love hanging out together and enjoy each others company, plus it'd be cool to see the erasure gone from the film (Along with the disgusting racism of course, but I think that's a given).
Nope. The remakes would flop. They didn't make the original films based on the original sources because those sources were not movie-material. These movie adaptations became cult classics because they deviated from their source materials.
I'm not sure I'd really consider Rebel Without A Cause an adaptation with the book being published after the movie was released. I don't know much about it though with it not being in print anymore and I don't think I've heard anyone even mention it. (Unless I'm missing something or mixing something up.) But I like the idea of a new rendition being open with things that are implied in the movie! And I love the idea of a new film version of Breakfast At Tiffany's that's faithful to the novella, especially as Richard Greenberg's stage production was akin to the novella and not the movie.
I don’t know, I recently read Breakfast at Tiffany’s and I don’t think it would be an enjoyable watch. I disagree with this take actually, I was really surprised by how much Yunioshi racism was in there & it’s pretty rough. I think this video is pretty kind to the source material honestly.
I also think you hit the head of the nail perfectly when you said “people who like Audrey Hepburn in breakfast at Tiffany’s.” She is what has given this movie any kind of staying power for better or for worse. I really enjoyed this video and then going to try to find a copy of Capote’s novella, it seems like a very worthwhile read.
It could definitely take a remake, because the original film was so different to the book it should be possible to see them as different and good (I pretend that Micky Rooney isn't there) and avoid the 'the original was better' trap.
Yeah the filmmakers really effed the movie up. Audrey saved it with her performance alone. The romance doesn’t work. Because Paul is GAY in the book. The original story is more about true friendship than romance. Holly is from Texas. Always roll my eyes when I hear that. No way Audrey Hepburn is believable as a texan. They should have rewrote that. No clue why they didn’t.
George Axelrod’s adapted screenplay was absolutely brilliant. Any studio who wants to make a “faithful” version of Capote’s novella is welcome to try and rake in the big bucks. Since 1962, there have been no takers.
Excellent dissection of book to movie. But I was disappointed you didn't mention two collaborators that made the film iconic - music by Henry Mancini and couture by Givenchy. It certainly didn't hurt that "Moon River" won the Academy Award that year for best song, too -- and the controversy around Hepburn singing it herself. (The producers notoriously wanted to cut it out, to which Miss Hepburn meritoriously replied, "Over my dead body!")
She wanted to do her own singing in My Fair Lady too, but Warner Brothers nixed the idea in favor of Marnie Nixon. I think Audrey Hepburn's voice was perfect for Moon River.
When you have Fifth Avenue, Tiffany's & co, a story based on Truman Capote's novel, Hubert Givenchy's designs, Mancini's melody, and Johnny Mercer's lyrics, Blake Edwards directing, and Audrey starring.... all together, you just forget how good the novel was, and dive into the pleasure fantasy of the movie. I loved the book. I adore the film. A gem on its own.
Holly was basically a Geisha. Paid to make the party fun and make the men feel witty. Though she did not belong to a house and could take all the gifts for herself, which I guess both made her more vulnerable in soem ways and more free in others. Edit: Holly, yes the story of Yunioshi is way worse when you add the context of how they did the marketing!
I think it's a case of them making it so it could be read multiple ways, depending on who is watching, and/or why they are watching it. I have watched it with a critical eye knowing perfectly well what is going on between cuts.... but I prefer to watch it like you say, with the most innocent interpretation possible, just because it feels better that way. It's a brilliantly made film I think because of that ability to read it, not incorrectly, multiple ways and get whatever they want out of it.
YES! Why can't they remake some real classics instead of remaking Spider-Man for the 25th time and rebooting like the same six franchises every couple years. I wish they would get away from comics as source material and focus on classic literature instead. There's nothing wrong with comics and it was a good idea to make movies based off of comics but that's been done to death. There are a million different ones and I'm sick of it. I want rebel without a cause and breakfast at Tiffany's and slaughterhouse five and 1984 and the catcher in the rye and Mrs Dalloway. I wish Hollywood would remake some of these since they insist on remaking franchises instead of coming up with new material. But I doubt these movies will never be made and do you know why? Because they can't be turned into a series and a franchise. That's why these movies will never be made. Hollywood isn't just making movies for the United States and Americans anymore. They don't care how crappy a movie does in America because the sh"tty remakes make millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in the international market particularly in china. So they don't care if it bombs in America. They make an astronomical profit overseas.
@@WhitneyDahlin I can't tell you how many times Hollywood and Britain have remade Little Women and Pride and Prejudice. Because they constantly remake them. Constantly. Stop whining and maybe don't see capeshit (No Way Home was the best movie of 2021).
As someone who lives a similar lifestyle in nyc, I have to say.. the fact that people do not notice her lifestyle & regard her as classy is so… bizarre. It’s glaringly obvious I thought
7:43 I like that the narrator here calls Paul what he is- a sexworker, and not the gendered word or phrase "gigolo" or "kept man". Call a spade a spade, and don't treat men and women differently.
agreed ! i like that quite a bit... Paul's more a sex worker than a writer, as for sure he's gotta be giving it to get all of that in exchange... and he's more of a sex worker than Holly for sure. it's questionable how often the Holly character actually gave it away... and probably only to the cute ones .. that she might have done for free anyway !
I would have loved to have seen a faithful rendition with Marylin Monroe, set in the 1940's with a different designer for the costumes and a Japanese actor for the part of Mr.Yunioshi. I think that it would have let Marylin really show what a good actress she was.
@@Ale-ke5vd seriously? I had no idea it was such a toxic fan base. It’s crazy how they act like the women were at fault for “stealing” from Marylin as if they could have predicted any production issues. I didn’t know Mina lee hated Audrey. I already didn’t agree with a lot of her points but that just sounds unreasonable. How can anyone see Audrey’s breakfast at Tiffany’s performance and dog on it is beyond me.
Absolutely. Before she was even mentioned, I said, " This would have been perfect for Marilyn. But she was so sick by this time bc of all the abuse she had been enduring. All she needed was one serious roll for people to see what she could do but even then, Holly wood just takes..." (And I am neither a massive supporter of either Audrey or Marilyn. I respect them both for who they were and the lives they led.)
*Marie* She didn't want the constraints of any relationship, that's why she got rid of the cat. The most important thing in Holly's life was her independence. *George Costanza* Well, not really. After all, she did get together with George Peppard. I mean, Fred. *Marie* George. . .Fred's gay.
Please make a video about Hilary Swank winning for Boys Don't Cry, her battle with Annette Benning and why her win was so important for independent films and future winners. And the controversy too, why not.
I remember at the time thinking, "Hilary Swank? Wasn't she the next Karate Kid?" Compared to the other actresses nominated that year, I was pleasantly surprised that she won the Oscar.
Whenever I finish a movie, I typically want to come on this website and hear somebody talk about it, and this is exactly the kind of analysis I wanted to see after watching Breakfast at Tiffany's for the first time. Excellent work.
Patricia Neal was on point even on her wost days she was a strong fighter she needs a vids she is also a best actress winner too and deserves more appreciation
A great Patricia Neal performance is A Face in the Crowd! It has Andy Griffith (in his big screen debut!) and it's directed by Elia Kazan. Never heard of it before my history of 50's film class this spring and I'm obsessed! And the theme of the film is so relevant to today's times.
Great discussion on the differences between Hollywood’s sanitised version of the story and Truman Capote’s much edgier and realistic original story. I would love to see Capote’s version of the story made into a movie for audiences in the modern era
I wonder if Audrey was the original Manic Pixie Dream Girl in this film. That came to mind when you used terms like "eccentric dreamer", "innocent" and "ethereal". I've seen this film once and honestly, the yellow face will always be the reason I never watched it again. I'm sure there's a parallel universe where Marilyn played the role the way Capote wanted :-)
I was thinking about this, and I'm not sure if she is one! I need to read about how they're actually defined but my impression was always that they serve to "save" or "enlighten" the boy, which isn't what really happens here since he kind of wrangles her in. I'm curious what other people think tho!
i wouldn't say she was! only bc a female charcater is quirky doesn't mean she automatically is a mpdg. i mean, they only exist to further the male protagonist's character development and never get to be the main character, very surface level. And well in this case, Holly IS the protagonist and she's way more complex to only be a mpdg.
Shirley Maclaine in the Apartment 1969, would go on to work with A Hepburn in the Childrens Hour , and then star in Sweet Charity in 1969 is another early MPDG in my opinion. In both the Apartment and Sweet Charity she is sweet and kooky and has man problems that include not really noticing the sweet guy next door. Not that this is a defining trait for the MPDG role. I think that these characters, Holly Go Lightly and Charity Valentine exist for the audience to fantasize about.
The key part of the manic pixie dream girl is the "dream"; they are a tool, an illusion, an angel and never feel like real people. Always the dream, never the dreamer.
Later in life, Capote talked about wanting to get a movie of his novella made, starring a young Jodie Foster who, during her years obscure films in Europe, reminded him of the character he'd created. Of course, the women upon which he based Holly are a complete mix of streetwise and elegant.
that's not a bad choice at all... Foster has. a boyish quality which Truman wrote about in the book for Holly, a description that has been much overlooked. especially when she was quite young. i do remember now him saying that. that is what is so stunning about Holly, she's so hard to find, that people are still struggling to find an actress after several generations .... i cannot think of anyone that really fits, and i am a huge fan of films and mini series alike...and there are few proposals here. i think many actresses would love to play it , in fact they would probably all fight for it if it ever came up, but who ? maybe the idea for a remake will present itself when an actress comes along that inspires it. Harrison Ford actually made a comment like that about Ryan Gosling, when asked why in earth it took thirty years to sequel Bladerunner, "well Ryan wasn't available before " ( was too young before ) Harrison said that's exactly what came to his mind when the producers proposed the sequel to him, Both he and they were thinking the exact same person. maybe that magic will happen when we get the right actress. truthfully the only people that come to my mind are way european , like french actress Jeanne Balaban, and Holly should really be a bit more american
@@kweejibodali3078 Kristen Stewart also had (has?) a boyish quality, and is queer enough that the literary Holly's various encounters could all seem plausible. I know that she divides audiences, unfairly weighed down by the baggage of some of her early roles, but I happen to think she's phenomenal. This isn't to say that she'd be right for the role (can we see her as either streetwise or elegant? Her sensibilities may simply be too modern for a period piece), but even if she might not be the ideal candidate, I can't think of any other contemporary actress quite like her, which makes her... I don't know, the least worst? I'm just spitballing.
I don't know but Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly haunted me for some time...the early morning walk on 5th ave and moon river score gave me such a big feeling, I can't describe it.
Audrey singing “Moon River” and that adorable, bedraggled cat’s face squished between Paul & Holly (Fred & Ginger?) are the only parts of the movie I’d ever watch again because they make me cry.
I think Elle Fanning would bring the right blend of life-of-the-party girl everyone wants to know (or be) as well as the authenticity of a broken background. Her work in The Great shows she can hold both comedy and drama in the same role, which is exactly what a modern Breakfast at Tiffany's would need.
Liza’s performance works better because 1. Cabaret is a musical with challenging music, and it’s painful to have a bad singer tackle those songs. 2. The performances are part fantasy, so I think it’s a bit how Sally IRL would like to be.
And i would add that in the movie, her dream of excellence is shown as impossible not because she's mediocre as an artist, but because she blends seamlessly into a cheap, worn-down art scene doomed for failure. Its suggested that she may be good, but perhaps no better than the other chorus girls she's introduced with: the only figure allowed to stand out in that place is the master of ceremonies. And then you have her flightiness, and her unconventional "vulgar" looks contrasted with prim upper-class styles. It's made very clear why she can never rise, and it's got nothing to do with her natural talent.
Yes! My answer about Liza’s being “too good” to be Sally is that it’s how Sally sees herself. She’s flighty enough to change personae at the drop of a hat-a movie vamp, the girl next door, Daddy’s Little Girl, the flapper bohemian, the gold digger, the sexual adventuress-so why not the Star of Stage and maybe someday Screen? We don’t really meet Sally without all the trappings until near the end of the move
@@biancachristie So true! And also, from an audience perspective, as someone who has seen the stage show when she's been portrayed by a non-singer...it's just too much music for someone who is not great at singing to get through. I know this is an unpopular opinion to some extent, among some theater people. For me, having to listen to someone "sing badly" is squirmy, even at a kid's school play, much less a professional production.
@@marypagones6073 I think my favorite interpretation of Sally is when she’s played by an obviously very good singer who leans into the acting and takes some of the polish off her voice.
exactly. Capote even acknowledged that himself, as quoted in this video at the end. there's nothing wrong with escapist romantic comedies, and Breakfast at Tiffany's the movie is a fantastic one. the whole "which is better, the movie or the book?" becomes irrelevant because they changed so much in transition to the screen.
Like Kubrick's The Shining. Its nothing like Stephen King's book and the director purposely changed so much in the movie but King still admits its a good movie. Not his book but a good movie.
Also, I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that someone will remake this film within the next ten years. If Hollywood will remake/revise _West Side Story_ (coincidentally, the film that won Best Picture for the year _Breakfast at Tiffany's_ was also Oscar nominated, 1961) a faithful, and possibly darker version of _Breakfast at Tiffany's_ can't be far behind.
Paramount wants to but the Alan Schwartz, who's the Trustee of the Truman Capote Literary Trust is shopping around a TV series and has had offers. At this point it's up to the courts to decide if Paramount sat on the rights for too long and lost them.
The thing is, West Side Story is a musical. It’s not a straight remake of the 1961 movie, but also an adaptation of the stage musical. A lot of people love the stage musical. There is room for interpretation there and for an updated version in 2021. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is wholly iconic because of the film, not the novella. The film and tv industry can make multiple adaptations of well-loved books and novels, but that’s not what Breakfast at Tiffany’s is. Even if the new adaptation is more faithful to the novella, I still think it would live in the shadow of the original film. Especially for the actress who would play Holly Golightly. Not saying it’s impossible that they would make a more accurate adaptation of the novella, but I do think it would be poorly received by most people.
It's hard to imagine any other version of Breakfast at Tiffany's with anyone but Audrey Hepburn... Truman Capote's story and his vision for the screen play would never have translated into a movie that was a box office hit in the 60's... Audrey's performance was what made this work... even if it was a watered down version of the original story... She turned the role of Holly into something magical and iconic.
I agree 100%. I don't care much for the movie, but I can't take my eyes off Audrey Hepburn when she is on the screen. She doesn't qualify as the typical "sex symbol" in my mind, but she does have a magnetism that makes her impossible to ignore, no matter who else is on the screen or what is happening.
@@reikun86 Exactly right. I saw ‘Breakfast At Tiffany’s’ for the first time two years ago on Netflix and I liked the film a lot…. But Yunioshi’s character could’ve been changed (script wise) or scraped😬🤷🏾♂️
It was so common... Charlie Chan, King and I. Even John Wayne played Genghis Khan?! It is less common, but still done - Peter Ustinov, Hugo Weaving, Nicholas Cage... sometimes whitewashed, sometimes yellow faced... But the fake actor for Yunioshi is over the top. 😎
@@TitoTimTravels Peter Ustinov played Charlie Chan!?! Who's idea was that? And Ustinov plays him like Poirot which is just nutty. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It's on youtube for free at the moment. Probably abandoned by studio and God. It's like watching a train wreck being filmed by Uwe Boll while watching Trolls 2. I can't look away. It must be riffed relentlessly. With popcorn.
THANK you for pointing out that the movie version gets so misinterpreted in pop culture. In particular, I think it's interesting that so many people read the ending of the movie as straightforwardly romantic when to me Holly and Paul's entire relationship throughout the movie read as two deeply lonely people choosing to be deeply lonely together. Going off what you said in the video about book Holly believing that she's independent when she's actually just alone, I've always seen Holly and Paul's ending as them making the best of their loneliness by embracing each other. The most romantic ending they can have is to simply be alone together and be as happy as they can about that, and framing it as "belonging to each other" helps them accept that and be able to find happiness in it.
The fear of showing anyone on screen who was not part of the presumed mainstream, along with ‘the code’ made it impossible to film Capote’s story. I’m of the opinion that the people who bought the rights didn’t read Capote’s work. And Peppard made my skin crawl.
If the studio didn't even want to adapt Truman Capote's book in the first place, I never understand why they kept the creepy older husband plot point and the seedier prostitution angle, instead of just making Holly a lonely, aloof girl in an apartment who meets an understanding guy and falls in love for a more straight forward romantic comedy. Peppard is so forceful and possessive that he's too mean to be the romantic lead. They should have cast a gentler, empathetic actor.
@Randy White Damn! I love Tony Curtis, his cheery personality would have been perfect with Audrey Hepburn! Steve McQueen could definitely have pulled off a nice boyfriend type too with his more nuanced style. Why did the studio go with the milquetoast George Peppard?
If you are not in the "mainstream", then you have to die at the end of the movie. Like Miss Saigon (Asian leading lady) and Brokeback Mountain (Gay leading man).
Shirley MacLaine once said about the movie with Audrey, that they never once spoke about the content of the movie or it's implications. She remarked many years later how strange that was. Your content is great--I've been binge watching. There is a great Australian actress who might sit well in your library of amazing talent, named Judy Davis. She did 'My Brilliant Career' which is still one of my favorite movies, and way too many other great movies since to mention.
Judy Davis amazes me with her depth of talent in her channeling of different characters she portrays. I would love to see an installment that looks at her uniqueness.
Oh, I just had the best idea for a modern remake of Breakfast at Tiffany's. It would be structured like the movie Atonement, part is what "really" happened to the characters and part is just the main character's imagination. Real Holly would be Truman's Holly and Imagination Holly would be Audrey's Holly. The narrator imagines that his friend Holly gets a happy ending with their mutual friend Paul.
BRILLIANT!! Im gonna bounce off you and add a third & fourth element to your already brilliant take: Truman Capote during the movie production fighting the studios, coming off as difficult, and then flashbacks of a young Truman Capote’s encounters with the real inspiration(s) of Holly Golightly when he arrives in New York. I always felt Holly was always a little bit of him leaving behind his past in the South and coming to NYC.
excellent... too good. you could write that and pitch that ! i think that would even have. a shot at being made ! considering how huge the original film was , and how people still know it today
I remember when I was a teenager and I first saw this film. I was thinking of it kind of like a gender-flipped "The Great Gatsby". About someone who grew up poor but felt they had to prove themselves to someone/something/themselves through lavishness and felt a kind of dislike towards their past. So I totally get where all of these assumptions of what the film is and what it's about are coming from. Even if it's not like the book, which has more teeth to it. I still like it. It also has one of the best songs in any movie IMO, "Moonriver" which I sing quietly to myself sometimes when I'm working.
You make an interesting point about the parallels with the Great Gatsby. The crucial difference between Gatsby and Holly is that Gatsby did everything specifically to impress and earn the love of Daisy. Holly does it all for herself, and actively shuns relationships. But still, interesting parallel
Regarding the part about Cabaret: I think people who make that criticism are just being obstinate in defense a critique that makes sense on paper and that they’re attached to for whatever reason. I think it’s clear (intuitively even to those unfamiliar with the concept) that her performances aren’t wholly diagetic. I’ve never seen it onstage, but any musical with actual in-story diagetic performances will have that disconnect, where perhaps a character is a poor singer or dancer but the actor is not (Roxie Hart comes to mind). Onstage we accept this absolutely, that the singing and dancing is the medium and not the content, and if a character is performing within the story we accept what we’re told through dialogue about the quality of the (in-story) performance. Anyway that’s a lot of words just to say that basically I think people criticizing Liza’s performance are just looking for something to bitch about
If anyone ever did adapt it faithfully it really could not succeed with the name Breakfast at Tiffany's. Most of the audience wouldn't give it fair consideration, it would be impossible to separate from the first adaptation. You'd almost have to disguise it in order to be faithful to the book.
That would actually be a good idea to name it something else but films nowadays also rely on media buzz to become successful so once people learn of the adaptation they may become skeptical.
Goodbye to Berlin is definitely worth a read - in fact I'd recommend reading it along with Breakfast at Tiffany's. I heard that Capote had originally got the idea of Holly Golightly from reading Isherwood's work. They both end with the protagonist disappearing from the author's life - Holly in Africa and Sally in Rome. The wonderful twist to Goodbye to Berlin is that the real Sally Bowles read it and got back in touch with Isherwood!
Its 2023, and as it feels we are on the cusp of another World War, just like the Weimar Republic of Isherwood's novel- a true remake of Goodbye To Berlin would be really appropriate right now. American society in 2023 is Germany's Weimar era.
I'm normally someone who is not particulary sensitive to classical potrays of racial stereotypes, and I really enjoy the film as an Audrey Hepburn rom-com, but Mr.Yunioshi is SO disrespectful and unfunny to an extent where it truly would be an infinite better film without him in it.
I keep forgetting he is in it. When I picture the movie... his scenes are happily missing. It really seemed like they took 2 different movies and just cut them together. Regardless of any racial issues (and there are many), it was just so poorly done.
@@Ohboycommentsection Unfortunately… he clearly didn’t feel that way at the time. He and his roommate seemed to think it was SO funny that they marketed the whole movie on their racist frat boy joke.
Though I’d be interested in a faithful adaptation of the movie, if a studio made a new film now, it would absolutely 100% be a remake of the Hepburn film version. The film’s reputation has definitely eclipsed that of the novella within the popular consciousness, and I just can’t see any studio resisting the urge to simply recreate iconic moments from the film. And imperfect though it may be (my god, how I wish that Rooney-less cut of the film actually existed), I do love the film as its own entity, independent of the novella. I don’t need a new version of THAT story.
Beautifully researched, as always! Capote reportedly told Broadway actress Tammy Grimes that he wrote Holly with her in mind, among others I assume. It makes sense: the self invention, the mysterious aura. Audrey even uses the word “kook,” which was often assigned to Tammy.
When I read the book neither Audrey or Marilyn really make me think of Holly. Edie Sedgwick is the one person who seems to me to be exactly like the book character in every way. She would have been completely perfect, more than any other actress I can think of. Of course she wasn't yet famous when the movie was made, but it's too bad it couldn't have been her.
I have to disagree with you on this. Holly had her roots in hillbilly culture and it kept her striving for better things -- it was really the most endearing thing about her, the impoverished childhood. Now, I adore Edie, always have, but I don't believe she would have been able to pull this off. It would have reeked of inauthenticity. Coming from one of the most distinguished families in America, and living in the present day as a glamorous debutante, Edie wouldn't have been able to (and probably wouldn't have wanted to) play someone so completely different from herself. Edie had a patrician air that couldn't be erased, or supplanted with anything else -- she was an aristocrat, through and through. Even in her most dodgy moments, she was still a Sedgwick, first and foremost, and I don't believe that any amount of acting classes could have changed this -- certainly not enough to make her the social climber with the humble beginnings that is Holly.
This is actually a really inspired casting idea! Her mix of warmth, sex appeal and childlike vulnerability (not unlike Capote’s ideal Holly, Marilyn) would have worked perfectly. Such an underrated talent.
I genuinely yelped in excitement when you mentioned Splendor in the Grass- so underrated and truly one of my favorite movies. On a related note, now I'm convinced Natalie Wood could've played Holly Golightly and will spend the next two months daydreaming about this.
Audrey Hepburn is one of those rare actresses who not only can get away with the role they are miscast for, but actually make it ICONIC. This and her Eliza Doolittle are exactly those. Plus, it doesn't hurt that she elevates anything that anyone makes her wear. Grace Kelly makes clothes look lovely and elegant. Audrey effortlessly makes even the most raggedy outfits look classy and expensive.
That’s very true it’s interesting in the case of my fair lady bc given how excellent Julie andrews in the original Broadway version it could’ve been another case Hollywood movie star trying to recapture Broadway talent but Audrey was not that
this is an amazing analysis of the novella adaptation thankyou so much this is an incredible video, such in depth research you really captured everything. Thankyou
totally not agree. Audrey was magical in it. It had not much to do with the book, but Audrey was adorable as she always was. George Peppard was totally wrong for the leading man. Not enough talent. Not enough charisma. This movie has very little to do with the book. Truman wrote it with Marilyn Monroe in mind. But this movie goes way beyond the costumes.
@@ClashGamerGTA Yes, it was. I once read that some genius wanted to cut Moon River out of the movie. And then Audrey said: When that song is cut, I walk out. It was JFK's favorite song, by the way.
@@normadesmond6017 Yes, I also read that. This is often the case. Can you imagine that they wanted to cut out "somewhere over the rainbow" of "the wizzard of oz"? So crazy
Gloria in Sunset Blvd. Judy in A Star is Born. Marilyn in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Would have been an excellent triumvirate of film! I love and appreciate Audrey's work here; SHE carried the film and her involvement is what makes it a classic. Like many others, I still wonder what could have been... Also, I have never read the book, but it has been ordered--it's now one I definitely want to read! Based on the film, I don't think I ever would have considered it for the list. Thank you for another outstanding video!
'In Cold Blood' is one of the best books ever written in America. It is timeless, spellbinding and made him famous and rich. The movie is superb and is a successful interpretation of the book.
Not going to lie I was one of those that had the movie poster. Audrey Hepburn was one of my favorite actresses, not just because of her movies but because she was a good person. I am proud I named my oldest daughter after her. Great video. ❤
You are one of the best RUclips essayists by far along with the likes of contrapoints, Lindsay Ellis, Mina lee and Moderngurlz, seriously, just brilliant. Also, it’s quite interesting to notice that two of Audrey Hepburn’s most iconic roles (Holy and Elizabeth Doolittle) were meant for other actresses, wow this industry!
I’m gay but I didn’t mind the heteronormativity of the movie cuz I think any gay would swoon at Paul Varjak’s character - gay or straight. As for Holly, they made her so iconic that it’s a little difficult to dismiss Hepburn as the character despite being different to how it was written in the novella. That said, there’s no saving Mr Yunioshi.
Really enjoyed this video and am sure that further adaptation comparisons would be super interesting. Cabaret/Goodbye To Berlin sounds like such an apt comparison, except in Cabaret, the queerness is celebrated rather than erased
You have the best speaking voice I've ever heard. My favorite part was your reading of the Screen writer rejection. Please have save and wonderful journeys!
Remember to put this movie in the timeframe in which it is made. The movie was made 16 years after the end of World War II, and Americans were still pretty pissed off about Pearl Harbor. Therefore very few people in the audience would have considered Andy Rooney’s portrayal as being racist, just comedic. Remember the movie Back to the Future? The 1955 version of Doc Brown says a gadget is “junk” because it was made in Japan, and the 1985 version of Marty tells him that “all the best stuff made in Japan.” The 1955 Doc Brown was being true to the era. I’m not saying racism is good. I am saying to accept movies for the way they are. Don’t expect 21st century standards In a mid 20th century movie.
@@Hayseo I agree with you, but i also think that saying this shit is worse than i thought (because look, this type of caricature is nothing new and hell, was still done in the 90s) is valid, because it's not just about the part in the film, it's about the whole PR strategy, which i previously had no idea happened. I agree that saying 'oh LORD those people in the 50S, what ANIMALS', is counterproductive. However i could still be amazed at the length of racist shenanigans they actually went to back then. And political context doesn't exactly make it better, since such practices existed even before WWII and still existed in the 80s, when back to the future came out, specifially Japanese were framed as an existential threat to America (but now not in a militaristic way, but in a capitalist one)
Thank you for referring me to "Fifth Avenue, 5 A.M." I was nine when it was released and saw it first when I was 11 and by then the subversions described by Mr. Wasson had already been absorbed into the mainstream. The book certainly raised my consciousness and enhanced my enjoyment of the movie. Thank you again.
I like both Hollies for different,yet same reasons honestly.I`ve read the novella twice and watched the movie...too many times to count.I`m of the opinion that both Capote`s and Audrey`s Holly Golightlys can exist and thrive in the minds of the audience. At the same time,I`d be so open to a new adaptation.
You just had to bring up Splendor in the Grass..."Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendor in the grass, glory in the flower. We will grieve not, rather find strength in what remains behind." Such a heavy movie. I was convinced that Natalie Wood wasn't acting.
I love everything about this movie! The music, the acting, the atmosphere. The story is great and I can almost relate to. The love story in this movie is not cringe (and this is for the first time I’m seeing a love story not being cringy)
Well I’m honestly shocked there hasn’t been more movie adaptations over the years, which kind of proves how iconic this movie has become. Like you said the criticisms of the movie are obvious, but also what kind of makes the movie what it is as enjoyable as it is
This reminds a lot of how people see the Great Gatsby, the glamour and the imagery of his lavish parties have eclipsed the essence of the story of the broken American dream. Still, I'm on the who cares, so what side
I felt so bitter for Patricia Neal's character!! I know i'm bound to suffer when i watch a classic and root for these "older", financially independent women who don't seek romantic ideals and aren't bound to other characters arcs, but alas, they always get the short thrift 😤
i'm all for the older bit seeing as i am ten years older than my partner, but i think the fact that she's paying for him makes her less sympathetic. i think it makes a good touch for the story, but.... and she wears it all a bit hard edged
Astute analysis! I love your work, Be Kind Rewind. I'm hoping you could continue tackling classic films that were drastically reworked when adapted from their literary source material, like perhaps the 1001 film adaptations of Pride and Prejudice and such?
I think Sherilyn Fenn would have been a great Holly Golightly in a 90s adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany's. To me she's always been like a brunette Marilyn, especially as Audrey Horne in Twin Peaks.
This was a great video. Breakfast at Tiffany's is a film that I needed to watch around 5 times till I admitted that I liked it. Not because I had read the book. I hadn't. I simply didn't like the story. But I watched it because I wanted to undertake why it was so popular. When I watched it the first time, I already watched Roman Holiday, Sabrina, My Fair Lady-i liked Audrey Hepburn by that point. But didn't understand the lasting obsession with it. I knew it was badly adapted from Truman Capote's book and changed pretty much everything integral to the book story. So that made me skeptical of the film. But eventually I just ended up liking the movie.
As a kid, the only thing I knew about this movie was that all my friends loved it, and that it had an iconic poster. I wish i had known more than that when I finally saw it, because I was absolutely devastated by the racist yellow face in it. I will never ever be able to get past that enough to watch this film again, but I love all of your work and I am glad I watched this. Like everything you do, it was very well done.
Literally no older film would be watched if we upheld if unwatchable by one terrible scene, actor, director, etc as they ALL have them. This one is just in our face obvious now.
@@shannond7437I doubt that fact eases her devastation. There's a huge difference between bad actor/director/script and blatant racism for the fun of it. I won't watch The Jazz Singer anytime soon. The feelings of non-white people has never been a concern in Hollywood. To this day, Hollywood movies are made to appeal primarily to white audiences at everyone else's expense.
@@myathegrandmalol ok but if you knew anything about the actor you would know he did much worse things than this. Sorry but I’m keeping it real, you can point out the obvious, but that does the mean the other 20 that did not get the same attention didn’t happen.
I had always heard that the book was very different but never cared to look into it. The nuances surrounding each story are just fascinating. Great video!
We would've gotten a Marilyn Monroe Holly Golightly in a world where Monroe wasn't treated so badly she'd be okay to work on a set. I would've been interested to see how Jane Russell could've pulled it off, too. It's a similar type to what she got, but it would be interesting to see her as more sweet than sassy. That being said, a modern-day actress in Elliot's script... I think a lot of people would say that Anya Taylor-Joy or Saoirse Ronan could pull off such a character study. I will say that I think ageing up Holly isn't a bad idea in general, a lot of teen girls are sexualised too much in the media. And even though she's nineteen, legally an adult... I still feel like a kid at twenty-one. And like, that 'eleven lovers' line is really disturbing because she's just so young... some of these relationships must've happened when she was underage.
I don't know, I feel like casting S or A would pressent the same problem as casting Audrey, they're too much in control of themselves in a very natural way to play someone who had to "learn" how to do it. Maybe a newcomer?
There’s no one as natural and raw as Marilyn nowadays. If she tried really hard, the 2021 Kristen Stewart would be an INTERESTING take. But def not saoirse because she’s almost sexless in the way she acts Altho a FANTASTIC actress. They need an almost Edie Sedgwick modern day version of holy. A grl who is unaware she’s unaware, vulnerable, loveable, lost. No one too self aware or serious, which Jane and Saoirse would be.
@@BlushGush exactly. Remember she's a child bride from rural Texas, not a mousy librarian. Marilyn would have worked perfectly because of her "just a girl from Little Rock" essence carefully concealed behind a facade of glamour and naive dashes of French. Both S and A are too obviously cerebral imho. You want the glamour to feel a touch acted and false, not the humble background.
If Marilyn had played Holly, I don't think the film would have the legacy it does. Part of what works IS the contradiction, that this Holly has so many layers, so many elements that don't make sense. She isn't deliberate about her sexuality, or even understands it, she just sort of flits through her life and and chips seem to fall in a certain way for her so she's learned to take advantage. She's kind of the original manic pixie dream girl. On first viewing somewhere in high school, I thought a MALE escort being kept and paid for by an older woman was terribly progressive for the time, knowing nothing about the novella. Even now, that paradigm fails to come up much in mainstream film.
Another stellar installment on your channel. It points to the fact that too many times, the movie (if popular) becomes the standard, eclipsing the actual literary merits of the original. It reminds me of how so many movie fans decried Todd Haynes' adaptation of James M. Cain's MILDRED PIERCE, going so far as to say he made a "travesty" of the material... such as leaving out the murder. Except that, if anyone actually read the James M. Cain novel, there is no murder in the book - that was an invention by the screenwriter Ranald MacDougall! What Haynes actually did was similar to what Fassbinder did with BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ and (of course) Erich von Stroheim tried to do with GREED - take a novel and film it as faithfully as possible! Practically word for word. But since most movie fans seem to be subliterate, who reads? But i love two facts you uncovered: how the first screenplay by Sumner Locke Elliott was a "faithful" adaptation of the novella, but the producers were bewildered (pointing out that they hadn't read the material they bought). And i love how you explain how Blake Edwards (in cahoots with Mickey Rooney) went beserk with the Mr. Yuniyoshi character. Blake Edwards seemed to love the idea of a sexually frustrated, slapstick character with an accent: it was also the character of Inspector Clouseau, and also the bewildered Indian extra in THE PARTY (both played by Peter Sellers). If i might be so bold: Blake Edwards was "for hire" on BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, it wasn't a personal project. And Edwards was very aware of how precarious his position was: he was the second director on the film, after John Frankenheimer was fired for wanting to film the screenplay that had been written by George Axelrod (and which was closer to the actual intentions of the novella) but Audrey Hepburn kept demanding changes which softened the character of Holly, but Frankenheimer didn't go along with the changes, so out he went. (Though Frankenheimer and Axelrod had the last laugh: they would collaborate - without ANY softening - on THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.) So Edwards wanted to put his "stamp" on the film, and he couldn't do it in any of the storylines involving Holly, so he got Mickey Rooney (whom he had already worked with in the past, on movies like DRIVE A CROOKED ROAD and OPERATION MAD BALL, which Edwards wrote) and that was the way Edwards would make his mark on the movie.
It’s interesting, even at 16 or 17, I knew that the beginning of BaT, when Holly was looking through the windows of Tiffany’s, I KNEW she just came back from a night with a man, no other reason. But also, maybe that’s cause I grew up in Vegas with little left to the imagination 🤣
But who would dare to call her a "****".!!!! Much too elegant but to picture her as a party girl, is closer. Which if M.M. had played that role, people would have thought "what else is new"!!!!
This is one of your best videos. Like Capote said, the 1961 film of Breakfast at Tiffany’s is its own creation that is all well and good, but not the book he wrote. I would love to see the book be made in the early 1970s instead of 60s, that would’ve been such a delight!
This film is actually one of my favourite film because of Audrey's portrayal of Holly, ironically. To me she's was a depressed girl, who latches on to materials as a means to escape and create an armour. And the fact that she's was seen as this glamorous, eccentric woman despite her lack of stability and unhappiness really hit me home. I'm used to people dismissing my problems by branding me as an eccentric person, even when I'm trying to have an honest conversation about them. Also, it was always obvious to me that she was some kind off call girl, but can definitely understand why people would miss that about her character. However I would have loved to have seen a version with Marylin. There's also a French film called Priceless (Hors de Prix) with Audrey Tautou (Amélie). To me it's kind off a contemporary BaT. It's very a good film and the female protagonist is more similar to the original Holly. Although it is still a het romance.
i do still wonder what it would have looked like with Marilyn Monroe as the lead, like Truman Capote wanted! another classic that took a persona similar to hers but treated the character with gravitas is The Apartment, which cast Shirley McClaine instead. but directors just didn't want to take Monroe seriously really
I would of loved to see Monroe in this role, but at the same time, knowing what was happening with her during this time in her life....I don't think it would of been a wise choice.
Maclaines not a bad choice, though i love Marilyn much more. I know Truman adored Marilyn, but she's not really what comes to mind when i read the book, it would have definitely been a stunning other version.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
15:04 “Hollys tragedy is that she believes she’s independent when really, she’s just alone” OUCH this hit me hard
tbh even i said ouch when i wrote that lol
Potentially avoiding thee great compromise
This takes a new meaning for me as a single woman living in NYC 🗽
This line gave me big Joni Mitchell vibes- you could say Holly is “on a lonely road... looking for the key to set [her] free” or that “she’s too busy being free” or she “loves her lovin but not like she loves her freedom”. In both Tiffany’s and Mitchell’s work, that longing for freedom is what holds her down, you’d think it would be the opposite but it’s her tragic flaw.
Everyone: oof
Capote's ending: the narrator expressing he wishes he could tell Holly he found her one eyed cat having found a home and seeing him looking out of the window of a seemingly nice apartment is so beautiful
I love Audrey as Holly and, as you said, the movie is what it is 100% because of her. However, with everything we know about Marilyn, imagining her standing at the doors of Tiffany with a hopeful glint in her eyes as she dreams of a better life... Idk man I just wanna cry
Marilyn would have been... just perfect for the role.
@@lissiz3432 she would have been herself
It probably could’ve been her best role, I just wish I could see a photograph with both Marilyn and Audreyw
I agree. Marilyn had the perfect tone of vulnerability for that character. I tend to think that the heaviness beneath her bubbly blond persona (probably the reason that Capote wanted her) could have absorbed too much of the film. That opening scene with Marilyn would have definitely tasted of a lonely and unglamorous morning after. It just would have been a different film. Maybe someone should make it now, as a character piece.
Wow. I never considered that. What a beautiful imagery! Her soulful eyes as Holly has stories to tell; has seen things in this life; she’s a survivor. Audrey is beloved beyond measure, but Marilyn as Holly Golightly would have given the groundedness to the adaptation. Marilyn as Holly telling Doc “I’m just not Lulu Mae anymore” would have broken my heart. Thank you for sparking such an intriguing image for me.
My older sisters saw this movie on dates and loved it. Everybody talked about it, young girls tried to be Holly, with the guitar and the shades and the insouciance. But my uncle was furious about it, and with good reason. My aunt and cousin were Japanese American, and my aunt had been in Manzanar. I remember a big blowup with my uncle storming out of the kitchen. Mother told us not to discuss the movie with him. When I finally saw Breakfast at Tiffany's I too loved the romance of it, but thanks to my uncle I looked twice at Mickey Rooney, and today it makes me sick. I read the book; the Japanese photographer upstairs is a man of talent and dignity, far more believable than Rooney's grotesque caricature. It's a real blight on what would have been a good movie.
Just looking at Audrey Hepburn is enough for me
You need to get over yourself
@@colleenconger5265 For those of us of "a certain age", it's Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Of the tail end of that age I tend to add American Graffitti to that list. What else should be on it?
I can't show the movie to the Asians in my family they will be VERY offended by the Mickey Rooney bit. Otherwise a good movie. Maybe just skip the first scenes.
@@ivangreen3995 I'm Asian and when I first saw the movie, I wasn't offended (distracted by Audrey's beauty and the awesome Moon River song) and I understand that movies need comedic relief regardless of race. But at the time I didn't even realize that a white actor was playing the character, and also knowing the marketing campaign behind that definitely spoils it for me. This was clearly racist. Mind you, I'm usually one of those conservatives who often sigh at the overtly sensitive liberal politically correct stuff.
What I find astonishing is the idea of Patricia Neal as an “older woman”, even though she’s only three years older than Audrey Hepburn and two years older than George Peppard.
Astonishing? people in tv shows, target to teens, where parents are in their 30's and the kids are in their 20's, portreying 14 or 15 years old hischoolers.This is going on forever.Older women in entreteinment are doomed.
she was?? must be the costuming and make up, she looks at least 10 years older than them!
@@paillette2010 Only?
Anne Bancroft would like a word. 🎶so here's to you🎶...
Angela Lansbury played Laurence Harvey’s mother in The Manchurian Candidate and she was younger than him. Same with Eileen Herlie as Laurence Olivier’s mother in Hamlet. Nina Foch as the seemingly older woman in An American in Paris was younger than Gene Kelly. And Ann Bancroft in The Graduate was, I forget, only 7 or 8 years older than Dustin Hoffman. This kind of thing was very common.
"The Powder Room" was about birth control.
The diaphragm can be put into place up to 2 hours before sex. If her sugar daddy of the evening gave her powder room money (ladies room), she would put in the diaphragm in anticipation of an encounter.
It was more common then for there to be a maid in the ladies room whom one might tip, but not $50 (the equivalent of about $500 today).
So, asking for the money is "code" for "are we doing it?". If he gives her money, she puts in the diaphragm. Is she tipping the ladies room maid to stay quiet?
@@2degucitas It's not code. She isn't sending a signal so much as she is requesting payment in advance. Also, none of that money is for the washroom attendant, hush or otherwise. There is an attendant, however, so in this way anyone looking on from the restaurant, bar, or club might assume the innocence of or at least allow themselves to explain away the exchange of cash between a man and his unmarried escort (date).
In "Goodfellas", when Ginger asks for money for the powder room, is given $50 by Ace, and later gives a bs answer why there isn't any change, it's more cut a dried and without question who is getting what for what.
Saffron, thank you. As wise in the way of the world that I am, I can also be as dense as the next guy.
I think this is a classic example of the movie not being better or worse, but just completely different and that's OK. The emotional payoff at the end with the cat is worth it, IMHO, and it's hard to imagine an Audrey Hepburn film without a happy ending. It's ironic that the other film she made at this time - "the Children's Hour" - is far more daring, even if the director did cut out a lot of the play, and was one of the films that effectively ended the Hayes Code. (Spoiler) her character also doesn't end up in a happy place - the ending is very ambiguous. It includes, however, the finest bit of acting I think Hepburn ever put on film, at the moment of tragedy.
Robin & Marian has a sad ending. RIP Richard Harris and Sean Connery
Didn't both Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn push for the original ending to the film? Actresses have a long history of this, like Jessica Lange fighting to include the incest/sexual abuse of Patsy Cline's by her biological father, Glenn Close fighting for an accurate representation of a woman with BPD/C-PTSD/DID in Fatal Attraction instead of the murder mess they made of a "single white female" BS stereotype of ~all womEn Are CraaaZy~ (clearly invented by men at the dawn of time, no thanks to Freud, the asshole) and used in the film? SO many more examples....
I found The Children's Hour on youtube years ago and I was shocked that they were able to make that when they did, obligatory tragic ending or not
@@ImnotassweetasIusedtobe Oooh. Alex having BPD instead of OLD or ROCD sounds really compelling (I'm not sure how much it was discussed during the 80's.)
It's hard to believe that they were considering Gilda Radner instead of Glenn Close because they thought that Glenn Close couldn't play sexy.
Oh god her performance in children's hour is phenomenal. Her and Shirley MacLaine played off each other brilliantly, I actually can't think of another film where she has an extended scene partnered with a woman besides Kay Thompson in funny face and that's very succinct.
If any film cries out for a REMAKE, it’s this one. Imagine the possibilities. Why hasn’t it been considered? And, of course, it should be as close to the book as possible. Another great episode!
Just wanted to acknowledge the great cabaret reference of “who cares, so what” when comparing the casting of Audrey as Holly and Liza as Sally
true fans know!!!!
Fabulous meta reference!
I started singing after that. Perfectly placed reference
@ and the sun will rise and the moon will set and you learn how to settle for what you get…
@@vanessadalpiaz6423 It would all go on, if we're here or not...
I'm having a hard time feeling Audrey Hepburn was miscast. Yes she often did a sort of cinderella effect, but that happened in the book too, it just predates her meeting the author. I always feel like My Fair Lady and Breakfast at Tiffany's depicted the same sort of person, just at different times of their transformation and in different eras/locales. Interestingly, both have a close queer male character that at the last second is expected to have a romantic involvement with her. I think Audrey would have portrayed the LGBTQ positive Holly Golightly in the book well if she had gotten that script and the hollywood censors had allowed it.
Audrey. Not that it's important. But it's Audrey.
@@randomfornow you are correct. Thank you
Thats the problem. There is no romance in the story. Paul is gay and Holly is Bisexual in the book. I don’t think its a coincidence that the weakest element of the film is the “Romance” or lack there of. Because it was shoehorned into the plot by the filmmakers. Its supposed to be story of friendship not romance.
Audrey Hepburn could have definitely done a film closer to the book. It would have probably been a way better movie. Instead we got a mediocre movie with a Great filmsaving performance by Audrey Hepburn.
@Randy White Eh came off more gay than Bi in the book to me. Also Truman Capote based the character on himself. Without question Capote was gay.
Fun fact: Truman Capote wanted to play the Paul character himself.
I'm hugely confused as to who the close queer male character in My Fair Lady is supposed to be. (Higgins wasn't. There is a stab at awkward romance in the original play, too, only unlike in the musical, it's not resolved.)
I've never known Marilyn was a candidate for Holly. She would have been perfect. But I still love Audrey's Holly. She's truly iconic in her own way.
Audrey’s real life story is by far a more fascinating one than the book, movie, or any other the other actors!
True. Wish I could go to the multiverse with that timeline where Marilyn was Holly.
Audrey Hepburn is also perfect. Nobody deny the fact that Marilyn Monroe is a good actress. Call me crazy but I just can't imagine if Holly Golightly is not played by Audrey Hepburn
Capote was friends with Marilyn Monroe. I recall reading in Gerald Clarke's biography that Capote had actually written the story with Marilyn in mind for any potential film adaptation.
I love her performance too. I just wish it was in a different movie that fit the character. Everything in the movie you can tell it was meant for someone else.
Audrey is the only good thing in the movie.
Forgot to mention, Moon River. Her version makes me feel like everything is going to be okay. 💜
I hate that song (I understand why people like it though, just saying it's not the kind of music I like) but I watched this video yesterday and I've had the song stuck in my head. It is definitely catchy.
@@michaeldebellis4202 On it's own l didn't get the song until "Holly" sang it. Audrey was not allowed to sing in other movies like My Fair Lady. She finally got her chance here. Apparently they suggested deleting it from the final cut but she put up a fight and it stayed. I'm glad she sang it. I dislike the operatic sound of the singers she had to lip sync in other movies.
@@heidibee501 Yes, it really does fit the revised more wholesome but still kind of stretching proprietary limits for that time. Audrey Hepburn was just IMO in a class by herself. She had such grace and charm and beauty. There was one line I never got until this last time when it was stuck in my head: "Huckleberry friend". I think it means as in Huckleberry Finn and Jim. Two drifters just heading down the beautiful river turning their backs on the traditions and morality of the time. (Huck thought he was doing the wrong thing by helping an escaped slave but he did it anyway, love that book)
The irony about Mr. Yunioshi is that when I watched this for the first time, I was interested in seeing Mickey Rooney, unaware of his actual role. I kept waiting and waiting, trying to figure out where he was.
I figured maybe it was a small cameo appearance. But I also kept seeing this really obnoxious slapstick Asian character reappear. Then all of a sudden, I got this sinking feeling.....
You could've knocked me over with a feather when I figured it out. 🙃😵🙃
Same here. It took me several viewings and then when I found out....🤦 all I remember was that character was so over the top and annoying, with little humor.
Same. I'm not sure if the makeup department should get an award or be thrown out an airlock. Maybe just throw the director out an airlock.
90% of those Micky Rooney scenes could be cut in the original and nothing would be truly lost plot nor tone wise. It very much distracts and afterwards is mostly forgettable.
@@Fickji it really ruins the film :( it’s so sad
The annoying thing is if they had just let him play an obnoxious obviously white male landlord it wouldn’t have cost the film any comedic affect.
I always imagine Pat Morita in the role. Thats how I get through the awfulness of that scene.
Joe Gillis says in Sunset Boulevard: “I wrote a film about Okies in the Dust Bowl. When it came out it was all set on a torpedo boat.”
too good
It would be cool to see studios remake “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”, “Rebel Without a Cause”, etc. But make them faithful to the source material with the more mature themes.
Absolutely! I really think it's just about the best way. And let's be honest, studios are not shy of remakes now days and especially cult favorites.
I never realized how much I wanted to see that until now! I really love the whole platonic loving relationship they seem to have in the book as I relate heavily to that relationship with my best friend who you would think we were lovers from afar but in reality we just love hanging out together and enjoy each others company, plus it'd be cool to see the erasure gone from the film (Along with the disgusting racism of course, but I think that's a given).
I wanna see an a24 breakfast at tiffanys so bad
Nope. The remakes would flop.
They didn't make the original films based on the original sources because those sources were not movie-material. These movie adaptations became cult classics because they deviated from their source materials.
I'm not sure I'd really consider Rebel Without A Cause an adaptation with the book being published after the movie was released. I don't know much about it though with it not being in print anymore and I don't think I've heard anyone even mention it. (Unless I'm missing something or mixing something up.) But I like the idea of a new rendition being open with things that are implied in the movie! And I love the idea of a new film version of Breakfast At Tiffany's that's faithful to the novella, especially as Richard Greenberg's stage production was akin to the novella and not the movie.
I don’t know, I recently read Breakfast at Tiffany’s and I don’t think it would be an enjoyable watch. I disagree with this take actually, I was really surprised by how much Yunioshi racism was in there & it’s pretty rough. I think this video is pretty kind to the source material honestly.
I also think you hit the head of the nail perfectly when you said “people who like Audrey Hepburn in breakfast at Tiffany’s.” She is what has given this movie any kind of staying power for better or for worse. I really enjoyed this video and then going to try to find a copy of Capote’s novella, it seems like a very worthwhile read.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s is my comfort movie but I wished they made a version true to Truman Capotes book.
If done today, it would be criticized to no end.
@@amuletk That's true.
It could definitely take a remake, because the original film was so different to the book it should be possible to see them as different and good (I pretend that Micky Rooney isn't there) and avoid the 'the original was better' trap.
There was a Broadway play starring Emilia Clarke that was a much, much closer adaptation to the book
Yeah the filmmakers really effed the movie up. Audrey saved it with her performance alone.
The romance doesn’t work. Because Paul is GAY in the book. The original story is more about true friendship than romance.
Holly is from Texas. Always roll my eyes when I hear that. No way Audrey Hepburn is believable as a texan. They should have rewrote that. No clue why they didn’t.
George Axelrod’s adapted screenplay was absolutely brilliant. Any studio who wants to make a “faithful” version of Capote’s novella is welcome to try and rake in the big bucks. Since 1962, there have been no takers.
Excellent dissection of book to movie. But I was disappointed you didn't mention two collaborators that made the film iconic - music by Henry Mancini and couture by Givenchy. It certainly didn't hurt that "Moon River" won the Academy Award that year for best song, too -- and the controversy around Hepburn singing it herself. (The producers notoriously wanted to cut it out, to which Miss Hepburn meritoriously replied, "Over my dead body!")
She wanted to do her own singing in My Fair Lady too, but Warner Brothers nixed the idea in favor of Marnie Nixon. I think Audrey Hepburn's voice was perfect for Moon River.
@@reikun86 right? it fits her character. and imo at least pre-transformation in "mfl" her real voice would've fit the character too.
Maybe that could be the next BKR video?🙏
I liked her singing tho. It fits her character perfectly
Exactly, Audrey's posture with Hubert's style made it atemporal!
When you have Fifth Avenue, Tiffany's & co, a story based on Truman Capote's novel, Hubert Givenchy's designs, Mancini's melody, and Johnny Mercer's lyrics, Blake Edwards directing, and Audrey starring.... all together, you just forget how good the novel was, and dive into the pleasure fantasy of the movie.
I loved the book. I adore the film. A gem on its own.
Holly was basically a Geisha. Paid to make the party fun and make the men feel witty. Though she did not belong to a house and could take all the gifts for herself, which I guess both made her more vulnerable in soem ways and more free in others.
Edit: Holly, yes the story of Yunioshi is way worse when you add the context of how they did the marketing!
Ohayou Arigatou does not even make sense translated. "Good morning Thank you."
I think it's a case of them making it so it could be read multiple ways, depending on who is watching, and/or why they are watching it. I have watched it with a critical eye knowing perfectly well what is going on between cuts.... but I prefer to watch it like you say, with the most innocent interpretation possible, just because it feels better that way. It's a brilliantly made film I think because of that ability to read it, not incorrectly, multiple ways and get whatever they want out of it.
YES! Why can't they remake some real classics instead of remaking Spider-Man for the 25th time and rebooting like the same six franchises every couple years. I wish they would get away from comics as source material and focus on classic literature instead. There's nothing wrong with comics and it was a good idea to make movies based off of comics but that's been done to death. There are a million different ones and I'm sick of it. I want rebel without a cause and breakfast at Tiffany's and slaughterhouse five and 1984 and the catcher in the rye and Mrs Dalloway. I wish Hollywood would remake some of these since they insist on remaking franchises instead of coming up with new material. But I doubt these movies will never be made and do you know why? Because they can't be turned into a series and a franchise. That's why these movies will never be made. Hollywood isn't just making movies for the United States and Americans anymore. They don't care how crappy a movie does in America because the sh"tty remakes make millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in the international market particularly in china. So they don't care if it bombs in America. They make an astronomical profit overseas.
@@WhitneyDahlin I can't tell you how many times Hollywood and Britain have remade Little Women and Pride and Prejudice. Because they constantly remake them. Constantly. Stop whining and maybe don't see capeshit (No Way Home was the best movie of 2021).
As someone who lives a similar lifestyle in nyc, I have to say.. the fact that people do not notice her lifestyle & regard her as classy is so… bizarre. It’s glaringly obvious I thought
7:43 I like that the narrator here calls Paul what he is- a sexworker, and not the gendered word or phrase "gigolo" or "kept man". Call a spade a spade, and don't treat men and women differently.
agreed ! i like that quite a bit... Paul's more a sex worker than a writer, as for sure he's gotta be giving it to get all of that in exchange...
and he's more of a sex worker than Holly for sure. it's questionable how often the Holly character actually gave it away... and probably only to the cute ones .. that she might have done for free anyway !
Exactly, this narrator woman is a sexist liberal
That deep breath you took... I felt so much sympathy. You unpacked that perfectly.
I would have loved to have seen a faithful rendition with Marylin Monroe, set in the 1940's with a different designer for the costumes and a Japanese actor for the part of Mr.Yunioshi. I think that it would have let Marylin really show what a good actress she was.
Audrey was perfect. Not sure why all of a sudden people hate her.
Nobody hates her. But Marylin is naturally more like Holly @@SocialExperiment232
@@Ale-ke5vd seriously? I had no idea it was such a toxic fan base. It’s crazy how they act like the women were at fault for “stealing” from Marylin as if they could have predicted any production issues. I didn’t know Mina lee hated Audrey. I already didn’t agree with a lot of her points but that just sounds unreasonable. How can anyone see Audrey’s breakfast at Tiffany’s performance and dog on it is beyond me.
Absolutely. Before she was even mentioned, I said, " This would have been perfect for Marilyn. But she was so sick by this time bc of all the abuse she had been enduring. All she needed was one serious roll for people to see what she could do but even then, Holly wood just takes..." (And I am neither a massive supporter of either Audrey or Marilyn. I respect them both for who they were and the lives they led.)
In the book holly is a teenager
*Marie* She didn't want the constraints of any relationship, that's why she got rid of the cat. The most important thing in Holly's life was her independence.
*George Costanza* Well, not really. After all, she did get together with George Peppard. I mean, Fred.
*Marie* George. . .Fred's gay.
I love that episode!
Still didn't see the movie but definitely remember watching that episode and that particular scene, ha!
Where does this dialogue come from?
@@catherine.marial I'm going to say Seinfeld because George
The idea of a modern, novella faithful adaptation gave me chills. I would love love love to see that.
Directed by Greta Gerwig 😍
Please make a video about Hilary Swank winning for Boys Don't Cry, her battle with Annette Benning and why her win was so important for independent films and future winners. And the controversy too, why not.
I remember at the time thinking, "Hilary Swank? Wasn't she the next Karate Kid?" Compared to the other actresses nominated that year, I was pleasantly surprised that she won the Oscar.
I know nothing about this! I would love an explainer vid.
Whenever I finish a movie, I typically want to come on this website and hear somebody talk about it, and this is exactly the kind of analysis I wanted to see after watching Breakfast at Tiffany's for the first time. Excellent work.
Patricia Neal was on point even on her wost days she was a strong fighter she needs a vids she is also a best actress winner too and deserves more appreciation
She wasn't in it for that long, but I loved her in Cookie's Fortune.
A great Patricia Neal performance is A Face in the Crowd! It has Andy Griffith (in his big screen debut!) and it's directed by Elia Kazan. Never heard of it before my history of 50's film class this spring and I'm obsessed! And the theme of the film is so relevant to today's times.
@@mkg72892 We watched it in school when my club used to have monthly movie nights. It's a really good movie.
Great discussion on the differences between Hollywood’s sanitised version of the story and Truman Capote’s much edgier and realistic original story. I would love to see Capote’s version of the story made into a movie for audiences in the modern era
❤❤❤
But it would have to be bankrolled by Apple, Netflix, HBO or similar. THIS is the bane of modern day life in Amerika. (Misspelled on purpose.)
As much as I love Audrey’s version, this may actually work in 2024 🤔 I am intrigued!
I wonder if Audrey was the original Manic Pixie Dream Girl in this film. That came to mind when you used terms like "eccentric dreamer", "innocent" and "ethereal". I've seen this film once and honestly, the yellow face will always be the reason I never watched it again. I'm sure there's a parallel universe where Marilyn played the role the way Capote wanted :-)
I was thinking about this, and I'm not sure if she is one! I need to read about how they're actually defined but my impression was always that they serve to "save" or "enlighten" the boy, which isn't what really happens here since he kind of wrangles her in. I'm curious what other people think tho!
i wouldn't say she was! only bc a female charcater is quirky doesn't mean she automatically is a mpdg. i mean, they only exist to further the male protagonist's character development and never get to be the main character, very surface level. And well in this case, Holly IS the protagonist and she's way more complex to only be a mpdg.
She fits into a form of The MPDG, which has slowly evolved and been reclaimed
Shirley Maclaine in the Apartment 1969, would go on to work with A Hepburn in the Childrens Hour , and then star in Sweet Charity in 1969 is another early MPDG in my opinion.
In both the Apartment and Sweet Charity she is sweet and kooky and has man problems that include not really noticing the sweet guy next door. Not that this is a defining trait for the MPDG role.
I think that these characters, Holly Go Lightly and Charity Valentine exist for the audience to fantasize about.
The key part of the manic pixie dream girl is the "dream"; they are a tool, an illusion, an angel and never feel like real people. Always the dream, never the dreamer.
Later in life, Capote talked about wanting to get a movie of his novella made, starring a young Jodie Foster who, during her years obscure films in Europe, reminded him of the character he'd created. Of course, the women upon which he based Holly are a complete mix of streetwise and elegant.
that's not a bad choice at all... Foster has. a boyish quality which Truman wrote about in the book for Holly, a description that has been much overlooked. especially when she was quite young. i do remember now him saying that. that is what is so stunning about Holly, she's so hard to find, that people are still struggling to find an actress after several generations .... i cannot think of anyone that really fits, and i am a huge fan of films and mini series alike...and there are few proposals here. i think many actresses would love to play it , in fact they would probably all fight for it if it ever came up, but who ?
maybe the idea for a remake will present itself when an actress comes along that inspires it.
Harrison Ford actually made a comment like that about Ryan Gosling,
when asked why in earth it took thirty years to sequel Bladerunner,
"well Ryan wasn't available before " ( was too young before )
Harrison said that's exactly what came to his mind when the producers proposed the sequel to him,
Both he and they were thinking the exact same person.
maybe that magic will happen when we get the right actress.
truthfully the only people that come to my mind are way european , like french actress Jeanne Balaban, and Holly should really be a bit more american
@@kweejibodali3078 Kristen Stewart also had (has?) a boyish quality, and is queer enough that the literary Holly's various encounters could all seem plausible. I know that she divides audiences, unfairly weighed down by the baggage of some of her early roles, but I happen to think she's phenomenal. This isn't to say that she'd be right for the role (can we see her as either streetwise or elegant? Her sensibilities may simply be too modern for a period piece), but even if she might not be the ideal candidate, I can't think of any other contemporary actress quite like her, which makes her... I don't know, the least worst? I'm just spitballing.
I don't know but Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly haunted me for some time...the early morning walk on 5th ave and moon river score gave me such a big feeling, I can't describe it.
I love every part Audrey played.that being said.holly in breakfast at tiffany..was her defining moment. Bravo.
Audrey singing “Moon River” and that adorable, bedraggled cat’s face squished between Paul & Holly (Fred & Ginger?) are the only parts of the movie I’d ever watch again because they make me cry.
I think Elle Fanning would bring the right blend of life-of-the-party girl everyone wants to know (or be) as well as the authenticity of a broken background. Her work in The Great shows she can hold both comedy and drama in the same role, which is exactly what a modern Breakfast at Tiffany's would need.
Liza’s performance works better because 1. Cabaret is a musical with challenging music, and it’s painful to have a bad singer tackle those songs. 2. The performances are part fantasy, so I think it’s a bit how Sally IRL would like to be.
And i would add that in the movie, her dream of excellence is shown as impossible not because she's mediocre as an artist, but because she blends seamlessly into a cheap, worn-down art scene doomed for failure. Its suggested that she may be good, but perhaps no better than the other chorus girls she's introduced with: the only figure allowed to stand out in that place is the master of ceremonies.
And then you have her flightiness, and her unconventional "vulgar" looks contrasted with prim upper-class styles. It's made very clear why she can never rise, and it's got nothing to do with her natural talent.
Yes! My answer about Liza’s being “too good” to be Sally is that it’s how Sally sees herself. She’s flighty enough to change personae at the drop of a hat-a movie vamp, the girl next door, Daddy’s Little Girl, the flapper bohemian, the gold digger, the sexual adventuress-so why not the Star of Stage and maybe someday Screen? We don’t really meet Sally without all the trappings until near the end of the move
@@biancachristie So true! And also, from an audience perspective, as someone who has seen the stage show when she's been portrayed by a non-singer...it's just too much music for someone who is not great at singing to get through. I know this is an unpopular opinion to some extent, among some theater people. For me, having to listen to someone "sing badly" is squirmy, even at a kid's school play, much less a professional production.
@@marypagones6073 I think my favorite interpretation of Sally is when she’s played by an obviously very good singer who leans into the acting and takes some of the polish off her voice.
As a live production in a theater it works very well.
I wonder if we’ll ever get a version of Breakfast at Tiffany’s that’s true to the book? That would be beautiful.
It would be hard bcos nowadays ppl associate that movie with audery.
I still love the film, I feel the book and movie must be looked at as two separate entities.
exactly. Capote even acknowledged that himself, as quoted in this video at the end. there's nothing wrong with escapist romantic comedies, and Breakfast at Tiffany's the movie is a fantastic one. the whole "which is better, the movie or the book?" becomes irrelevant because they changed so much in transition to the screen.
Like Kubrick's The Shining. Its nothing like Stephen King's book and the director purposely changed so much in the movie but King still admits its a good movie. Not his book but a good movie.
Man, your writing is so fine. Might be among the very finest. Brava! Another brilliant analysis.
Also, I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that someone will remake this film within the next ten years. If Hollywood will remake/revise _West Side Story_ (coincidentally, the film that won Best Picture for the year _Breakfast at Tiffany's_ was also Oscar nominated, 1961) a faithful, and possibly darker version of _Breakfast at Tiffany's_ can't be far behind.
Paramount wants to but the Alan Schwartz, who's the Trustee of the Truman Capote Literary Trust is shopping around a TV series and has had offers. At this point it's up to the courts to decide if Paramount sat on the rights for too long and lost them.
The thing is, West Side Story is a musical. It’s not a straight remake of the 1961 movie, but also an adaptation of the stage musical. A lot of people love the stage musical. There is room for interpretation there and for an updated version in 2021. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is wholly iconic because of the film, not the novella. The film and tv industry can make multiple adaptations of well-loved books and novels, but that’s not what Breakfast at Tiffany’s is. Even if the new adaptation is more faithful to the novella, I still think it would live in the shadow of the original film. Especially for the actress who would play Holly Golightly. Not saying it’s impossible that they would make a more accurate adaptation of the novella, but I do think it would be poorly received by most people.
West Side Story got a remake, in case you don't know.
It's hard to imagine any other version of Breakfast at Tiffany's with anyone but Audrey Hepburn... Truman Capote's story and his vision for the screen play would never have translated into a movie that was a box office hit in the 60's... Audrey's performance was what made this work... even if it was a watered down version of the original story... She turned the role of Holly into something magical and iconic.
I agree 100%. I don't care much for the movie, but I can't take my eyes off Audrey Hepburn when she is on the screen. She doesn't qualify as the typical "sex symbol" in my mind, but she does have a magnetism that makes her impossible to ignore, no matter who else is on the screen or what is happening.
Hear! Hear! I love this movie and I think Audrey deserved the Oscar for it. Yes even over the brilliant Sophia Loren in
Two Women. Which role is more remembered today?
The stuff about the Yunioshi role and how everybody was on board with it…. Goddamnit 1950s/60s
It's amazing that not one person in the decision factor, except Axelrod, was like "You know...."
@@reikun86 Exactly right. I saw ‘Breakfast At Tiffany’s’ for the first time two years ago on Netflix and I liked the film a lot…. But Yunioshi’s character could’ve been changed (script wise) or scraped😬🤷🏾♂️
And 1940s and 1930s and 1920s and 1910s and 1900s and 1890s until the dawn of time.
It was so common... Charlie Chan, King and I. Even John Wayne played Genghis Khan?! It is less common, but still done - Peter Ustinov, Hugo Weaving, Nicholas Cage... sometimes whitewashed, sometimes yellow faced... But the fake actor for Yunioshi is over the top. 😎
@@TitoTimTravels Peter Ustinov played Charlie Chan!?! Who's idea was that? And Ustinov plays him like Poirot which is just nutty.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It's on youtube for free at the moment. Probably abandoned by studio and God.
It's like watching a train wreck being filmed by Uwe Boll while watching Trolls 2. I can't look away. It must be riffed relentlessly. With popcorn.
THANK you for pointing out that the movie version gets so misinterpreted in pop culture. In particular, I think it's interesting that so many people read the ending of the movie as straightforwardly romantic when to me Holly and Paul's entire relationship throughout the movie read as two deeply lonely people choosing to be deeply lonely together. Going off what you said in the video about book Holly believing that she's independent when she's actually just alone, I've always seen Holly and Paul's ending as them making the best of their loneliness by embracing each other. The most romantic ending they can have is to simply be alone together and be as happy as they can about that, and framing it as "belonging to each other" helps them accept that and be able to find happiness in it.
The scene with her singing the song “Moonriver,” makes me sob 😭
The fear of showing anyone on screen who was not part of the presumed mainstream, along with ‘the code’ made it impossible to film Capote’s story. I’m of the opinion that the people who bought the rights didn’t read Capote’s work. And Peppard made my skin crawl.
If the studio didn't even want to adapt Truman Capote's book in the first place, I never understand why they kept the creepy older husband plot point and the seedier prostitution angle, instead of just making Holly a lonely, aloof girl in an apartment who meets an understanding guy and falls in love for a more straight forward romantic comedy. Peppard is so forceful and possessive that he's too mean to be the romantic lead. They should have cast a gentler, empathetic actor.
@Randy White Damn! I love Tony Curtis, his cheery personality would have been perfect with Audrey Hepburn! Steve McQueen could definitely have pulled off a nice boyfriend type too with his more nuanced style. Why did the studio go with the milquetoast George Peppard?
If you are not in the "mainstream", then you have to die at the end of the movie. Like Miss Saigon (Asian leading lady) and Brokeback Mountain (Gay leading man).
Shirley MacLaine once said about the movie with Audrey, that they never once spoke about the content of the movie or it's implications. She remarked many years later how strange that was.
Your content is great--I've been binge watching.
There is a great Australian actress who might sit well in your library of amazing talent, named Judy Davis. She did 'My Brilliant Career' which is still one of my favorite movies, and way too many other great movies since to mention.
Don't forget her sensational portrayal of Judy Garland.
Judy Davis amazes me with her depth of talent in her channeling of different characters she portrays. I would love to see an installment that looks at her uniqueness.
Shirley would have definetly been a good candidate. But never as "chic and elegant" as Audrey.!!!!
Oh, I just had the best idea for a modern remake of Breakfast at Tiffany's. It would be structured like the movie Atonement, part is what "really" happened to the characters and part is just the main character's imagination. Real Holly would be Truman's Holly and Imagination Holly would be Audrey's Holly. The narrator imagines that his friend Holly gets a happy ending with their mutual friend Paul.
BRILLIANT!! Im gonna bounce off you and add a third & fourth element to your already brilliant take: Truman Capote during the movie production fighting the studios, coming off as difficult, and then flashbacks of a young Truman Capote’s encounters with the real inspiration(s) of Holly Golightly when he arrives in New York. I always felt Holly was always a little bit of him leaving behind his past in the South and coming to NYC.
this is epic
@@lepetitenellie i love this! It’s very Gret Gerwig’s Little Women…very meta.
excellent... too good. you could write that and pitch that ! i think that would even have. a shot at being made ! considering how huge the original film was , and how people still know it today
this would be excellenr. who would you cast as each holly?
I cannot imagine "Tiffany's" without Audrey. She's iconic in the role, the one for which she is most remembered and with which she is most identified.
I remember when I was a teenager and I first saw this film. I was thinking of it kind of like a gender-flipped "The Great Gatsby". About someone who grew up poor but felt they had to prove themselves to someone/something/themselves through lavishness and felt a kind of dislike towards their past. So I totally get where all of these assumptions of what the film is and what it's about are coming from.
Even if it's not like the book, which has more teeth to it. I still like it. It also has one of the best songs in any movie IMO, "Moonriver" which I sing quietly to myself sometimes when I'm working.
You make an interesting point about the parallels with the Great Gatsby. The crucial difference between Gatsby and Holly is that Gatsby did everything specifically to impress and earn the love of Daisy. Holly does it all for herself, and actively shuns relationships. But still, interesting parallel
Regarding the part about Cabaret: I think people who make that criticism are just being obstinate in defense a critique that makes sense on paper and that they’re attached to for whatever reason.
I think it’s clear (intuitively even to those unfamiliar with the concept) that her performances aren’t wholly diagetic. I’ve never seen it onstage, but any musical with actual in-story diagetic performances will have that disconnect, where perhaps a character is a poor singer or dancer but the actor is not (Roxie Hart comes to mind). Onstage we accept this absolutely, that the singing and dancing is the medium and not the content, and if a character is performing within the story we accept what we’re told through dialogue about the quality of the (in-story) performance.
Anyway that’s a lot of words just to say that basically I think people criticizing Liza’s performance are just looking for something to bitch about
If anyone ever did adapt it faithfully it really could not succeed with the name Breakfast at Tiffany's. Most of the audience wouldn't give it fair consideration, it would be impossible to separate from the first adaptation. You'd almost have to disguise it in order to be faithful to the book.
That would actually be a good idea to name it something else but films nowadays also rely on media buzz to become successful so once people learn of the adaptation they may become skeptical.
You could easily name it "Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's." I don't think I would watch it though.
Tiffany at Breakfast
@@AlexanderJWei Truman Capote isn't really a selling point in 2021.
Or simply call it "Holly Golightly" - you know exactly what it's about, but it won't be the same
I love the seemingly paradoxical casting. I feel it gives so much nuance and texture to Holly
I just wanna say that I am absolutely never disappointed by your content
Goodbye to Berlin is definitely worth a read - in fact I'd recommend reading it along with Breakfast at Tiffany's. I heard that Capote had originally got the idea of Holly Golightly from reading Isherwood's work. They both end with the protagonist disappearing from the author's life - Holly in Africa and Sally in Rome. The wonderful twist to Goodbye to Berlin is that the real Sally Bowles read it and got back in touch with Isherwood!
Its 2023, and as it feels we are on the cusp of another World War, just like the Weimar Republic of Isherwood's novel- a true remake of Goodbye To Berlin would be really appropriate right now. American society in 2023 is Germany's Weimar era.
I'm normally someone who is not particulary sensitive to classical potrays of racial stereotypes, and I really enjoy the film as an Audrey Hepburn rom-com, but Mr.Yunioshi is SO disrespectful and unfunny to an extent where it truly would be an infinite better film without him in it.
A few years ago I tried re-watching it but had to stop because the Yunioshi portrayal was so repugnant.
I keep forgetting he is in it. When I picture the movie... his scenes are happily missing. It really seemed like they took 2 different movies and just cut them together. Regardless of any racial issues (and there are many), it was just so poorly done.
Mickey Rooney would agree with you. I read on IMDB that he deeply regretted this role.
@@Ohboycommentsection Unfortunately… he clearly didn’t feel that way at the time.
He and his roommate seemed to think it was SO funny that they marketed the whole movie on their racist frat boy joke.
right…i wish they would just make a version excluding all his scenes
I’ve always wished someone would make a faithful modern adaptation of Capote’s novella. Darren Aranofsky comes to mind.
Though I’d be interested in a faithful adaptation of the movie, if a studio made a new film now, it would absolutely 100% be a remake of the Hepburn film version. The film’s reputation has definitely eclipsed that of the novella within the popular consciousness, and I just can’t see any studio resisting the urge to simply recreate iconic moments from the film. And imperfect though it may be (my god, how I wish that Rooney-less cut of the film actually existed), I do love the film as its own entity, independent of the novella. I don’t need a new version of THAT story.
Among the sadder things I've ever learned is that someone tried to cut it out and failed
I will literally PAY somebody out of my own money to edit a version without the racist scenes
Beautifully researched, as always! Capote reportedly told Broadway actress Tammy Grimes that he wrote Holly with her in mind, among others I assume. It makes sense: the self invention, the mysterious aura. Audrey even uses the word “kook,” which was often assigned to Tammy.
26:30 "ok sry but she is SO charming LORD" despite the film's shortcomings, atleast we can all agree this is true
When I read the book neither Audrey or Marilyn really make me think of Holly. Edie Sedgwick is the one person who seems to me to be exactly like the book character in every way. She would have been completely perfect, more than any other actress I can think of. Of course she wasn't yet famous when the movie was made, but it's too bad it couldn't have been her.
I have to disagree with you on this. Holly had her roots in hillbilly culture and it kept her striving for better things -- it was really the most endearing thing about her, the impoverished childhood. Now, I adore Edie, always have, but I don't believe she would have been able to pull this off. It would have reeked of inauthenticity. Coming from one of the most distinguished families in America, and living in the present day as a glamorous debutante, Edie wouldn't have been able to (and probably wouldn't have wanted to) play someone so completely different from herself. Edie had a patrician air that couldn't be erased, or supplanted with anything else -- she was an aristocrat, through and through. Even in her most dodgy moments, she was still a Sedgwick, first and foremost, and I don't believe that any amount of acting classes could have changed this -- certainly not enough to make her the social climber with the humble beginnings that is Holly.
i feel that one.. Truman wrote her as a bit boyish and edie has kind of this pixie look
Im just so damn happy EDIE was even mentioned. I am obsessed and its. Refreshing someone else is mentioning this beautiful creature!
I wish Brittany Murphy could have played Holly in a more faithful adaptation when she was alive 💜
OMG PERFECT
What about Aubrey Plaza in a New version?
Omg soo true.. RIP Ms Murphy
Oh she'd have been FABULOUS 😍
This is actually a really inspired casting idea! Her mix of warmth, sex appeal and childlike vulnerability (not unlike Capote’s ideal Holly, Marilyn) would have worked perfectly. Such an underrated talent.
I genuinely yelped in excitement when you mentioned Splendor in the Grass- so underrated and truly one of my favorite movies. On a related note, now I'm convinced Natalie Wood could've played Holly Golightly and will spend the next two months daydreaming about this.
I saw “Splendor” once and it affected me. I haven’t been able to watch it since, but I’d recommend anyone into films from that era watch it.
literally just searched for this and it was there, posted 3 minutes ago! SUCCESS!! Been looking forward to this all week!!
As always, wonderful episode! And so cool to see Estelle Parsons 21:15 when she was a news reporter. Great interaction.
Wow, thanks for pointing that out! I was unaware of that aspect of her career. Just watched her in "Rachel Rachel" with Joanne Woodward the other day.
Audrey Hepburn is one of those rare actresses who not only can get away with the role they are miscast for, but actually make it ICONIC. This and her Eliza Doolittle are exactly those. Plus, it doesn't hurt that she elevates anything that anyone makes her wear. Grace Kelly makes clothes look lovely and elegant. Audrey effortlessly makes even the most raggedy outfits look classy and expensive.
That’s very true it’s interesting in the case of my fair lady bc given how excellent Julie andrews in the original Broadway version it could’ve been another case Hollywood movie star trying to recapture Broadway talent but Audrey was not that
Ditto.!!!!
this is an amazing analysis of the novella adaptation thankyou so much this is an incredible video, such in depth research you really captured everything. Thankyou
I've always thought the movie was overrated, but Audrey Hepburn's costumes make it worth at least one viewing.
I think I really liked her mannerisms and how she carried herself. But the fashion was interesting.
totally not agree. Audrey was magical in it. It had not much to do with the book, but Audrey was adorable as she always was. George Peppard was totally wrong for the leading man. Not enough talent. Not enough charisma. This movie has very little to do with the book. Truman wrote it with Marilyn Monroe in mind. But this movie goes way beyond the costumes.
for me, the emotions and especially the masterfull Music makes it worth for watching. The music is so great!
@@ClashGamerGTA Yes, it was. I once read that some genius wanted to cut Moon River out of the movie. And then Audrey said: When that song is cut, I walk out. It was JFK's favorite song, by the way.
@@normadesmond6017 Yes, I also read that. This is often the case. Can you imagine that they wanted to cut out "somewhere over the rainbow" of "the wizzard of oz"? So crazy
Gloria in Sunset Blvd. Judy in A Star is Born. Marilyn in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Would have been an excellent triumvirate of film! I love and appreciate Audrey's work here; SHE carried the film and her involvement is what makes it a classic. Like many others, I still wonder what could have been...
Also, I have never read the book, but it has been ordered--it's now one I definitely want to read! Based on the film, I don't think I ever would have considered it for the list.
Thank you for another outstanding video!
'In Cold Blood' is one of the best books ever written in America. It is timeless, spellbinding and made him famous and rich.
The movie is superb and is a successful interpretation of the book.
I find the conversation in the intro of this hilarious, only because when she said "wuthering height" I immediately thought of the Kate Bush song.
Not going to lie I was one of those that had the movie poster. Audrey Hepburn was one of my favorite actresses, not just because of her movies but because she was a good person. I am proud I named my oldest daughter after her. Great video. ❤
You are one of the best RUclips essayists by far along with the likes of contrapoints, Lindsay Ellis, Mina lee and Moderngurlz, seriously, just brilliant.
Also, it’s quite interesting to notice that two of Audrey Hepburn’s most iconic roles (Holy and Elizabeth Doolittle) were meant for other actresses, wow this industry!
I’m gay but I didn’t mind the heteronormativity of the movie cuz I think any gay would swoon at Paul Varjak’s character - gay or straight.
As for Holly, they made her so iconic that it’s a little difficult to dismiss Hepburn as the character despite being different to how it was written in the novella.
That said, there’s no saving Mr Yunioshi.
Nothing except Casting a Real Japanese American...
@@eamonndeane587 not even that cus the role is still wildly racist so having a japanese actor wouldn't have changed much
Really enjoyed this video and am sure that further adaptation comparisons would be super interesting. Cabaret/Goodbye To Berlin sounds like such an apt comparison, except in Cabaret, the queerness is celebrated rather than erased
You have the best speaking voice I've ever heard. My favorite part was your reading of the Screen writer rejection. Please have save and wonderful journeys!
The Mr yunioshi part is even more YIKES than i could've imagined. Inventing an up and coming japanese comics just for lulz and PR? Jeeeeez
Remember to put this movie in the timeframe in which it is made. The movie was made 16 years after the end of World War II, and Americans were still pretty pissed off about Pearl Harbor. Therefore very few people in the audience would have considered Andy Rooney’s portrayal as being racist, just comedic. Remember the movie Back to the Future? The 1955 version of Doc Brown says a gadget is “junk” because it was made in Japan, and the 1985 version of Marty tells him that “all the best stuff made in Japan.” The 1955 Doc Brown was being true to the era. I’m not saying racism is good. I am saying to accept movies for the way they are. Don’t expect 21st century standards In a mid 20th century movie.
@@Hayseo I agree with you, but i also think that saying this shit is worse than i thought (because look, this type of caricature is nothing new and hell, was still done in the 90s) is valid, because it's not just about the part in the film, it's about the whole PR strategy, which i previously had no idea happened. I agree that saying 'oh LORD those people in the 50S, what ANIMALS', is counterproductive. However i could still be amazed at the length of racist shenanigans they actually went to back then. And political context doesn't exactly make it better, since such practices existed even before WWII and still existed in the 80s, when back to the future came out, specifially Japanese were framed as an existential threat to America (but now not in a militaristic way, but in a capitalist one)
Thank you for referring me to "Fifth Avenue, 5 A.M." I was nine when it was released and saw it first when I was 11 and by then the subversions described by Mr. Wasson had already been absorbed into the mainstream. The book certainly raised my consciousness and enhanced my enjoyment of the movie. Thank you again.
You deserve everything for these brilliant videos. Every time you post I watch ASAP.
I like both Hollies for different,yet same reasons honestly.I`ve read the novella twice and watched the movie...too many times to count.I`m of the opinion that both Capote`s and Audrey`s Holly Golightlys can exist and thrive in the minds of the audience. At the same time,I`d be so open to a new adaptation.
You just had to bring up Splendor in the Grass..."Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendor in the grass, glory in the flower. We will grieve not, rather find strength in what remains behind."
Such a heavy movie. I was convinced that Natalie Wood wasn't acting.
It’s one of my favorite movies. It doesn’t get mentioned a lot today.
@@Pinkladyisv It’s definitely worth a watch.
I love everything about this movie! The music, the acting, the atmosphere. The story is great and I can almost relate to. The love story in this movie is not cringe (and this is for the first time I’m seeing a love story not being cringy)
Well I’m honestly shocked there hasn’t been more movie adaptations over the years, which kind of proves how iconic this movie has become. Like you said the criticisms of the movie are obvious, but also what kind of makes the movie what it is as enjoyable as it is
Mickey Rooney?
@@beejls welp besides that of course
This reminds a lot of how people see the Great Gatsby, the glamour and the imagery of his lavish parties have eclipsed the essence of the story of the broken American dream.
Still, I'm on the who cares, so what side
I felt so bitter for Patricia Neal's character!!
I know i'm bound to suffer when i watch a classic and root for these "older", financially independent women who don't seek romantic ideals and aren't bound to other characters arcs, but alas, they always get the short thrift 😤
i'm all for the older bit seeing as i am ten years older than my partner, but i think the fact that she's paying for him makes her less sympathetic. i think it makes a good touch for the story, but.... and she wears it all a bit hard edged
Astute analysis! I love your work, Be Kind Rewind. I'm hoping you could continue tackling classic films that were drastically reworked when adapted from their literary source material, like perhaps the 1001 film adaptations of Pride and Prejudice and such?
I think Sherilyn Fenn would have been a great Holly Golightly in a 90s adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany's. To me she's always been like a brunette Marilyn, especially as Audrey Horne in Twin Peaks.
She was like lightning in a bottle during Twin Peaks.
This was a great video. Breakfast at Tiffany's is a film that I needed to watch around 5 times till I admitted that I liked it.
Not because I had read the book. I hadn't.
I simply didn't like the story. But I watched it because I wanted to undertake why it was so popular. When I watched it the first time, I already watched Roman Holiday, Sabrina, My Fair Lady-i liked Audrey Hepburn by that point. But didn't understand the lasting obsession with it.
I knew it was badly adapted from Truman Capote's book and changed pretty much everything integral to the book story. So that made me skeptical of the film.
But eventually I just ended up liking the movie.
As a kid, the only thing I knew about this movie was that all my friends loved it, and that it had an iconic poster. I wish i had known more than that when I finally saw it, because I was absolutely devastated by the racist yellow face in it. I will never ever be able to get past that enough to watch this film again, but I love all of your work and I am glad I watched this. Like everything you do, it was very well done.
Literally no older film would be watched if we upheld if unwatchable by one terrible scene, actor, director, etc as they ALL have them. This one is just in our face obvious now.
@@shannond7437I doubt that fact eases her devastation. There's a huge difference between bad actor/director/script and blatant racism for the fun of it. I won't watch The Jazz Singer anytime soon. The feelings of non-white people has never been a concern in Hollywood. To this day, Hollywood movies are made to appeal primarily to white audiences at everyone else's expense.
@@shannond7437 You're on of the people she was talking about at 15:58.
@@myathegrandmalol ok but if you knew anything about the actor you would know he did much worse things than this. Sorry but I’m keeping it real, you can point out the obvious, but that does the mean the other 20 that did not get the same attention didn’t happen.
@@shannond7437 I'm confused. You defending him or not? Cause if he did much worst than play this role then he seems like a pretty crappy person.
I had always heard that the book was very different but never cared to look into it. The nuances surrounding each story are just fascinating. Great video!
We would've gotten a Marilyn Monroe Holly Golightly in a world where Monroe wasn't treated so badly she'd be okay to work on a set. I would've been interested to see how Jane Russell could've pulled it off, too. It's a similar type to what she got, but it would be interesting to see her as more sweet than sassy. That being said, a modern-day actress in Elliot's script... I think a lot of people would say that Anya Taylor-Joy or Saoirse Ronan could pull off such a character study. I will say that I think ageing up Holly isn't a bad idea in general, a lot of teen girls are sexualised too much in the media. And even though she's nineteen, legally an adult... I still feel like a kid at twenty-one. And like, that 'eleven lovers' line is really disturbing because she's just so young... some of these relationships must've happened when she was underage.
I agree with this 1000%
I don't know, I feel like casting S or A would pressent the same problem as casting Audrey, they're too much in control of themselves in a very natural way to play someone who had to "learn" how to do it.
Maybe a newcomer?
Saiorse came to my mind, too. That girl can do pretty much any role at anytime.
There’s no one as natural and raw as Marilyn nowadays. If she tried really hard, the 2021 Kristen Stewart would be an INTERESTING take. But def not saoirse because she’s almost sexless in the way she acts Altho a FANTASTIC actress. They need an almost Edie Sedgwick modern day version of holy. A grl who is unaware she’s unaware, vulnerable, loveable, lost. No one too self aware or serious, which Jane and Saoirse would be.
@@BlushGush exactly. Remember she's a child bride from rural Texas, not a mousy librarian. Marilyn would have worked perfectly because of her "just a girl from Little Rock" essence carefully concealed behind a facade of glamour and naive dashes of French. Both S and A are too obviously cerebral imho. You want the glamour to feel a touch acted and false, not the humble background.
If Marilyn had played Holly, I don't think the film would have the legacy it does. Part of what works IS the contradiction, that this Holly has so many layers, so many elements that don't make sense. She isn't deliberate about her sexuality, or even understands it, she just sort of flits through her life and and chips seem to fall in a certain way for her so she's learned to take advantage. She's kind of the original manic pixie dream girl.
On first viewing somewhere in high school, I thought a MALE escort being kept and paid for by an older woman was terribly progressive for the time, knowing nothing about the novella. Even now, that paradigm fails to come up much in mainstream film.
I think a more faithful adaptation would make a good limited series with the original 1940s setting restored.
love this idea (producers? where are you?)
They did it on Broadway in 2013 with Emilia Clarke... I don't recall it being well received.
@@Andy-nx8fv why the hell would they have Emilia Clarke play Holly Golightly
That HEAVY sigh at the end of the " Mickey Rooney" cringe-fest was perfect !!! Jeez !!! Love your storytelling voice !
One of the few channels that I have notifications on for. You never disappoint!
Another stellar installment on your channel. It points to the fact that too many times, the movie (if popular) becomes the standard, eclipsing the actual literary merits of the original. It reminds me of how so many movie fans decried Todd Haynes' adaptation of James M. Cain's MILDRED PIERCE, going so far as to say he made a "travesty" of the material... such as leaving out the murder. Except that, if anyone actually read the James M. Cain novel, there is no murder in the book - that was an invention by the screenwriter Ranald MacDougall! What Haynes actually did was similar to what Fassbinder did with BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ and (of course) Erich von Stroheim tried to do with GREED - take a novel and film it as faithfully as possible! Practically word for word. But since most movie fans seem to be subliterate, who reads? But i love two facts you uncovered: how the first screenplay by Sumner Locke Elliott was a "faithful" adaptation of the novella, but the producers were bewildered (pointing out that they hadn't read the material they bought). And i love how you explain how Blake Edwards (in cahoots with Mickey Rooney) went beserk with the Mr. Yuniyoshi character. Blake Edwards seemed to love the idea of a sexually frustrated, slapstick character with an accent: it was also the character of Inspector Clouseau, and also the bewildered Indian extra in THE PARTY (both played by Peter Sellers). If i might be so bold: Blake Edwards was "for hire" on BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, it wasn't a personal project. And Edwards was very aware of how precarious his position was: he was the second director on the film, after John Frankenheimer was fired for wanting to film the screenplay that had been written by George Axelrod (and which was closer to the actual intentions of the novella) but Audrey Hepburn kept demanding changes which softened the character of Holly, but Frankenheimer didn't go along with the changes, so out he went. (Though Frankenheimer and Axelrod had the last laugh: they would collaborate - without ANY softening - on THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.) So Edwards wanted to put his "stamp" on the film, and he couldn't do it in any of the storylines involving Holly, so he got Mickey Rooney (whom he had already worked with in the past, on movies like DRIVE A CROOKED ROAD and OPERATION MAD BALL, which Edwards wrote) and that was the way Edwards would make his mark on the movie.
It’s interesting, even at 16 or 17, I knew that the beginning of BaT, when Holly was looking through the windows of Tiffany’s, I KNEW she just came back from a night with a man, no other reason. But also, maybe that’s cause I grew up in Vegas with little left to the imagination 🤣
I always assumed she was a call girl in the movie. I don’t understand how anyone wouldn’t piece that together.
But who would dare to call her a "****".!!!!
Much too elegant but to picture her as a party girl, is closer. Which if M.M. had played that role, people would have thought "what else is new"!!!!
I never got this movie until I saw this video. Thank you. I appreciate it much more now
This is one of your best videos. Like Capote said, the 1961 film of Breakfast at Tiffany’s is its own creation that is all well and good, but not the book he wrote. I would love to see the book be made in the early 1970s instead of 60s, that would’ve been such a delight!
my thoughts exactly!
This film is actually one of my favourite film because of Audrey's portrayal of Holly, ironically. To me she's was a depressed girl, who latches on to materials as a means to escape and create an armour. And the fact that she's was seen as this glamorous, eccentric woman despite her lack of stability and unhappiness really hit me home. I'm used to people dismissing my problems by branding me as an eccentric person, even when I'm trying to have an honest conversation about them. Also, it was always obvious to me that she was some kind off call girl, but can definitely understand why people would miss that about her character. However I would have loved to have seen a version with Marylin.
There's also a French film called Priceless (Hors de Prix) with Audrey Tautou (Amélie). To me it's kind off a contemporary BaT. It's very a good film and the female protagonist is more similar to the original Holly. Although it is still a het romance.
i do still wonder what it would have looked like with Marilyn Monroe as the lead, like Truman Capote wanted! another classic that took a persona similar to hers but treated the character with gravitas is The Apartment, which cast Shirley McClaine instead. but directors just didn't want to take Monroe seriously really
Which is sad because Monroe was an amazing actress.
Au contraire. They took her much more seriously than she took herself.
I would of loved to see Monroe in this role, but at the same time, knowing what was happening with her during this time in her life....I don't think it would of been a wise choice.
Maclaines not a bad choice, though i love Marilyn much more. I know Truman adored Marilyn, but she's not really what comes to mind when i read the book, it would have definitely been a stunning other version.