Wednesday, February 22, 2012
2des - Breakfast at Tiffany's
Post your response to the film version of Breakfast at Tiffany's, comparing/contrasting it with the novella. I'm looking for insight and analytical thinking about the effects of the changes made to the story, characters, point of view, setting, themes, etc. You may also respond to any of your classmates' posts. Don't forget to sign your name!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We recently watched the movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s, an adaptation of the novella writen by Truman Capote a few weeks ago. The film was shot in 1961, directed by B. Edwards in New York City, USA. The main actors are Audrey Hepburn, playing Holly Golightly and George Peppard, the narrator, called “Fred” by Holly.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, let’s talk about the discrepancies between the movie and the book. In the novella, regarding the characters, we have the impression that the narrator’s sexuality is more ambigous than in the film, for “Fred” seems rather heterosexual in the movie than somewhere inbetween. In fact, he is really in love of Holly in the movie, and shows well his feelings through his attitude, whereas he seems more confused about his emotions within the novella. Concerning the dialogues, the language is francker in the book than in the movie; in the book, characters are ruder than in the film, where the actors talk overall properly. The last difference in the novella is that there is no happy ending, unlike in the movie, where the last image we see is the togetherness of Holly and “Fred”. In the book, they both separe each other and never meet once more.
Furthermore, let’s compare the emotions brought by the movie and the novella. To my mind, I believe the film was more entertaining than the book thanks to the music we heard in different passages, either during joyful moments or tragic ones. My favourite passage within the novella is when Holly plays the guitare while “Fred” is staring at her. In the book, thanks to the first person narrator, the feelings of “Fred” are well-described whereas in the film, the watcher has to knit links between “Fred’s” dialogues and behavior to understand what he feels for Holly. The funniest moment both in the book and in the film was, in my point of view, when Holly and “Fred” steal masks in a store; the situation described in the book is represented in the movie as well. However, I also enjoyed watching the last minutes of the movie, when Holly throws the cat outside, shouts at “Fred” who tells her he loves her but finally stops the cab, runs aways from it in order to find out the cat and catch “Fred” up. This last moment shows how much “Fred” affected Holly’s life and made her think that belonging to someone you love and staying by him can also be a kind of freedom.
Before concluding on a positive view of the book and the movie, I may also mention that I’d have rather seen a blond actress for Holly, who is supposed to have gold hairs in the novella. Marylin Monroe for instance, may would have better fit with the character of Holly.
Victoria
Firstly, I’ll point out the distinctness I found between the book Breakfast at Tiffany’s, written by Truman Capote, and the movie, directed by Blake Edwards a few years later.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the biggest difference concerns the beginning of the movie. Actually the book starts with an “assessment”: the narrator and the owner of the shop meet to speak about Holly, who has disappeared without giving any news anymore. However, the movie starts with the first meeting between “Fred” and Holly. So it changes the approach of the reader or the viewer to the story; in the book we want to know why all these men are still interested by this girl, whereas in the movie we want to discover the characters and we are also expecting a love story.
Then, I think the end of the movie was really predictable. Actually the atmosphere is different from the one of the book; for instance in the movie the main characters are in love, whereas in the book their relationships and sexual orientations are unclear (Is the narrator “Fred” heterosexual?). So the viewer could expect a happy-ending, in agreement with all the Hollywood productions. Moreover the film was largely dominated by a joyful atmosphere: the several parties at Holly’s apartment and notably the music contributed to this overall impression. On the contrary, the atmosphere of the book was stranger, since the feelings of the narrator towards Holly are uncertain; is he in love with her or are they just friends?
Last but not least, the end of the movie was really impressive, with Holly desperately looking for her cat she’d abandoned a few minutes earlier, running in the streets under the rain. I think that the end of the book is more suspenseful, the reader is like the characters at the beginning, he also would like to know where Holly is now.
Finally, in the movie Holly was played by Audrey Hepburn, so by a young girl with long brown hair, whereas in the book she was described as having blond hair, and a boyish haircut. That’s why I think an actress as Kim Novak would have been more judicious to interpret the role.
Even if there are many similarities between Truman Capote’s novel “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and the movie version, there are also many differences and changes. One of the most noticeable of these, however, is the plot and how it progresses. For example the meeting between Holly and “Fred” is different in the film than in the book.
ReplyDeleteIn the book we are introduced to Holly as she rings “Fred’s” doorbell early in the morning and it's not the same thing in the film. In the movie we discover a new character, the decorator who has a quite important effect on the reader because it shows that the narrator isn't homosexual like it's supposed in the novella. Furthermore, this leads to a major change in the timeline of the plot and how the storyline progresses. In the novel we are lead to believe that the actions take place over a quite large period , whereas, as the movie shows the plot, it seems to only lasts a few months, as shown by their meeting and the rapid growth of their relationship.
Another large change in the plot concerns Sally ‘Tomato’. In Capote’s version of Breakfast at Tiffany’s ‘Fred’ doesn’t actually know him.
Furthermore, as the significance of the golden cage is not shown in the movie, it is merely an object already in the apartment....
The film version is a lovely film, and not quite as light and devoid of meaning as we could expect. Audrey Hepburn gives Holly a certain empty sadness that is disarming to behold. I think that she interprets well the behaviour and the attitude of Holly but as for the physical description, we can find many discrepancies : Holly has got bond hair and short hair whereas Audrey Hepburn has got long brown hair...
To my mind the film was really great, I liked the romantic twist and the plot but the end is maybe too pat and predictable !
There are many differences between the movie and the book of breakfast at Tiffany’s, some inflicts in the interpretation of the general scene, some other don’t.
ReplyDeleteRight at the start of the movie, Holly is presented as a woman with women interests. She has long hair and is looking at what we think is a jewellery. However, in the book, the narrator, since the beginning, describes Holly with « her hair sleek and short as a young man’s ». We can really feel the impression of contrast in all the characters in the book and, they are hidden under a kind of romance in the movie, which makes it more lightly and, I think that we can’t feel this sexual politic theme in the movie, which, is a shame. Even the theme of the short stories the narrator has written is changed.
The characters are also less diversified: we don’t even see Joe Bell in the movie and the others, except Holly and Paul (the narrator in the novella), are not considered much important by the realisator. According to me, they are all important in the book because we know, at the beginning, that they have all been linked by their love for Holly and love in its different kinds is also a major theme in the novella.
Concerning the casting, in my opinion, Audrey Hepburn is too feminine in the role of Holly. I would rather see an actress with short hair, a dark voice and walking like a young man, to show Holly’s ranch boy’s side.
Louise.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s movie shares some features with the novella written by Truman Capote, yet, it has several discrepancies with the original story.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, a movie’s restraints are always different from a book’s restraints. A writer can choose what to tell and what to hide, which is harder for a film director. The fact is that a movie can hardly be based on an unreliable narrator since people can watch the story, it cannot be really distorted, therefore, the movie could not just focus on the questionings about the ambiguities contained in the book (sexual identity, identity, child or woman, being chic or frank…)
As a consequence, the movie focuses more on the story itself. For instance, the possible romance between the narrator and Holly, only suggested in the novella is very present and concrete in the movie, besides, the vague and open ending of the novella (when we don’t know what happened to Holly) was replaced with a concrete happy ending which suits better to movies.
For the same reasons, I was quite surprised by some characters because I found most of them were not so ambiguous.
Just as Victoria, I would have rather pictured Marilyn Monroe playing Holly for several reasons. On the one hand, even if Marilyn Monroe does not have a boyish face, I would find her physically closer to Holly since she is blond-haired and looks more light-hearted than Audrey Hedburn. Then, I pictured Holly more vulnerable and chic and I found Audrey Hedburn looked more sure of herself than what I would have imagined.
I was also quite surprised by the actress playing Mag Wildwood since I had imagined her skinnier and maybe more chic, even if she is supposed to be quite rude.
Then, I really pictured Doc Golightly like he was in a movie, yet I found he was maybe too well-dressed since he was supposed to be quite rude and the narrator was supposed to be afraid of him.
Nevertheless, I really thought Rutherford Trawler looked like what I had imagined since he looked like a child just as in the novella ; I was also surprised by Mr.Yunioshi but I really found his character very funny and useful since it added humour to some dramatic scenes.
I could not submit all what I wrote so I did two parts.
Margot
Here is the second part, sorry for the inconvenience
ReplyDeleteIn this movie, I was really impressed by three different scenes.
To begin with, my favourite scene was the party at Holly’s. I liked that scene in the book because I found it very dynamically written and it presented most of the characters and their stories, moreover it was quite funny. I also enjoyed the way it was shot in the movie, even if I was quite surprised by the fact there were as many women as men, since in the novella only men are presented like taking part to that party (except from Mag Wildwood) and Holly is supposed to spend most of her time with men.
I found it very faithful to the book for many points: the use of tracking shots made it really dynamic and quite modern, there was also a density of stock characters and details which reminded me of the dynamic and accurate imagery of the novella. Each character seemed to have his own importance and complete personality, what reminds of the important number of stock characters in the book. Moreover, they all were quite ambiguous since they were supposed to be gentlemen but behaved very rudely. As a matter of fact, this scene containing so many characters and stories in one room seemed to be a firework summing up all of the themes of the novella (such as freedom, love, playing a role…) in a funny or tragic way.
Then, I also enjoyed the scene in which Doc.Golightly follows the narrator: it seemed such a great technical achievement !
First of all, I really liked the music ; it was sometimes scary, then accelerated… and suddenly stopped, what really suited to the sequence of shots first showing the narrator, then Doc Golightly, then the narrator and finally both of them from behind and then facing the spectator. That scene made me think of a cat following a mouse ! Besides, the glances the actors exchanged made that scene funnier, so I found that scene very funny and sometimes moving.
Finally, I was quite surprised by the last scene because it was very far from the book, yet I found it really symbolic since Holly seems to be, at least liberated when she realises wanting to much to be free from others is a way of being prisoner of herself. That scene is very moving and really suited as an ending scene because it was the end of an unreachable but hopeful idealism towards a more happier but less hopeful reality.
Overall, I enjoyed that movie because I found some scenes quite modern and very funny, yet I preferred the book because I really like the vague way of presenting characters and events used by Truman Capote before focusing precisely on some details. I also liked the contrast the use of a very modern language and “chic” story, all of which could not be really pictured. Yet, I also found the movie more moving and funnier than the novella since, while reading it is harder to picture the different scenes whereas a movie can rely on pictures, text, camera’s movements and music, so it is more lively and realistic.
Margot
We always say that people are disapppointed, watching a film adaptation of a book they read. That wasn't the case for me watching Breakfast at Tiffany's, because I thought the movie was almost not the same story as the book's .They were many changes between the characters description Truman Capote's novella, and the way they were played .For instance, there are few descriptions of Mr Yunioshi in the novella, we only know he is a Japanese photographer .In the movie, he seems a bit stupid and everybody mocks him because he has a funny way to speak .I also noticed that the director had to invent details about the narrator's character (in the novella, even his name is not given).
ReplyDeleteThere were also changes in the events,some scenes were not really faithful to the original story. One character is added in the film ;Fred's girlfriend at the beginning .The first scene in the movie is when Holly is walking on the streets, and the first one in the novella is the meeting of the narrator and Joe Bell, talking about Holly's travel in Africa.Another scene which is completely different:the ending. Truman Capote had decided to let go Holly . She ran away and then she didn't send news .In the movie, it is a happier ending .Holly wants to find her cat, that she had thrown up from the taxi .When she finds it,she kisses "Fred" and we can guess she will stay with him. It is an important detail:in the novella, Holly and "Fred" are only friends and in the movie, they have a love affair. So, in my opininon, the movie is more a modern fairytale than the novella .
Thank you for your replies girls!
ReplyDeleteVictoria - good point made about the last scene of the film representing a kind of freedom.
Mathilde - interesting contrast pointed out between the atmosphere of the film and the novella.
Elisa - "a certain empty sadness that is disarming to behold" - well put!
Louise - you're right, there is a change in the film as far as the theme of sexual identity/orientation is concerned.
Margot - it is possible for there to be an unreliable narrator in a movie. Interesting point made about the party summing up many of the themes.
Pascaline - you're right, the film was more like a modern fairy tale or love story because of the changes made. Does that mean you enjoyed it more or less?
Keep the comments coming everyone!
Before the holidays, we have watched Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The movie was realized in 1961 and directed by B. Edwards. I am going to give my overall impressions about the movie, in particular by giving a few discrepancies. At the end, I will relate a moment which has had a strong impact on me.
ReplyDeleteFirst, concerning the casting, I would like to say that the actors are, from my point of view, well chosen and fit well with the description given in the book. However, I noticed one discrepancy between Holly’s hair in the book and Holly’s hair in the movie. The actress has not got hair which looks like “boy’s hair”. From me, an actress who does not correspond all the time exactly to the character in the book is really a disadvantage because it creates a dissension between the book and the movie and can be at the origin of a misunderstanding. The author’s will can be modified and, therefore, the plot looses its substance. The music is also problematic because I found it a bit boring and very repetitive and I think a more active one could fit in this movie. Moreover, the plot is sometimes hard to follow because of a disorder in the succession of the events. They do not always follow the same order that we have seen in the novella. For instance, begin the film with the end of the book is maybe the director’s will to bring his own vision but one can ask if this decision is not at the expanse of the author’s idea. Furthermore, the flashback presents in the book is not translated in the movie.
Nevertheless, it is always necessary to watch a film with a different and neutral look and that is why my overall impression is good. I enjoy the movie because I haven’t any difficulty to come inside the story and feel involved in the movie. Moreover, the story is interesting and the themes evoked (American life, friendship, youth…) give food to think critically about some subjects.
To conclude, I am going to talk about a special moment in the movie which has had a strong impact on me. It is at the beginning or not a long time after when Holly said to the man who stands for the narrator that they are friends. I remember they are on a bed and with lots of sincerity she said “We are friends”. It has had an effect on me because I find this moment very interesting and one can identify himself to the character and think of the difficulty for everybody to have closed friends, friends we can rely on, friends we really love. Moreover, friendship between them is one of the main subjects in the story. This fact is related throughout the movie and from the beginning; one understands that they will be closed friends. Indeed, during the first part of the film, when the narrator comes into Holly’s apartment, she begins immediately to talk about her own private life. The moment I talk about at the beginning is calm and the behaviour Holly and the narrator have together (even during the entire movie) is a thing I have liked. It emphasizes perfectly the beauty of friendship but also the difficulty to deal with this kind of relations always in a golden mean between friendship and love. It was one of the parts of the movie I will remember the best.
Juliette C.
Breakfast At Tiffany's Movie And Book Comparison
ReplyDeleteThere are many similarities between Truman Capote’s novel “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and the movie version. However there are also many differences and changes. Changes occur in the plot, in its progression and .. obviously in the end.
The first obvious change is the meeting between Holly and the narrator. In the book, the opening scene describes the narrator’s apartment and the following scene stands in the bar where Joe Bell and the narrator reminds Holly Golightly, years after she has left the town. However the movie depicts this differently. They meet at the very beginning. This also speeds up the relationship between the narrator and Holly thus it also changes the way it is developed. The book emphasis the fact that Holly doesn’t care for the narrator until the night she goes to his room to avoid the “frightening man”.
Then, about the narrator personality, comparing to the book where he is just a novel writer, in the film he is depicted also as a gigolo ( the new character, his decorator who we expect is one of his ‘clients’)..
Moreover he finds out about Holly’s personality straight away whereas in the novel she remains a real mystery.
And the most obvious change occur at the end. First, If in the novel the reader expects the romance between Holly and the narrator, in the film, it is clearly shown (kisses). And .. if at the end of the book, she leaves him, alone with the unnamed cat, in the movie it is an “happy ending”. This totally changed the theme of the story
Point of view
I personally think that the movie is interesting because of the Audrey Hepburn’s excellent performance as Holly. She is brilliant and so alive that the watcher is compelled to be affected by her magnetic personality. But the happy end, typical of American film in the ’50, is a put-on.
I prefer the original version for the themes (liberty, independence, Holly’s philosophy with the idea of belonging), the point of view (because the narrator isn’t the hero, Holly remains a mystery which is very interesting) and the tragic end which seems more realistic and stick to Holly’s nature and the themes of the novel.
The casting.
Even if Capote had originally picked Marilyn Monroe to play the role of Holly Golightly, according to me Audrey Hepburn was the better choice. First, she share the same “ chic thinness” with the character. Beside, I assume that Holly Golightly may have taken her place as an American fictional icon.
Before the holidays, we watched Breakfast at Tiffany’s and as far I am concerned I was a bit disappointed. Actually, on the one hand, I found the casting quite good even a few mistakes in comparison with Capote’s descriptions. Moreover, the different themes of the novella were almost all explored. But on the other hand, the movie was too like “a Hollywood story”, becoming really less interesting than the novella. I was especially foiled by the end of the movie, too different in comparison of Truman’s version.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I am going to deal with the casting. According to me, as I said before, it was a good one. Audrey Hepburn is, without a doubt, a very good actress, who perfectly represents Holly regarding his behaviour. She embodies the free woman, who is both manipulative and sensitive. She manages to transmit Holly’s carefreeness and represents totally this person who is halfway between a woman and a teenager. But to my mind, she doesn’t correspond exactly to the “Holly” of Capote. She has long hair! Whereas she is supposed to have “boy’s hair”! It’s a mistake because this element is very important and has a real significance as it embodies freedom and this idea of a woman who refuses traditional conventions.
Paul, (the narrator in the novella), is also a rather great actor. Thanks to the movie, I have discovered him more than in the novella. In fact, in the book is very discreet, we even don’t know his name; he is a bit mysterious which is not really the case in the movie.
Mr Yunoshi is rather funny, but in the novella, it is never mentioned that he is, we just know he is a Japanese photographer but nothing else. So we can see that some elements have been added in the movie.
Then, let’s talk about the different themes of the novella. Friendship is explored but according to me, Holly and Paul are friends too early, it’s not very realistic. Since the beginning, Holly speaks about Sally Tomato to Paul while they practically don’t know each other. Moreover, freedom and independence are explored as well. The theme of identification is also present, notably with the cat which doesn’t have a name and this sentence of Holly, taken form the book, “We don’t belong to each other”. Then, love is also explored but this is not the same kind of love in the novella and in the movie. In the book, it’s just a platonic love but in the movie, it’s true love and I think it’s a great shame. All that gives strength to the story is the end where Holly leaves New-York. This end permits to show perfectly the idea of freedom and independence. Never a man has succeeded to keep her, so if she finally stays with a man, she doesn’t represent this idea of a modern woman who is totally free, doing what she wants. So, I was very disappointed by the end of the movie, too far from the original version.
Now, I want to deal with two scenes which have particularly marked me. The first one was the scene with Holly when she learns the death of his brother. Audrey Hepburn was really marvellous in this scene; we can see that Holly is not as strong as she pretends. In this part of the movie, we feel all her fragility and his extreme sadness. I really enjoyed this scene because Audrey was very moving.
The other was the party at Holly’s. It was nearly like I have imagined it. It permits us to discover a large number of characters and the atmosphere of the period describes in the novella.
To conclude, I would say that I am mitigated. Some things are very interesting, some other less. One thing on which I would like to return to is the dialogues of the movies which were nearly the same that in the novella. I really enjoyed it.
However, some scenes of the novella are forgotten in the movie and the end is not respected.
Lucie.
The cinematic adaptation of T. Capote’s « Breakfast at Tiffany’s » was nice but obviously lacking of most of the greatest features which made the book special. There are discrepancies throughout the whole movie, on the characters (For example J. Bell disappeared and S. Spanella’s actions where distributed to Mr Yunioshi.), and more importantly Fred, the scenes, the atmosphere and the point of view. Only the themes remained globally unchanged.
ReplyDeleteSome details from the book get a greater importance in the film, for example, Tiffany’s is supposed to be barelly quoted on some occasions whereas, in the movie, they spend a great amount of time in the shop. Also, the scene where they steal a mask should be about ten seconds long, but lasts a couple of minutes in the adaptation.
The movie could have stopped at its third minute. Indeed, the rest of it was a bit of a disappointment, firstly concerning A. Hepburn. Her acting skills were not so prominent although I do not think M. Monroe would have been a choice alternative, I consider A. Hepburn as a better physical match. Her character was finely represented though, she keeps an aura of unconcern, strengh and freedom ; but shows some sort of hidden sorrow and a deep, inner seclusion.
In the movie, Fred has a name that we are reminded of throughout the film : Paul Varjak. In the book, his name is kept undisclosed for the best. It leaves a part of him in the shadows. In the movie, appart from the additional fact that he is basically a male prostitute, I felt from the beginning like I already knew every side of his mind. It turned him into a some sort of flat classical romance male protagonist – that we learn very little of because it feels like any piece of information concerning him would be insignificant and boring. (Besides, I consider G. Peppard as a mis cast – for I found him particularly tedious and unexpressive. ) In the book, although it is a first person narration of which he is the story teller, he remains an enigmatic man ; who also gets to be much more sympathetic and interesting than his part in the film.
The switch from book to movie also creates a different point of view : it is originally Fred’s ; but the film gains freedom in the scope. We see scenes that were basically told to Fred and not by Fred per se (For example the moment Holly storms out and detroys her appartment.). It gives a closer look to situations but erases Fred’s part as a narrator.
Fred losing this role, we end up with an ambivalent importance ladder with two diametrically different characters : a mundane minded man - who could have gained in interest if he was this poor, ambitious and naive writer ; whereas here he already is rich and has his first book published - and a strange young woman trying to remain free, giving away what she loves. There could be two main characters here but the importance of each tend to cancel each other out : Holly has the stature of a main character ; whereas Fred, although his flatness erases him, is too important to be settled as secondary. It seems that Holly is wiping Fred off and that Fred can’t even be used as a stooge because of his presence. The book, on the contrary, made things clear from the beginning : This is Holly’s story, Fred narrates.
Here, Fred becomes part of the Hollywood romance, changing the end of the story : instead of moving out of the country, Holly finds out that people do belong to each other. She decides not to run away, takes the cat back (who she is meant to be with) and kisses Fred. This ending might be out of character (And the book’s ending probably fits Holly way more.) but, to be fair, it’s more interesting ; calling herself « a wild thing » and giving up on what she cares about may just be quitter talk from a frightened girl - it gives a smart theme to hang on to.
Although it has some obvious qualities, I enjoyed little of the movie compared to T. Capote’s work - and I think it is more of a Hollywood romance inspirated by the book than a true adaptation of it.
The movie Breakfast at Tiffany's and Truman Capote's novella share some similarities (other than the fact that they relate the same story) but also have a lot of differences concerning the characters, the important events and also small details that change the story in many ways.
ReplyDeleteThe characters : Regarding Holly, I don't think that we can see major differences between the two interpretations. "Fred" however is depicted differently : in the novella, "Fred's" sexuality is more ambiguous, we feel that he is in-between heterosexuality and homosexuality, just like Holly. Whereas in the movie, "Fred" seems completely heterosexual. Moreover, his emotions and thoughts are also different : he expresses openly the fact that he is in love with Holly, while in the book, his feelings towards her seem a lot more confused and he is shown more reserved and careful of showing emotion. Finally, there has been a mix between two characters of the novella in the movie as Madame Sapphia Spanella has disappeared and given her personality to Mr Yunioshi, the japanese photographer, who, at the end of the novella, is shown to be a very good friend of "fred's" but is depicted as a rather crazy neighbor in the movie, who calls the cops whenever he hears noise from Holly's apartment.
For me, the main difference between the film and the novella is the ending : we see a sad ending in Truman Capote's book as "Fred" promises to find Holly's cat while she leaves in a cab for the airport, we learn at the beginning that they will never see each over again. Whereas, in the movie, we see a much happier ending as they find the cat together and Holly stays with the narrator. There is also an other major contrast in the opening scenes : the novella starts with a discussion in Joe Bell's bar between the narrator, Mr Yunioshi and the owner, years after Holly left the city. Whereas the movie starts with the meeting of the two main characters in the brownstone.
I personally think that the movie is a great adaptation of Truman Capote's novella, the different changes made by the director made it a more romantic, Hollywood movie and have probably increased its success.
Geoffrey
When we watch Blake Edward's adaptation of Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's, we notice similarities between the book and the movie, but also a lot of important differences, that may change the spectator's previous look on the story.
ReplyDeleteThe first one I noticed is the character of « Fred », the narrator of the novella. In the movie, this character was given a name ( a real one ) which is Paul. According to me, it changes the way we look on this character because the fact to know his real name reduces the impression of mystery and we tend to concentrate on him too, while in the book, the narrator pushes us to concentrate on Holly's character than giving as less details about him as possible. This bring us to the fact that in the movie adaptation, we are given a lot of details about Paul's personnal life. That's why we can have the impression that he is less stalkerlike than in the novella.
But Paul ( or Fred ) is not the only character to be subject to changes. Indeed, Holly Golightly's character is subject to changes, especially physical changes. In the novella, Holly is described as an « in between » character, we suppose that she is bisexual and she looks boyish. In the movie, she seems to be straight and more girly. Fortunately, she still has a special personnality. However, I think that even though Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe to play Holly, engaging Audrey Hepburn was a great deal, because both Holly and Audrey have become icons.
Two other great differences are the period and the lenght of the action.
In the book, the action takes place in the 1940s and we can suppose that all the events happen in an extended period of time whereas in the movie, the action spans a few months and takes place circa 1960.
We can explain this changement by the fact that the producers wanted the movie to be more ' bankable ', this could include the fact that the spectators are more tempted by a movie where the they could indentify themselves to the characters, in the same period and don't want to get bored by an action that lasts too long.
The last difference that hit me is the apparition of Paul's decorator, nicknamed 2E, in the movie. This character makes us suppose that Paul is an escort and that this decorator is a client. Indeed, there's a scene where we see 2E leaving money and kissing Paul goodbye.
The movie gives the impression to be a typical Hollywood romance, but it's still a great adaptation according to me.
In all, despite the many similarities between Capotes novella and the movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s, there are still many differences in both plot and character structure. In this, both the book and novel can been seen in totally different lights, both giving distinctive and dissimilar feelings throughout.
Oihana
Between the novella Breakfast at Tiffany's and the movie based upon it are there some important changes in the story itself, and also different tones for the style.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, we can state changes. For instance, the relationship between the narrator and Holly tends to get simplified in the movie, for they are finally both in love, whereas, in the novella, their relationship is much more ambiguous. Again, in the movie, the narrator gets one more job: he’s not only a writer, but also a prostitute. Thereby, the director might have wanted to draw a connection between him and Holly, since they have this way the same job. In the novella, Holly and the narrator do also form a bond, but not on the same way: it is by their ambiguous sexual orientations.
From the novella to the Hollywood movie, the amount of comical situations sharply increased, such as the numerous short and funny scenes implying Mister Yunioshi. It is doubtlessly due to Blake Edward’s style, who also directed movies such as The Party, which distinguish themselves by their great deal of humor and fantasy. But it is not only about some scenes: the general atmosphere is more joyful than in the novella.
On the other hand, we can see that the style is quite similar in the movie and the novella. Thus, the style is vivid in both: firstly, the novella, which multiplies the dialogues, the different ways to introduce the characters and the liberal expressions; then, the movie, which is really sets up on ambiances, created by the characters and the music, but also by the great variety of situations. This variety makes the atmosphere very vivid, from the most dramatic to the most comical moments. It makes the movie looks like life, since life cannot be summarized in only one kind of situation. So that, even if the movie happily ends, it’s a special Hollywood production, which tries to make the spectator think of some of Truman Capote’s themes, like freedom, ambition, stability or independence. As a consequence, the film is as well an intelligent comedy as a Hollywood romantic drama.
It seemed to me that the changes which were made to the story, which tended to simplify it, like, among others, for the relationship of Holly and the narrator, weakened Truman Capote’s reflection in order to make the movie as entertaining as possible. Besides, even if it is quite a shame, I found that the spectator was really to get involved in the story, especially thanks to the great interpretation of Audrey Hepburn. I don’t think any other actress would have been better for this role; the reason is her bright and witty look did absolutely perfectly correspond to Holly Golightly.
To conclude, I would like to say I enjoyed equally the movie and the novella, both being very entertaining. But I assume that the novella is more emotionally impressive, because of its absence of happy ending. Furthermore, I believe it interesting to discover both, as well the lively optimistic movie as the very intelligent novella, which strike by its powerful reflections, especially about whether or not belonging to each other.
Breakfast at Tiffany's
ReplyDeleteTruman Capote & Blake Edwards
- Amelie.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s was Truman Capote’s novella before becoming a movie directed by Blake Edwards. After reading the book and watching the film, we can observe a huge amount of differences between both of them, things that may have been necessary because it isn’t the same way of relating, but which had a totally different meaning. This essay will explore the small differences that had a huge impact, the scenes which were added or taken off, and the characters who were not the same – when they were there.
Firstly, I would tend to say that I observed many discrepancies between Truman Capote’s novel and Blake Edwards’s movie, as much in the scenes as in the places or the characters’ behaviour.
Indeed, some scenes were completely different. For instance in the movie, the narrator doesn’t spend a lot of time watching her secretly before she “start[s] ringing” at his door : they meet at the very beginning. There is another part of the movie which is completely different from the book, it is the moment when the police catch Holly. Whereas in the book, the narrator learns it thanks to “the late edition of the Journal-American and [to] the early editions of both the Daily News and the Daily Mirror”, in the movie he is caught with her, even if he is innocent. The differences between the book and the movie for these two scenes make the narrator’s character have a stronger impact and a more important presence in the movie.
On top of that, some places look a bit different in the book and in the movie, for example the narrator’s apartment. Indeed, in the book, the first paragraph which is the first image the author gives us, is the description of the flat ; but by not starting with a similar image, the movie hasn’t got a same nostalgia, and the spectator doesn’t begin the story in a similar mood, and with the same expectations. Also, he doesn’t tend to imagine the apartment in the same way that we see it in the movie, because the representation made is really different. Although in the film it looks like a smart place, well-decorated, it is clearly explained in the novel that the sofas made their owner think of “hot days in a train”, that in the bathroom, there are “prints of Roman ruins freckled brown with age”, and that “the single window looked out on a fire escape”. Indeed, the “two” apartments are completely opposite, and they do not give the same image of the narrator who does not have the same importance in the book and in the movie.
Finally, some little details, different from the book, can be added in this list. Whereas in the book Holly and the narrator have to go to Joe Bell’s bar – a character who disappears in the movie – to deliver messages, both of them are in possession of a phone in their own homes. This appears like an anachronism, when we know that the story is taking place in the 1930s. There is also the fact that Holly, in the movie, doesn’t speak a lot in French and doesn’t often wear her dark sunglasses, this could be because she is often seen inside. This leads to an important change of the image that is given of her to the audience. Indeed, these two items are considered, in people’s mind, to be the proof of somebody being smart, and because Holly Golightly is not really using these assets, she is not immediately considered as someone of New York’s high society.
Breakfast at Tiffany's
ReplyDeleteTruman Capote & Blake
- Amelie
Secondly, a few scenes are added in the movie, scenes which don’t exist in the novella. These scenes create a different relationship between the two main characters, Holly Golightly and the narrator, and this lends to a completely different ending.
In the first added scene which I will talk about, we have the moment when Holly decides to teach the narrator how to steal. Both of them, after a complete invented scene, when they are in a library, enter a shop. The scene has almost no dialogue, only some laughs and the music in the background. At the end of it, they finally succeed in stealing two masks. Because Holly here teaches something new to her friend, this part of the movie appears like a confidential intimate moment, where we understand that they are becoming closer and closer, and that a love story could appear between them, what is not the case in Truman Capote’s book. Finally, the proximity that takes place between them confirms our thoughts and leads to three scenes completely new for somebody who read the book.
Indeed, a kiss follows this episode, and the narrator’s love declaration in a library that he showed her reinforces what we believed: this is not a story of a friendship, but a love story – at least on one side. Whereas in the book, the narrator is not certain of his feelings towards Holly, there is no doubt possible in the movie. In the novella, Holly considers him as a friend, maybe a confident although the narrator is full of admiration towards her, and if she had spent a bit more time with him, he would have deeply fallen in love with her. However, in the movie, she appreciates him more than in the book, or in a different way, and he is completely in love with her. This takes us to the two different endings. On one hand, in the book, the narrator lets his friend leave New York for Brazil. He is sad of because of it but accepts it, and keeps his promise by searching – and finding – the anonymous cat that she had left somewhere on her way for the airport. On the other hand, in the movie, they fight because he wants her to stay. She “throws” the cat out of the cab where they were, and he then leaves. She understands the mistake, finds the cat and kisses him.
There is also another thing missing from the book in the movie : the fact that the story is supposed to be an entire flashback. In the novella, a common friend asked the narrator to relate his relationship with Holly, although in the movie, it’s just a story, with no special link with the present. This takes out some kind of intimate relationship between the narrator and the reader, and it appears less like a true story, whereas in the book, the fact that it’s a first-person narrator gives an authenticity which is missing in the movie. This takes out the nostalgical mood that was felt in the book.
Breakfast at Tiffany's
ReplyDeleteTruman Capote & Blake Edwards
- Amelie
Thirdly, three significant characters or objects are changed or disappeared from the book, what leads to a lack of information for the spectator.
First, as I said before, the fact that the story is supposed to be a flashback is possible thanks to the presence of Joe Bell, a character who doesn’t exist anymore in the film. We learn in the very beginning that he is secretly in love with Holly, and we start thinking that she might be somebody totally extraordinary, which is not the case in the book, since he isn’t present. This also takes out some of Holly’s notoriety : she hasn’t appeared famous since the very beginning so the audience aren’t aware that everybody knows who she is.
Secondly, the narrator is meant to be given a name in the movie ! From “Anonymous”, he suddenly becomes Paul. Once more, this gives a different image of him : he is not the shy little man, recently independent, who discovers life ; he becomes somebody. He has a name, which is a synonym of personality in people’s mind. From a voice narrating a story, he becomes the main character, the prince whilst Holly remains the princess. The choice of not giving a name to his character was certainly difficult in Truman Capote’s head, but the movie director, Blake Edwards, maybe thought that he couldn’t afford not to have a name for the public needs.
Finally, an important object is missing : the birdcage. This was quite an important thing in the novella, because it had a large significance. Indeed, this book had many major themes, and the birdcage was able to explore many of these in the same time. For instance, friendship was understood because the birdcage was a gift between them. At the same time, it was also able to represent the vulnerability of the bird, flying between the trees but having to be careful of everything that could possibly destroy it. It also mixed the freedom and the stability : the freedom of the bird and the stability because, if a bird was put in the cage, it would have to stay in this same place for years. The birdcage also represented independence, but mostly of the narrator Paul’s independence, a subject that was already explored thanks to the description of his apartment in the very beginning. Finally, the bird represented Holly’s allegory : free and fragile, independent but vulnerable.
To conclude, many discrepancies between the book and the movie can be observed, which leads me to think that the two ways in which this story was told resulted in completely different versions. Indeed, the movie wasn’t able to explore the same issues as the book, and the movie had a different impact than the book on the public
Set in 1961, Breakfast at Tiffany's, was a film directed by Blake Edward. This film was adapted from the novella by Truman Capote, we last studied. But comparisons between the script and the book cannot be avoided.
ReplyDeleteThe first changes appear at once. In fact, the meeting of Holly and « Fred » doesn't unwind in the same way. In the film, « Fred » arrives in his new house and meets Holly for the first time in her apartment of the Upper East Side. Whereas in the novella, Holly has already disappeared without the reader knowing anything about her.
Then, in the film, appears a young lady, an interior decorator, who claims to be the girl friend of « Fred ». But that's not the case in the novella of Truman Capote, in fact this character was never mentioned.
Plus, the character of Mr. Yunioshi, the photograph, was stressed in a stereotypical way. On the contrary, his character was not pronounced in such a way in the book. And I found him quite hilarious in the film.
Moreover, in the book, the sexual attractions of « Fred » seem unclear. But in the film, he seems to be quite straight. Maybe it would have been badly seen by a Hollywood production ?
Furthermore, I didn't understand why Holly was played by Audrey Hepburn (even if I loved A. Hepburn in the film). Why playing the character of Holly by a very feminine woman with long dark hair, while Truman Capote describes a woman with a boyish blond hair cut ?
Overall, despite diversions from Truman Capote’s original novella, I thought Breakfast At Tiffany's was a great film, full of romance. Especially, at the end, in the taxi, when « Fred » says to Holly : « People do fall in love. People do belong to each other. Because that's the only chance anybody's got for real happiness ».
Rose
"Breakfast at Tiffany's" is a film based on the novella written by Truman Capote (1924 - 1984) and set in 1961. The film was directed by Blake Edwards, starring Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly. The scenes and scripts obviously evolved betweeen the novella and the movie, which calls us to compare them.
DeleteWe experience from the begining the changes between the film and the novella. The narrator's name "Fred" is never mentionned in the novella unlike in the movie.
In the book, the first scene is a conversation between Joe Bell in his bar, where the narrator and Joe speak of the past. The main caracter, Holly Golighly, is supposedly in Africa with two men and the photography of them three would have been taken by Yunioshi; the narrator's upstairs neighbor at the time. Whereas in the film the first scene is the narrator moving into his appartment on Upper East Side. I personnally prefered the film version because it was much easier to understand. The novella works more on the suspense but it's a bit too confusing seeing we don't know the caracters nor why they left.
Fred's decorator, who claims being his lover, a very rich women, very stylish, is quite present in the movie whereas in the novella she is never mentionned. In fact in the novella hints are given to lead us to think the narrator might be gay (rejected at that time). Personally I didn't notice any hint whatsoever leading us to think the narrator was gay. Probably to evoid a scandal at the time.
Similarly, to Fred's decorator : the caracter Joe Bell, who seems to be the narrator's best friend but also seems to be in love with Miss. Golightly in the novella. He does not appear nor is he mentionned in the film.
I was stunned by Mr.Yunioshi who in fact turns out to be a quite hilarious caracter in the film whereas in the novella Yunioshi is almost invisible, in my opinion.
I enjoyed Holly Golightly's caracter as well in the book than in the movie. It was perfectly played by Audrey Hepburn, "bright and witty" as said Iseut. Unfortunatly her physcial traits did not correspond with Capote's description of Holly.
The ending was similar to the novella excepted the cat with no name ("Poor slob without a name! The way I see it I haven't got the right to give him one. We don't belong to each other." Holly's phrase, from the Hollywood adaptation), I do not remember it being between Holly and Fred. A beautiful ending inthe book, very well descibed whereas in the book I found it a bit pathetic in the film. There was to much hesitation between the two caracters. Holly searching her cat was just "too much".
Blake Edwards turned "Breakfast at Tiffany's" into a hilariously romantic movie despite the changes made. But in all I prefered the novella, with complete details and a magic ending.
"Breakfast at Tiffany's" is a film based on the novella written by Truman Capote (1924 - 1984) and set in 1961. The film was directed by Blake Edwards, starring Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly. The scenes and scripts obviously evolved betweeen the novella and the movie, which calls us to compare them.
ReplyDeleteWe experience from the begining the changes between the film and the novella. The narrator's name "Fred" is never mentionned in the novella unlike in the movie.
In the book, the first scene is a conversation between Joe Bell in his bar, where the narrator and Joe speak of the past. The main caracter, Holly Golighly, is supposedly in Africa with two men and the photography of them three would have been taken by Yunioshi; the narrator's upstairs neighbor at the time. Whereas in the film the first scene is the narrator moving into his appartment on Upper East Side. I personnally prefered the film version because it was much easier to understand. The novella works more on the suspense but it's a bit too confusing seeing we don't know the caracters nor why they left.
Fred's decorator, who claims being his lover, a very rich women, very stylish, is quite present in the movie whereas in the novella she is never mentionned. In fact in the novella hints are given to lead us to think the narrator might be gay (rejected at that time). Personally I didn't notice any hint whatsoever leading us to think the narrator was gay. Probably to evoid a scandal at the time.
Similarly, to Fred's decorator : the caracter Joe Bell, who seems to be the narrator's best friend but also seems to be in love with Miss. Golightly in the novella. He does not appear nor is he mentionned in the film.
I was stunned by Mr.Yunioshi who in fact turns out to be a quite hilarious caracter in the film whereas in the novella Yunioshi is almost invisible, in my opinion.
I enjoyed Holly Golightly's caracter as well in the book than in the movie. It was perfectly played by Audrey Hepburn, "bright and witty" as said Iseut. Unfortunatly her physcial traits did not correspond with Capote's description of Holly.
The ending was similar to the novella excepted the cat with no name ("Poor slob without a name! The way I see it I haven't got the right to give him one. We don't belong to each other." Holly's phrase, from the Hollywood adaptation), I do not remember it being between Holly and Fred. A beautiful ending in the book, very well descibed whereas in the film I found it a bit pathetic.
There was to much hesitation between the two caracters. Holly searching her cat was just "too much".
Blake Edwards turned "Breakfast at Tiffany's" into a hilariously romantic movie despite the changes made. But in all I prefered the novella, with complete details and a magic ending.
We saw the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's in class. It's important to notice that it is not an adaption of the novella written by Truman Capote, in fact the film is just inspired by the book. Before watching the movie, I had already read the novella and I found it very interesting, the characters, the atmosphere, the plot, I enjoyed reading this book, and Truman Capote is a very good writter and published many famous books e.g. In Cold Blood in 1966.
ReplyDeleteAs I said the movie is inspired by the book, so we found many similarities between these two works but also many differences.
About the characters and the casting, Truman Capote expected to Marylin Monroe to play the Holly's role. Finally it's Audrey Hepburn who got the role and Truman Capote was very dispointed because he said that she was very different than Holly Golthly. Moroever, Holly was very energic and very extroverted in contrast with Audrey Hepburn who was more introverted. She said that it was the hardest role she have played in her career. Furthermore in the book Holly looks like a man but in the movie it's not the case anywhere. To conclude Audrey Hepburn played the role wonderfully and this movie permited to launch her career. About Yokoshi, in the movie he is like a clown, Holly has fun with him but I don't have the same impression in the novella.
About the plot there is discrepancies, in fact one of the first scene in the bar with Joe Bell which deals with the statue found by Yokoshi in Africa is not in the film. Unfortunately it's one of my favourite scene in the book because the intrigue is well-buit. Moreover the end is different in the book and in the film. In fact, in the book Holly disappear in contrast to the film where there is a happy ending, of course she kisses the narrator.
The time of the film I prefer is when Holly sings Moon River, sat at the edge of the window and playing the guitar. This scene is very moving that's why I enjoyed it.
To conclude, I find the film very great, and the fact that the film is different than the book is not so bad because in my way I read and saw two different versions of Breakfast at Tiffany's, and I liked both of them. Sometimes, when the film seems too much to the book it is disappointing because the film is very different than your imagination after reading the book but it was not the case for these works.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s was realized in 1961 by Blake Edwards. The two main actors are Audrey Hepburn (Holly Golightly) and George Peppard (« Fred »). In my opinion, this is quite a good adaptation from Truman Capote’s novella, however we can notice some discrepancies.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to say a few words about the choice of the two main actors. I think the way they embodied their characters was quite faithful to the book‘s story. Nevertheless, they are differences regarding Holly’s physical aspect (she has long brown hair in the movie instead of short blond hair), also regarding her sexuality (in the book, she is supposed to be bisexual while in the movie she looks entirely heterosexual). About Fred, we saw in the book that he is a very mysterious person, actually we do not really know him (even not his real name), while in the movie we discover much more things about him. It could be a disappointment but I personally prefer when in a movie a character is clearly presented.
In spite of a few discrepancies regarding the characters, I am not disappointed at all because I think it can change a bit our view relating to the story, and it’s not so bad.
The plot is also different from the book, like in every film adaptations actually. For instance, in the movie Fred and Holly become friends very quickly (maybe too much) ; also the first scene of the book is in Joe Bell‘s bar, (where Bell and Fred are talking about Holly), which is not the case in the movie. But there is one big change that we can’t avoid : the end. In the book, Holly Golightly leaves and never comes back, an act which points out her desire of independence and freedom. On the contrary, in the movie‘s version, after a fight Holly and Fred finally make their love relationship official.
Of course this choice of a «happy end» brakes Holly’s desire of independence because there she realizes that she can’t live without Fred. However this is the kind of end used to exist in scores of American movies… and maybe it is the end that some people actually wanted in Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
To conclude, I have to say that I really enjoyed both the movie and the novella. The differences between them have made possible to have different views of the story, so it was a good idea to present us two different ends. Thus we can chose which one was the best, personally I preferred the movie’s end !
Breakfast at Tiffany's is Truman Capote's best-loved fiction, considered, arguably, as one f the finest novels of American litterature. It recounts Holly Golightly's year-long friendship with an unamed writer, the narrator of the novel, whom she calls "Fred" after her long lost brother. Lighthearted and humourus, this novel displays with splendour Manhattan during the Second World War. It goes without saying that it was a joy to read.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the film, made in 1961, was considered to be far more popular than the novel it was adapted from. Although it follows rather meticulously the original dialogue, certain aspects of the story were changed. In fact, according to certain screenwriters, the novel was rather actionless.
The most strinking difference between film and novel, in my opinion, was the presentation of the narrator. An implied homesexual, unnamed and premusably very private in the novella, the narrator appears as "Paul Varjak", utterly heterosexual and in love with Holly Golightly in the film. We notice here, the intentions of the producers to transform Capote's masterpiece into a Hollywood love story.
Next, we observe Truman's language in the novel is a little more frank than it is in the movie. I woud also underline the frequent appearance of the hilarious Mr Yunioshi whom was rarely mentioned in the novel. Moreover, a most prominent change between novel and movie, is the absence of the exploration of sexual differences. A factor of Capote's success was his profound discussions of homosexuality and gender, none of which appear in the screenwrite.
Furthermore, I would highlight the contrast between a Hollywood Holly and Capote's Holly Golightly. Contrarely to what is descibed in the novel, Holly, played by Audrey Hepburn, does not have "boyish" short hair, symbol of the rejection of the traditional woman. However, to my mind, Audrey Hepburn represented with wonder a kooky party girl who lived off "rats and big rats" and had a tendancy to "get the mean reds". With such amazing acting skills, it is hard to believe that Truman Capote had wished for Marylin Monroe to play the role of innocent Holiday Golightly.
Finally, what is most strinking yet, is the replacement of Capote's ambiguous and unhappy ending, to a Hollywood happy ending.
I would like to conclude that, although both cinematic and written versions were different under certain aspects, themes such as the cat, innocence, melancholy, Tiffany's, were conserved, making Breakfast at Tiffany's the masterpiece it continues to be today. I found both interpretations successful although I believe the novel's ending was more emotionally moving, thus making it more relevant and unforgetful to me.
Breakfast at Tiffany's, by Truman Capote, one of the most famous novel of American literature, has been the subject of a film adaptation by Blake Edwards in 1961. Though this inspiration, many discrepancies can be observed between the both.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the plot himself has been slightly modified. Some parts have been completely deleted, such as the story in Africa, or even scenes in Joe Bell's bar. On the other hand, some adventures happen to the hero, that are not mentioned in the book: his alleged girlfriend for instance, or the way Holly and Fred become friends. In the movie, the main character seems to be clearly heterosexual, but it's not the case in Capote's book. Even the end of the story, one of the most important part, has been completely changed, turned into a happy-and-hopeful conclusion, which is certainly more appropriate to a Hollywood movie.
Then, we could also observe that, as the medium changes, the spectator no longer lives the story in the same way. An internal point of view cannot be clearly chosen in a movie; we are not able to see the story "with Fred's eyes", as in the book. Thus, it's harder to identify with him. This character is more insteresting in the book, because we only know few things about him, not even his real name; but, in the movie, he is clearly described, and has no secrets to the watcher. Moreover, as Fred is the hero of the book, and as he is completely obscessed by Holly, the woman become sort of the center of the story; but the movie is more focused on Fred's character, which is, according to me, clearly less interesting.
We can conclude that, if the movie had exactly the same story as the book, he would certainly has known less success; we cannot really compare the both, because the constraints caused by a movie are too different from the ones in a book. They have the same title, but they are not the same story. Nevertheless, both were a complete success, the Hollywood love story as much as the Capote's masterpiece.
We watched Breakfast at Tiffany’s in class after reading the book the novella writen by Truman Capote. The film was made in 1961 in New York City by B.
ReplyDeleteEdwards with Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard as the main characters Holly Golightly and the narrator.
Since the beginning, the first scene isn't the same in the movie and the book. In the book the narrator meets Joe Bells while in the movie we directly see
Holly walking in the streets. The story is totally different, we don't even hear about the trip of Holly in Africa. The characters are also different from
the book : Holly Golightly has long hair whereas in the book she has short one and Mr.Yunioshi seems quite funny and stupid while in the book there is no
description of his personality.
A lot of elements have been added or are missing. The romance between Holly and the narrator is excepted all during the book while in the movie it is shown
after few minutes. The movie is not at the first-person which is a big mistake I think because the book is mainly about what thinks the narrator and not the
actions occuring around him. In this way, the movie is quite boring and doesn't bring any reflexions. Also, while the book ends with the separation of the
characters, B. Edwards prefered an happy ending.
The character of Holly is already very impulsive in the book, but it is quite too much in the movie. Holly speaks the all time, very quickly, in an annoying way.
To conclude, I would say that the movie was for me too much in an Hollywood style, not taking enough care about the faithullness to the text. To make it much more commerciable they added and deleted a lot of things which lends to an new movie and not an adaptation of the book. Despite these things, it is a great movie with a great romance story and beautiful backrounds and musics.
On friday, we watched the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's directed by Blake Edwards after weeks of study on the book.
ReplyDeleteWe can notice many differences between the movie and the book. But that seems normal, since, as said at the beginning of the movie, it is only inspired by the book. Physically, apart from Holly, the characters are very much alike. In the book, Holly has hair as « short as a young man’s », where as in the movie she has long hair and wears jewerelly like any other woman at that time. Regarding the characters' feelings and sexual orientation, much is lost. Important themes like the closeness of friendship and love or the characters' homosexuality. As for the plot, the beginning isn't as interesting in the movie as it is in the book or original. The ending is too predictable in the movie.
As a conclusion, we could say that, because of all the changed details or even parts of the movie, two completely different atmospheres appear in the movie and in the novella, making the movie just another romance film and the book a great classic.
In class, we studied both cinematic and written versions of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Considered to be Truman Capote's best-known masterpiece, it remains, today, one of the most popular novellas of American litterature. The book counts the tale of a young preppy socialite, Holly Golightly and her rather ambiguous relationship with the narrator whose name is unknown to us.
ReplyDeleteIn the movie, the first thing I noticed was the absence of a story frame, meaning that there was no flashback. We were imediately plunged into the story. I would also mention that, unlike the novel which takes place during the Second World War, the film takes place during the early 60s. Moreover, what is striking is that we know the narrator's name and his identity, thereby raising any doubts we had upon him. The relationship both Holly and him lead appears to be totally heterosexual.
Besides these differences, several themes such as the cat, Tiffany's or even Fred, remain prominent in the film. I prefered the novel which I believed was more realistic and emotional, most notably thanks to its ambiguous ending. In fact, the movie's Hollywood happy ending ruined it's conclusion.