A movie being iconic can weirdly be just as impactful as a movie being successful. Audience influence is a big factor into how long-lasting a movie can be, as critical responses are helpful in the macro, but if the audience isn’t interested, it won’t last as long. Thankfully, so many films have built cult followings or dedicated fan-bases just through iconic scenes, characters and lines alone and regardless of critical reception, it’ll be a movie that lasts the ages and one such film that garnered that iconic status is the 1961 film, Breakfast at Tiffany’s. In the bustling street of a metropolitan city lives Holly Golightly (played by Audrey Hepburn), a fancily dressed socialite who drowns herself in the glamour and free-spirited nature of the city, often living off income earned from ‘’accompanying’’ older wealthier men on dates as opposed to having a job. Once a new male tenant named Paul Varjak (played by George Peppard) moves into the same department building as her, the two hit it off and become good friends, and Paul slowly realizing the razors edge that Holly is living off of every day with her choice of lifestyle. As they spend more time together, Paul learns about Holly’s past life which she ran away from and understands that she will continue to run to anything that gives her a thrill and anyone that can offer her money, and now with Holly hooking up with someone else for their wealth and with Paul discovering he might have feelings for Holly, what will it take to keep her from hurting herself. Based on the 1958 novella written by Truman Capote, Breakfast at Tiffany’s holds an iconic status for its visuals, clothing, score and for many of its scenes, particularly Hepburn’s portrayal of the titular character, but the movie was also a critical success as well, being nominated for five Oscars (and winning two).

Breakfast at Tiffany’s, on the surface, gives off the impression that its going to be a straightforward chick-flick film; the concept, the look, the tone, and atmosphere feels like its leading its way down a pretty expected direction. Thankfully, the movie does have a few more layers under its surface and combines both the mushy light and blissfully joyful energy of a chick-flick with an awareness of character, plot, and personality to create a pretty enjoyable experience. The original novella was considered ahead of its time for its portrayal of its characters, its dissection of real-world problems with the city lifestyle and its blending of sweet and bittersweet elements to create a complete story that could make someone laugh as much as it could cry. For the first half of the movie, it feels like it captures the spirit of Capote’s work, with a tight script, engaging leads with good chemistry, a tone that brings a sophisticated wit as well as decent storytelling, and a direction that finds that correct balance of sweet yet something hiding in the shadows quite nicely. Director Blake Edwards worked on comedies throughout his career and even created the Pink Panther series, so his hand definitely assisted in the light-hearted energy as well as quick pace and sparks of physicality. The movie tragically loses its good-will as it ventures into the second half however, as a majority of the film’s pros seem to dissipate and everything about the movie feels slightly off and unfamiliar to its first act. This is because of the departure from the novella’s direction and a heavier Hollywood influence dictating the way the story should end. Things like a force romance without build-up, a much happier ending (it originally doesn’t end well for Holly) and a real lack of real-world consequences makes the movie too much of a different animal from its novella and what is portrayed instead isn’t anywhere near as intriguing and even goes against the novella’s intent. The novella is a cautionary tale of the dangers of sapping off the wealth of others and the hollowness that comes from chasing something without a stable plan behind it. Here, the movie doesn’t exist in a normal reality where true problems exist, so the ending is overly happy, but in a manner that is completely dissatisfying to what the movie was showing beforehand. Ending on a good note doesn’t ruin the story, but actively going against what the message of your original source was means a lot of things start to not make sense.

One of the biggest factors into the iconic status as well as a lot of the films pros and cons centred around the titular character, Holly Golightly, and her portrayal by Audrey Hepburn. For the movie, Capote had wanted Marilyn Monroe for the role as he felt he perfectly captured her in the book, and even a lot of the movie was written and fitted for Marilyn to portray the role, but after declining, Audrey was given the part which the author wasn’t a fan of. As a character, Holly is a pretty great one and has a lot of intricacies that can be made into a wonderfully flawed character. Someone who is self-destructively living off of other’s riches and constantly flirting with potential harm in the hopes of being a part of that lifestyle that leaves her sad and lonely on the inside, and with her being based off of several female socialites that Capote knew, it’s a role that could be really complex and an actress could have a lot of fun with. This movie doesn’t really do complexity and the changes made to remove the characters taboo and dirty nature (an illegitimate child, being an active escort as opposed to a softer ‘casual hang-out’ occupation, ending alone and without purpose after falling into a web of mistakes) definitely limited the impact the message the original source was conveying. Audrey Hepburn is quite good as this character; capturing that elegant quick-talking socialite side very nicely, but still carrying that honest every-day girl feel that she has always been able to portray. Sometimes a line read can a little airy from her, but outside of that, it’s a good performance. George Peppard starts off pretty decent; with a similarly fast-talking energy that compliments Hepburn but has a calming control to him to off-set her reckless behavior. They make for a pretty solid friendship, but suddenly the character falls in love with her and it feels so forced and ill-fitting. Not only was this not in the source material (he was actually gay), but it doesn’t match the relationship they were building before, so it feels completely pointless and forced in by a studio that can’t stomach a man-female pairing that doesn’t end in the romance, not helped by dated dialogue that feels incredibly creepy (back when the phrase ‘you belong to me’ was supposed to be endearing). Speaking of dated, the other unfortunately infamous part of this movie is Mickey Rooney doing yellow-face as Mr Yunioshi and there really is nothing else to say; its awful, its disgustingly racist, its unfunny as anything, there isn’t even a reason for the character to be Asian besides just needing an excuse to make fun of them. Its terrible and isn’t even worth talking about.

The movie does manage to capture the stylish side of the city life and while nowhere near as bustling and packed in as usual for a city block (especially because New York was used for filming), it does still get the point across through the lavish people that Holly interacts with who are portrays as over-the-top, but not overtly cruel stereotypes. Despite being directed by a comedy director and having a very likeable energy, the movie isn’t really funny. Whether that’s a consequence of Rooney’s painful portrayal or that the movie isn’t really trying to be that funny, it never gets a genuine laugh and instead just comes across likeably quirky, much like the lead character. The screenplay for this film is quite good; getting across quick concise exposition in a very flowing and fitting manner, and dialogue between the characters that feels very genuine and dictates a lot of character and chemistry. Despite how much talking there is, it doesn’t feel like overload, many due to writer George Axelrod being a playwright, who are known for creating very engaging dialogue-based scripts. It’s also helped out by the original novella having a good basis to work from, making it all the more obvious that the downfalls in the later half come from the studio’s new direction. The score and music for the film done by Henry Mancini is also quite good, with the popular song Moonriver, being a classic song that is simple yet hummable.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a fantasy version of its original source material and in some respect, the iconic status the film has comes with a downsides. For a story that seems to glorify the very occupation and lifestyle the book sets out to diminish is pretty ironic and Hepburn’s portrayal does limit the tragic sides of what could be a very trouble lead character, but despite that, the movie does still have a lot of things worth checking out. Its well-directed, the lead actors are quite good, the writing is tight and even if it doesn’t dissect and talk about said real-life issues, the awareness is slightly there in the beginning and further context from the novella is helpful. The ending is pretty weak and the departure from the novella is really what messed the film up, but not entirely. Check it out for yourself, ignore the obvious racism and appreciate an opening shot that apparently was far harder to shoot than expected.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,