Just saw Breakfast at Tiffany's for the first time

Humor that was acceptable then is not acceptable now, the times have changed in many ways and that's good, obviously. Do I wish the performance wasn't there? Nah, I say let it stand. That was then, this is now, art is art blah blah blah. In some ways that character is just as retrospectively offensive as Holly Golightly's prostitute -lite and George Peppard's character being a straight gigolo.

 

Good comments Ralph.

 

There are other offensive elements in the film that are arguably worse than Mickey Rooney's being miscast as an Asian for comic relief. There's a creepy subtext of Audrey Hepburn's white skavery and off the books marriage to a family headed by an elderly Buddy Ebson. While treated benignly in the film, the shame placed on her for leaving the family seems to overshadow her efforts to escape from it and fear of being discovered and repatriated against her wishes.

Is Audrey's character really a gold digger or just a young girl deprived of an education trying to better her situation while getting out of an untenable one? Food for thought.


Cat

 

Who are they now?

 

No argument here. I will add that the original RCA Stereo LP's from this era sound great, ditto for other Mancini soundtracks from the same time period (Charade, Hatari, Pink Pather, etc.).

 

I think the movie is interesting. I feel that there are a bunch of memorable scenes, but the movie itself is not as memorable.

 

That type of comedy was supposedly funny in 1960 but it is a very ugly scene in 2017. I find Jerry Lewis's comedic style of the same era similarly excruciating. But it must have been funny 60 years ago. Millions of people can't be wrong. Ironically I have never grown tired of Laurel and Hardy's 1930's comedy so it's got to be more than an era thing.

 

agree! he was on an amazing roll at that time

 

I don't think that's an "offensive" element, just one Edwards wasn't prepared to explore with any depth. This is a superficial and overwhelmingly sentimental movie. That's really the more problematic thing about it.

 

Yeah, it's a bit less than a sum of its parts. Hepburn, Cat, the party, the opening, Givenchy, Mancini, the masks, the sunglasses, and yet...

 

Yeah it didnt work. Maybe going for comic relief respite and just didnt land. I think Blake was testing out his racial humor and would perfect it with Peter Sellers on The Party (love that film) and maybe Kato (Cato?) in the Pink Panthers.

 

Great to know. I love Mancini. Do you prefer Tiffany’s in mono or stereo?

 

Her version of Moon River kills me. And the way she says hi to Peppard after.

 

I prefer “barefoot in the park” to “breakfast at Tiffany’s” though the two films remind me of each other for some weird reason.

 

You're probably right that Blake Edwards wasn't trying to explore such a controversial topic in any depth. Most big budget movies of the era (comedies, dramas and musicals) tended to be sentimental/superficial, but taken in a modern context there's room for greater interpretation. Does an unhealthy family relationship lurk just below the surface? It seemed kinda creepy to me, but who knows how those scenes played to roadshow audiences back then. If you peel back the hokum & sentimentality Breakfast At Tiffany's might deserve reappraisal.


Cat

 

Check my username..... Anyway, definitely stereo, and all of Mancini's late fifties/early 60's RCA albums
sound sensational in stereo (especially the ones marked "Living Stereo").

 

Not remotely fair to compare "Blazing Saddles" to Rooney's offensive caricature. Brooks' used broad and offensive comedy as smart and stinging social satire while Rooney was simply going for easy and cheap laughs. There was never any value to it, period.

And don't forget that a lot of people were uncomfortable with it from the start. I know it's all fun for many people now to wax nostalgic for a less PC time, but imagine being a Japanese American who recently lived through interment camps sitting in an audience and seeing this. It was always unnecessary, and I think it was outdated from the start.

dan c

 

Stereotyping is a one way street. Interesting, huh?

 

The criticism of the film and it's inclusion of a comic relief character is, of course, valid. Why isn't that enough?

We could play the "imagine being a ______ " and seeing "XXXXX" all day and night for weeks. It's still ok today to shred certain groups while others are protected. Probably best to let the sanctimony go.

 

I finally watched it a few years ago and was really disappointed. It seemed obvious to me that the original ending was changed, the movie's end felt so tacked on. My wife loves Audrey and she's always been drawn to daffy characters like Gracie Allen. I don't get the romance where one partner has to virtually go around the world to convince the other person that they're for real. I remember when I saw Always, I was teary when I first saw her cause she was obviously dying and in true Audrey fashion, didn't really care what she looked like.

 

Blake Edwards was no Elia Kazan -no question. I agree that Buddy Ebson's "Doc" has a creepy vibe -just how old was she again when "given" in matrimony? Yikes....

 

But she's not played that way at all. She's played as quirky and (supposedly) charming.

Hepburn was woefully miscast in the part. They considered Marilyn Monroe and that would've been a much better choice...

 

I agree with you. There's a huge fanbase that views this film as a classic, but I think it's a mess. Not charming, not entertaining, not endearing - just a mushy morass!

 

IIRC she was who Truman Capote wanted to play the part; I wonder why it didn't happen. She didn't like the script, perhaps?

As some others have said there are a lot of good segments, but the movie adds up to less than the sum of its parts. I can enjoy it largely, with a finger on the fast-forward button, as a stylistic time capsule.

 

I don't enjoy it, and that's largely because I so dislike Holly as played by Hepburn. I like Hepburn in general, but she's annoying as can be in this role.

Even without Mickey Rooney, the movie's a dud, IMO...