Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
Blake Edwards's "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
The most likeable aspect of Blake Edwards's 1961 film "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is that it is aesthetically pleasing. Beyond its sheen and shine lays a hollowed out attempt at Truman Capote's classic novella. Of course, nobody will remember Capote's classic over the film adaptation. My main point about the film's ability to aesthetically please attributes to this, but I think it is the iconic performance of Audrey Hepburn that cements the film into the collective consciousness.
There are numerous problems I had with this film. Firstly, the notoriously racist depiction of the Japanese landlord, Mr. Yunioshi, played by Mickey Rooney. Not only is it a caricature, the use of bucktooth is incredibly shameful.
My second gripe with the film is the ending's final, seemingly romantic, message. Throughout the film, Hepburn's Holly is a 'free spirit,' unwilling to be caged in by anyone. When her neighbor Paul, confesses his love for her, he proclaims that she 'belongs' to him, to which she understandably replies, "Nobody belongs to anyone." However, at the end, the film makes it clear that Holly is delusional in this way of thinking and that these two character do, in fact, 'belong' to one another. From the film's perspective, submission is commendable and fiery independence is condemnable.
I have never read Capote's novella, but from what I gather, it was egregiously altered to fit this more bizarre narrative. There isn't even a romance between Holly and Paul, as both characters are gay. Changing them to be heterosexual and then shoehorning in a romance completely derails any intended thematic narrative the film could have had. The film is now about an independent woman, chasing class and fortune, who must submit to the domestic demands of a man. Of course, in the early 1960s, this was a far more 'acceptable' narrative than having two queer characters trying to find their place in a hyper-classist American landscape.
Overall, I find enormous fault with the film. On the surface, it's pleasing sheen offers a level of respectability within a burgeoning genre of the modern 'romantic comedy.' However, underneath that aesthetically pleasing surface lies an empty, soulless film that is only worthy to be donned as wallpaper.

Comments
Post a Comment