On February 22, as a “comment,” post your response to the film Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Make your response a thoughtful two paragraphs. This will be your class journal, so also put a copy of your response in your journal document. Make in-depth comments (of at least three sentences) on at least three other entries from this class before February 27.
In the cover note section, in your “collaboration” page, note whose responses you replied to for the Breakfast at Tiffany’s blogging. If you have not done so, also note whose responses you replied to for your Capote replies.
anne f walker 
When the movie started I was not too pleased. I felt like they just jumped straight into the story without ‘setting it up’ properly. I also was not pleased with the way Holly was portrayed. It just did not match the way I had pictured her, I pictured her a little less “delicate” and a little more “interesting”. But she did grow on me and so did the movie once I had forgotten my initial thoughts.
I did like the fact that the movie gave “Fred” a name. Although it may have been harder to follow a movie that focused on a character without a name, the addition of his name was probably for the audience. The “party scene” lost its significance for me in the movie, or it just did not have the same effect as in the book.
Paul and Holly’s romance seems inevitable in the book it just never happened. The way that it was so central to the movie was sort of surprising. But it kind of served the purpose of an ‘alternate ending,’ even though it was so intertwined with the rest of the events in the movie. I just wonder what Capote would have thought of this interpretation of his work.
I agree that that at the beginning of the movie I was skeptical of Holly as well, but eventually she grew on me. I also notice that Holly and Paul’s relationship was central to the movie as well, which wasn’t seen in the book at all. I also liked how you notice that they mention Fred’s real name in the movie and the reason behind it makes a lot since, because viewers would question the main character’s name.
It seemed odd to me as well that the movie would jump straight into the story. Holly was definitely not what I imagined as well and naming Fred was just a plus to me. The “party scene” definitely did not have the same significance for me as well. I definitely am wondering the same thing about Capote and his thoughts on the movie.
i can completely agree with you with the fact the the movie started with the plot to fast. I felt that the movie did not give us any information of the setting or where the movie was taking place until later on in the movie. I also did not like the party scene because it made me dislike Holly for the way she was portrait as a gold digger.I feel that Capote would of dislike this movie because they made his novel into a love story.
I have to agree with you in the fact that I also did not like the way the beginning of the film started off and how it was very different from the introduction in the book. It just seemed too quick to jump in into Holly’s lifestyle. Moreover, I completely am with you in your disagreement with the portrayal of the characters. When I read the book, I had already had a set picture for each character and when I did watch the movie I was disappointing because they were nothing like what I had imagined.
I would have liked the movie better if it followed the same format as the book. There were so many differences in the movie that I felt like the book was a work of its own. The beginning of the movie was different I wish it would have started at Joe’s, but I like the way it began at Tiffanies. I pictured Holly to be much younger, but I think she portrayed Holly really well. I also pictured “Fred” to look older and I didn’t expect Mr. Trawler to be so short and geeky. It was interesting to see Holly’s and “Fred’s” relationship because their relationship is much more intimate in the movie than the book.
Another difference in the movie is that they mention “Fred’s” real name, which is Paul, and Paul actually told Holly his real name. In the movie “Fred” had some random lady on the side, which was awkward because that was nowhere in the book. There was also a stripping scene that I seen as pointless as well. I found it charming when “Fred” and Holly stole from the corner store, I feel like that was where their relationship began. Fred also confesses his love to Holly, but I prefer he kept it as a secret because it ruins the purpose of why “Fred” is obsessed with Holly’s whereabouts in the beginning of the novel. I personally did not like the ending of the movie; I wish Holly had run away to Brazil like in the book. Instead she runs back and finds cat and kisses “Fred” and stays with him.
I agree that the book and the movie seem like they do not reflect the same events between the two. I also did not expect the characters to be portrayed by those certain actors/actresses. It definitely felt awkward to see that Fred/Paul had a random lady on the side and didn’t seem to add anything to the plot. It seemed like a change in character for Holly to embrace “Fred” at the end of movie instead of being the flirt she was throughout the beginning of the movie with “Fred.”
I agree with the fact that you stated how the book started off. In the book it seems as if Capote had a vision of where he wanted the audience to picture as to the film it just straight up began at Tiffany’s with Holly being represented as herself. The film did definitely have it’s own thing going on, and furthermore, with the relationship between Holly and the narrator did throw me off in the film because throughout the book I did not see some type of romance but more of a true friendship, and I was really disturbed and mad because I did not want that, I wanted the friendship to remain pure. Moreover, i really did prefer the book over the film.
To be honest, I like how they open the movie with Holly eating in front of Tiffany’s. I guess they did that just to explain the title of the film. Agree with the “Fred” having a real name but I think the reason why they made “Fred” have a real name in the movie because they didn’t wan to confuse the audience and displease them. You didn’t like the ending? Yes I know it wasn’t the same as the book but I think the film producers did that ending to make it a romantic comedy which I thought it was a great choice.
“Breakfast at Tiffany’s” was definitely not what I expected. Many changes were added throughout the movie, such as the year it takes place (1940s versus 1960s) and a very extended party scene. It disappointed me at how many changes happened and that it did not seem true to the book. This interpretation of “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” seems over romanticized. Although the filmmakers had ended the movie with the note of Fred/Paul loving Holly, it definitely was a happier ending than the original and was quite unexpected for me. I thought that the movie would follow the majority of the book, but I guess then the movie would be under scrutiny for the many unappropriate scenes portrayed throughout the book as well as for the time period it was filmed during.
After I finished the movie at home, it went directly to the trailer which was originally aired on t.v. It definitely seemed to show all the happy portions of the movie and displayed the many famous actors and actresses showcased in the movie. If I were to see this trailer before seeing the movie or reading the book, I would expect it to not be an emotional rollercoaster like the book, but instead a lovely film about a woman that wants to have breakfast at Tiffany’s.
I can completely agree with you that the movie had so many changes that had nothing to do with the novel. I can also agree with you that the movie was mostly a love story and that the ending made it more romantic than anything. However, i think that the ending of the novel was more based on the personality of Holly and demonstrates her ambitious to live freely.
I felt the same way about the film and the misrepresentation it had on the book. I agree with you in the fact that the film did have many different changes that did not relate to the book in any way. Just as the party scene, i felt like in the book it ad much more meaning and representation of the character’s but in the film it was just extended into a boring party scene. Moreover, I agree with the note you made that the film did not seem true to the book and how this film is over romanticized. I was mad at that, really. I did not see it in the book, and as an author I would not want that to be shown as the representation of my book. I wonder if Capote stood up for his true meaning of this short novel. I was disappointed with this film.
I can also agree that I wasn’t fond of the time era change, that had caught me completely off guard. One of my biggest pet peeves is when the movie doesn’t seem true to the book, its as though the producers are in a sense cheating us of great valued imagery. In a sense I did like the fact that it seemed really romantic based, maybe its since it makes it somewhat more interesting. On the contrary I didn’t really like the note the movie ended on.
Before watching this movie, I had a pretty good idea that it would have a few changes from the original Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I was pretty disappointed though, when I realized how vastly different it was from the book. Not only were certain characters eliminated from the plot (Joe Bell and Madame), but key elements were either completely left out or radically changed. First and foremost, the fact that Holly traveled to South America and Africa was never mentioned, the extra female character who appeared to be some kind of lover of “Varjak’s” (“Fred”) was unnecessary, and the relationship between Holly and “Fred” did not match Capote’s description. But what made me most aggravated was the party scene at Holly’s when a bird was shown sitting in a birdcage. That really went against Holly’s beliefs, and I was confused as to why the directors/producers would deliberately contradict her character. In fact, I cannot recall one scene in the movie that followed the original scene. It seems like Hollywood just wanted to make this book into a love story, regardless of the real plot, and I’m honestly confused how Capote could allow such distortion of his work.
However, I will say a few positive things about this movie. Despite my criticism, I did enjoy it (as a separate story from the book). I found Audrey Hepburn to be very likeable, as well as the Fred character. And the cat did an excellent job, especially when you consider how many takes it probably took for it to latch onto the window during the party scene.
The movie was very different from the book and I can see how you liked the book more. I agree Audrey Hepburn did a very good job as that character and she played the role of a “wild thing” very well. The cat added a lot to the movie.
I agree that the book was different from the movie and I was disappointed as well. I also agree with the fact the movie was pure Hollywood rather than Capote’s work. I also noticed the bird in the cage, I was thinking maybe it was describing Holly through symbolism, rather than verbally.
To be quite honest I didn’t expect the amount of changes that I found. I wasn’t found of that at all being that things were changed radically in a sense. Once again when things are changed its as though we were cheated of actually seeing scenes that were found in the book. Now that I recall I never really gave much thought to the bird in that scene, although I don’t think it the directors/producers did that on purpose to contradict the character.
Although many of the character in the movie where not portrayed as I had seen them in my mind, many of them played their character very well, especially Holly and Fred. I was however disappointed that Fred did not seem as much a sap or used by Holly in the film, as he was in the book, for instance his having an affair with some lady who is not even in the book gives him a less sympathetic and loner feel. It is true that much of the movie is far off from that of the book but the movie as a whole was enjoyable and probably would have been more so if not for thinking the whole time that nothing or most was not going according to how it was written. The fact Holly and Fred, or Paul in the movie, had a romantic story with a “happy ending” in the movie was nice but sort of cheesy and not at all like the book. Also Holly never got pregnant in the movie which was weird to be or never went to the hospital which seemed important to the book but I guess not the movie. In general Holly’s character is still puzzling how she can go about so care free, basically playing men and at such a young age. She totally seemed like a prostitute or whore although never directly stated but implied throughout the book and even in the movie to an extent. The movie was definitely more of a love story while the book had a lot more mystery to it, both enjoyable but hard to compare since so different.
I guess the reason why they didn’t include the hospital scene because maybe the producers didn’t want to add it because it wouldn’t flow with the Holly and Paul love story. Also they made the film a love story than a mystery because mystery films were presented in black and white or film noir and they feel it shouldn’t be represent like that (sorry for my film language, I took a film class so I know how to break down old films). To be honest, I love how Holly was portrayed in the film and I kinda imagine Holly that way when I was reading the book.
The relationship between this movie and book is unique. As already mentioned the way the movie begins can be seen as rapid. I didn’t like hope there was no opening scene before it entered the story. The movie would have caught more of my attention if it started at Joe’s just like the book did. I feel as though I was cheated out on actually seeing the beginning as depicted in the book. One of my pet peeves is when a movie is made to follow the book , but it doesn’t do so what so ever just as it happened in this situation. Although one thing that I did enjoy was the great similarities of the way details were caught. Such as the Holly was portrayed. I love it when a movie is made and it still depicts a great amount of details.
Even though there was some differences that I noticed. One main difference that I noticed was the time era, that defiantly caught me off guard. Also I wasn’t expecting how romantic the movie was shown to be especially between Paul and Fred. It seemed more of a romantic type of plot and , not so much a drama set plot. Overall I did enjoy the movie. Once again it is always nice to compare and contrast the differences between the book and movie.
I can completely agree with you with the fact that you expect to connect the novel with the movie, yet this movie had its own plot going on and it was mostly a love story. i can also agree with you with the fact that Holly’s character was no portrait as the novel did. Lastly i can also agree with you with the fact that the era of the movie made the plot and the scenes of the novel change a bit and that also confused me a lot.
i have to agree with this person as well. the reason for my agreement is the fact that the book and the novel both share the same story but with a different prospective on their point of view. overall from both the novel and the movie still share the same message but just with their own alternative ending rather than the same.
Joe was totally left out, which I thought was a good way to start the story but I guess the movie did not think so. The movie was definitely more romantic than the book, and maybe that was just to keep the viewers interest. The book and movie are very different in my opinion and makes comparing easier for the differences and in this case hard for the similarities.
The movie over all was nothing compare to the novel. I Did not like that the setting was not explain at the beginning of the movie just like the novel and I felt that so many things were cut from the movie. I felt that the characters itself were not even close to what i picture them in my mind. The movie was a little hard to follow when I tried to compared it with the novel but when I finally decided to forget a little bit about the book and just stick with the plot of the movie, it was pretty interesting. I would consider the movie a love story that has nothing to do with Capote’s novel. Many of the important scenes that allowed readers to learn more about the characters were cut off from the movie which made the authors have their one personalities.
The scene that irritated me the most was the party that Holly throws at her apartment. It just seem to long and the movie made it seem like if it was an important scene to follow. One of the scenes that i liked the most is the one when Holly finds out her brother died. The way the actor was able to show her emotions made me feel sympathy for Holly and I was able to understand why she did the things she did. Overall, the fact that in the movie they gave Fred a name kills the whole purpose of Capote connecting this character with Holly’s brother.
The movie could have set up the story a little better and it did seem like a love story unlike the book. I agree that the scene when Holly found out her brother had died was very powerful. I thought the party scene was pretty funny and the character of Mag Wildwood seemed to follow how she was described in the book.
I agree that the setting was not explained, the characters were different, and the book was turned into a love story.The party scene was probably when I was most irritated as well because of how dissimilar it was to the original work. I also felt that the scene when she discovers that Fred is dead was successful in that it encompassed actual believable emotions from Holly. I think they gave “Fred” a real name because they wanted to change him from a reflection of Capote into any ordinary man (to complete the love story aspect).
The movie and book both good but relatively different from one another. What you mention about the character being different from what i had depicted from the book was a little on the disappointing side. That party at Holly was supper long and nothing really significant happened, some other cut out scene of the book could of been included instead off that super long party.
I feel you when the differences in the book and movie got almost annoying then I had to stop and just enjoy the movie for its content and not compare it to the book. The party was so off, there were women there when there were only supposed to be guys. Oh man , Fred’s name did kill capotes connection and made “Fred” less of just someone in the story but more centered around him.
I can agree with you greatly the movie was nothing compared to the book. As I’ve said before that is one of my biggest pet peeves when they are different. Your not alone the characters aren’t what I had imagined either. This movie compared to Capote’s other movie are no where similar. Being that the other movie was more of a suspense base where as this one seemed to be more romantic.
Ok first of all, I was very happy that I was able to see Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Its a classic film! I love Audrey Hepburn as an actress! Ok now down to business. The book and movie were not the same at all. But that is the norm when books are made into movies. The movie leaves out the great detail of the book. I don’t know why but I really prefer the movie over the book. I guess why I prefer the film over the book because I’m a film fanatic and not a book lover.
There was many differences from the book to the movie. The biggest difference was of course the ending. In the film, Holly and Fred end up becoming lovers whereas in the book, Fred has no love interest in Holly (because he was a homosexual). Another difference was the time of place the movie took place. In the movie, it took place in the 60s whereas in the book in took place in the 40s. I will give Audrey lots of props for portraying Holly. I felt she did an excellent job. You can really see here characteristics unfold. Overall I love the movie, and the acting was excellent.
I agree with you I also like seeing characters in person rather than reading about them even though the book had more details. That’s really interesting what you said about Fred and I did not know that before. Maybe they couldn’t include that in the movie because of the time period and back then it wouldn’t have been acceptable.
I complete agree with your statement. I feel like we both share the same perspective when it come to comparing the book to novel. One of the main part that i would like to point that we both share about u talk about Fred. I have to agree with Joel statement on that. It not easy to put in everything that the author see into the novel.
I completely agree with you on the point that whenever a book is turned into a movie, not everything will be the same. Directors removed and add stuff just like how the author had added and removed stuff. It’s too bad that they removed a lot of Holly’s other relationships. It removed from the atmosphere who Holly truly is.
I agree with you that the movie does leave out a great detail of the book, but I disagree with you on preferring the movie, because I prefer the book. Yeah the ending threw me off since it was so different than the book ending but still Fred admitted to loving Holly in the book so I don’t know if he was actually a homosexual in that sense.
As soon as the movie played, I felt like they have not probably the story. If i haven’t read the novel itself, I would had been lost since the beginning of the movie. Throughout the movie it start to quickly because it actually jump into the plot without it being set up. If the movie had done that, then the audience that have never read the novel, would have an easy time following along the movie without question. If someone ask if the book and the novel were the same, I would answer: NO! because of the fact so many things were switch and tweak around. The characters “Breakfast at Tiffany’s “, was kinda hard to identify (in my opinion). Half the time during the film, I had to go back to my novel to re-read, just to see where and what the director was going for in that scene, I see what direction the director was going towards after I identify what was going on. Did the director get Capote message through his movie? not really. Overall the movie was a classic, I see how many of my peer did not seem to like it at all. I kinda knew what the director intention was and I simple saw past what the audience expectation. I guess that why I like the movie more rather than the novel.
I definitely would have also been lost throughout the movie if I did not read the book first. I found it easy to identify characters, since they omitted so many and focused on only a few. The movie is a classic no matter what, even if it did not portray everything from the book.
I don’t think I would be necessarily lost in the movie, but I do think that I would interpret a different story line from the book. I also agree that I was expecting the movie to be similar to the book, but I felt like these were two different works being portrayed. I would agree that the movie is a classic of its own and the book is a classic of its own.
The movie seemed to have jumped around a little bit because some scene were cut out and the movie did jumped between plots quite a bit. The other characters were also not really mentioned. I feel that the movie revolved around Holly and Fred and their love life.
My image of Holly was more negative from the book because of how I pictured her demanding money from men just to go to the bathroom and take a taxi home. In the movie Holly Golightly seemed a lot more classy than I thought she would be. She did use men to get money and other things she wanted but she still had respect for herself. I liked the movie because I could see her character develop and go through challenges. I liked the scene when Holly and Paul were arrested because she held her cool and didn’t panic. Also, the relationship between Holly and Paul was much different than I had expected. From the book I felt like he was chasing her more and she was somewhat uninterested in his life but from the movie their relationship was more mutual. Her relationship with her ex-husband was less important in the movie and it didn’t spend much time on it. I like the ending she finally found her true love.
At first i thought that too because of what the book had told us about Holly and how Capote describe about her within the first few chapters. I feel like the movie does that as well but the director could do a better job on being clearer. What i mean by” being clearer” is at first she seem like a normal person but within the first 30 minutes in the movie it just show what she truly is. I feel like the movie was a romantic movie rather then a person was lost and someone she love, help find her back into who she once was.
I agree with the difference in how Holly was portrayed in both. I guess it was from the point of view of Capote and the director of the movie. I think that regardless he was still chasing her in both the book and the movie. I think the only difference was how it was shown.
I agree with you on the fact that Paul and Holly’s relationship seemed so distant in the book in the sense that Paul was always following her around, but in the movie it seemed that Holly was always following Paul around. But I disagree with you on the ending I hated it because i’m sure Capote intended for the tragic ending to occur.
I agree with how Holly was portrayed because when I was reading, “she’s a gold digger!” But in the film she was totally a different represent. Her class her style. This didn’t make her seem like she was a gold digger but something more positive. I totally agree with how Holly act cool and calm when she got arrested, I was like “this girl is brave! she knows she got busted but isn’t scare. Go Holly!”. Agree with how they didn’t talk much about Holly’s ex husband but I was sad when he left Holly in the film.
I totally agree. When I was reading the book I thought she was a gold digger too. But the movie portrayed her as more ‘classy’ probably to appeal more the audience. I thought this was disheartening and really it lost the essence of the story for me by so inaccurately portraying the main character.
The way the book and the movie started was very different. The book lead to a flash back while the movie started at the beginning of it. I see that how it started was good for each of them. For the book it needed time for the settings to be established so having a slower start is okay for it. As for the movie, a lot of the setting can be established a little quicker and films are limited by a one to two hour time limit. Scenes have to be cut out or the movie would have gotten too long.
One thing that I didn’t like the movie overall was that they cut out a lot of scenes from the book. Yet it went back to the time limit that they have on the movie. There was also an inconsistency with the book and the movie. Some characters were switched around.
I agree with you that the book and the movie started very differently. I also disliked the fact that they missed so many important scenes that the book mentioned. I do agree thought that some characters were missing and some were added and I hated this change.
When the movie began I have to admit i wondered if this was the correct movie because they start off so differently. However, movies based on books always end up being differently.
Because of the movie’s time limitation, they are unable to match the speed of the book; so everything feels rushed. This put’s a strain on Holly’s character; Because of that I dislike Holly even more than in the book. Then again, she seemed somewhat demanding in the book. I have a problem with the character more so than the story, and that’s where the story loses me.
The movie by itself is put together well and the actors perform there parts well, but it feels mediocre. The character that I enjoy the most is the landlord, he I can re
I have to agree the Landlord was hilarious in every one of his scenes. My favorite character in the movie.
The film Breakfast at Tiffany’s was very different from the book Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I felt like the film took a mind of its own rather than follow the book. Paul or the narrator of the book had a mistress in the movie the book never stated this fact. Also the movie missed a lot of important parts that the book discussed. Paul goes to jail with Holly, but in the book only Holly goes to jail while she’s in Paul’s apartment trying to help him feel better.
The book had more of a tragic ending while the movie twisted that tragic ending into a beautiful happy one and this really bugged me. Holly leaves to Brazil in the book but in the movie Holly ends up finding her cat again and staying with Paul and Voila, everyone’s happy. This just completely threw me off. I think the movie just ruined the whole sense of the book and the meaning Capote tried to incorporate in it.
I agreed that the film ruined the whole sense of the book. Though they did try to give their own twist to the book, but this was out of range for me. The most disappointing part was leaving out the important scenes that the book had.
Exactly! The idea and cliff hanger left at the end of the story showed how women are beginning to become liberated in society, and that women do not need a man in order for them to be happy. I was quite content with the idea of Holly continuing to travel and never see the main character ever again. The fact that they got together in the end just make the story anti-climatic and extremely disappointing.
I couldn’t agree more that the movie versus the book was very different. I like how you said the movie took on a mind of its own. We all know that movie adaptations of books are not always accurate. But I think that was the downfall of this movie… It ended up being a bit boring to me and could have benefited from sticking more to the book.
Sorry, accidentally submitted before finished.
Because of the movie’s time limitation, they are unable to match the speed of the book; so everything feels rushed. This put’s a strain on Holly’s character; Because of that I dislike Holly even more than in the book. Then again, she seemed somewhat demanding in the book. I have a problem with the character more so than the story, and that’s where the story loses me.
The movie by itself is put together well and the actors perform there parts well, but it feels mediocre. The character that I enjoy the most is the landlord, he I can relate to. One of the biggest differences though between the book and the film is the in the film Paul(Fred) and Holly are together at the end.
This is a difficult thing to write about since the film didn’t entertain me.
I understand that writing about things you dislike or do not care for can be difficult. I actually found the landlord’s portrayal to be very racist, especially since they did not use a Japanese man to play the part (but I’m sure you’re referring to his annoyance with his residents). I agree that Holly is more likeable in the book than in the movie. Also, I felt that the movie was somewhat mediocre as well.
I completely agree. The film shows a vague and mediocre way of displaying the characters. It felt as though Holly was most accurately portrayed through the film, but even then, it still was not the same Holly from the story. The landlord was portrayed seems very racist, but it may just be of how the director wanted it to be, but it still does not seem legit or fair in any way.
I have to be honest i hate watching movies after reading books. There always disappointing because they are way different from the actual book which to me is always much more interesting. Any how right off the back the movie stated off way different. Through out the movie Holly and other characters seem to follow the dialogue in the book but the scenes or something was always a little off. The character of Holly in the movie was also portrayed differently compared to the image i had gotten because of the book.
I guess it the way the film was presented that drives the audience off track. I also didn’t like the way they chose to open the film. I also image Holly differently than the character in the film.
I very much disliked the how the book was misrepresented in this film. The beginning of the movie started off way too quick and already jumping into Holly Golightly’s character. All the characters in this I feel were as well misrepresented by the actor’s chosen. I really did not picture the narrator to look the way he did in the film. I was very much disappointed in this film, and I also found myself getting bored throughout the movie, which is pretty rare because I really have to say the book kept me engaged and curious in all the characters. As my conclusion, I sort of hoped I hadn’t watched the movie because I was not impressed by how the plot was chosen to be exposed in the film with the character’s not matching up to the real character’s described in the book. Overall, I really do prefer the book over the film.
I couldn’t have agreed more. There wasn’t a proper introduction as I expected. It was a good thing that we were able to read the book ahead of time or else we would be lost. I kind of wished I didn’t watched the film as well. The film ruined the book for me.
I am very disappointed at Holly Golightly character. I don’t know if it’s the actress that portrayed her or the way the plot was presented, but this was overall disappointing. I also didn’t like how they jumped right to the story without a proper introduction. I expected that they would build the story from the book, but nope that didn’t happen. Then again, many of the scenes in the book were not included in the film as well. I’m going to be honest; the film was boring and I felt most of it was rushed, whereas the book was more in detail and interesting. I never really liked the idea of movie adaption because it’s either you’re disappointed or over satisfied. I guess that’s the norm when books and movies are not the same. I prefer the book over the film.
Well I would have to disagree, I was quite content with Holly’s character and think she did a good job of portraying her personality. Movie adaptations are not normally as enjoyable as the books but always fun to compare to. Most people prefer books to the film but book can always put more detail and gives people room to image how the characters are and further sympathize with them.
I actually liked Audrey Hepburn as Holly, but I would agree that a movie recreating a book never fully satisfy the audience. I also prefer the book over the film, and would agree that it was rushed, but I didn’t find it entirely boring.
I was not at all impressed with this film. Much of the story were expanded in the film and, although that is not a terrible attribute to the film, it seemed to just drag on and made the film particularly boring. I feel like Holly was correctly portrayed but the other characters were not so easily shows to be as strong. I felt as if the ending of the movie was really disappointing. I loved the idea that the main character and Holly do not get together because it shows the liberation and free spirit of women as well as leaves the reader to understand that Holly never settled down and she was a house cat to Jose as well. I felt as though the scenes in the story were so much more dramatic than they were portrayed in the film Like the scene of Holly destroying her property because of Fred’s death seemed so anticlimactic.
I’ll also say that the way they portrayed Mr. Yunioshi was really racist and it was not at all what I had imagined his character to be. It seemed as though the film dragged and was not portrayal as well as Capote wrote his story to be. Although the film shows most of the story accurately, it does not create the amount of impact the story had done.
I really like how you talked about the ending as being disappointing because I felt the same. But had not thought of the fact that in the book, Holly and ‘Fred’ do not get together and the strength in that was held in showing the free spirit of women. The symbolism existent between Holly and the cat was less apparent in the movie. It seemed like the filmmakers sort of ‘threw it in’ sort of half-assed. Excuse my language.
The movie was not as good as the novel. The movie was not 100% like the book. They excluded some parts, they added parts that weren’t in the novel, and they screwed up the ending since the film did not end like the novel. If I had not read the book I would of probably though the movie was great but since i did, my overall impression of the movie is that it is okay-ish.
I really like the upstairs neighbor, I think he introduced the only comedy to the movie.