I’m afraid I don’t really see what all the fuss around ‘Breakfast at Tifffany’s’ is really for. Sure, it’s reasonably entertaining, and has become a classic due to Audrey Hepburn’s iconic styling, but the story is clichéd, the film is rather un-PC and the characters are really not so interesting as they seem, at least not in the melodramatic way they are presented here.
Based on the novel which brought success to Truman Capote, the film tells the story of the socially ambitious but emotionally immature Holly Golightly (Hepburn), who is befriended by a struggling writer, Paul (George Peppard) who falls in love with her as she struggles to live a lifestyle she can’t afford whilst trying to save money to look after her brother from back home. Along the way she is involved with various men – who she looks to for financial security, before realising what she needs (and what Paul can provide) is real love.
The film is very dated, particularly in using Mickey Rooney to play a very stereotyped Japanese landlord entirely for comic effect. Elsewhere Holly is understandably drawn to men who can protect her, because she herself needs to protect her brother, but the reality is that a chauvinist mentality permeates the film. Even if he does genuinely care for her, Paul often speaks of how Holly belongs to him because he loves her. Meanwhile, her much older husband, who she ran away from to come to New York, similarly believes he owns her, whilst her Brazilian suitor plans to keep her as his mistress. It would be fine if Holly was struggling against these men who seek to possess her, but her happiness apparently comes at the same price and the film is unbalanced here. Holly also believes she is manipulating men for money, to take what she needs and then blow them off, but she is actually being exploited by a gangster who feeds her coded messages, without her realising, to then be passed to his associates on the outside (a rather bizarre subplot). Again, it’s perfectly fine to convey her naivety and vulnerability, but when the ultimate goal is love, rather than self-realisation, the film undermines itself, and her.
There are a few subplots that distract, rather than contribute, to the story. As well as the abovementioned gangster scheme, we learn that Paul is himself a kept man (although once again, as a mark of sexual superiority, he is able to break free from his dependence), which presents a nice irony in his relationship with Holly, but the two can't be compared as once again it seems to be his lover, 2-E, who is most vulnerable. There is the ongoing suffering of Holly and Paul’s landlord, employed as a running joke, which is never really very funny. Holly’s husband appears from nowhere and leaves with equal ease. The film’s signature theme tune is squeezed into the action quite tenuously, and the only deeper metaphorical aspect of the film is the comparison drawn between Holly and her cat, which has no name and belongs nowhere. It’s an obvious enough piece of symbolism anyway, and when it’s vocalised towards the end of the film it just feels overdone and makes the entire film feel dumbed down.
The film’s title refers to Holly’s love of Tiffany’s jewellery store, and the comfort she draws from being around pretty things. The flat characterisation of Holly, despite Hepburn’s best efforts, ensures that she is no more than a pretty thing herself, and by the end of the film has moved no closer to overcoming this and discovering herself. I’m surprised that a film that I feel shows its female protagonist such little respect should find such enduring popularity amongst so many women.
No comments:
Post a Comment