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 
The Hollywood film adaptation of the short story “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is one of the most iconic American films to date. Presumably this is true because of the artistic liberties that were taken in producing the film. It was obvious that the script writers did not adhere strictly to the Capote’s story, a fact that became especially evident in the way the movie was concluded – happily.
There were many questions the movie answered that were suggested in the book, but because it was never explicitly stated, it was hard to say. For example, we find out Holly was actually a call girl and the narrator was portrayed as having a similar job (although that was not implied in the book). Even then, the movie did a good job of portraying how the narrator saw Holly in a different light than the rest did. For example the scene where the narrator is at the party and Holly sets a woman’s hat on fire with her cigarette, is how the filmmaker tried to show that he paid especial attention to her because he was the only person who cared for her as a person. Despite several other scenes like that, I wasn’t able to warm up to Holly’s character the same way I was able to in the book. In retrospect, that may be a fallacy in film portrayal of novels. Part of the dimensionality of the character is lost in translation because we are able to see the character and judge them according to how someone else saw them, and it’s never the same as us visualizing them. With respect to the ending, even though it didn’t end the way the actual story did, I understand it was necessary for the box office’s revenue.
One aspect I enjoyed about the film was the historical early 1950s setting. The 1950s were definitely an age of glamour, partying, and riches, something the film did a ‘swell job’ of accentuating.
I noticed too how they made the narrator care about her, as you described. It was really interesting. But the film itself was great. Also I didn’t quite get you when you said, “we find out Holly was actually a call girl and the narrator was portrayed as having a similar job”. What do you mean by that?
Dang, I didn’t really interpret this “For example the scene where the narrator is at the party and Holly sets a woman’s hat on fire with her cigarette, is how the filmmaker tried to show that he paid especial attention to her because he was the only person who cared for her as a person.” that way. You opened my eyes and made a good point! However, in the book, I never got a hint that the narrator actually fell in love with Holly, while in the movie, he just flat out tells her at the library. Are there any other examples you saw in the movie that showed the narrator cared for her in that way?
Yes, it’s all too clear why they changed it to a “happy ending.” A real letdown. You’re also correct that the movie answered the questions that the book merely implied or left hanging and unanswered. This is the tie up all of the loose ends and leave the audience feeling that the love story has finally been resolved and the two will live happily ever after with no complications. That’s a real yawn, to me.
Also, just in case Luis reads this: a call girl is a prostitute.
Maybe I should just reply to his comment…
Oh okay I got it. I feel dumb now haha
I noticed also how they changed things in the movie for the benefit of trying to make a hit movie. Which if I was a bigger fan of the book then I would have been disappointed about it but instead I ending up liking the movie more then I did the book. Also the movie did do a good job and filling us in on the questions we had in the book like, the narrators name and what kind of job holly had and so on.
The film did do a good job in answering things that were only implied in the book. But it also brought in things that were never mentioned in the book, such as the narrator having the same profession as Holly, a call girl. Nice observation about Paul noticing when Holly sets a woman’s hat on fire.
I did feel that the movie did answer some questions we may have had while reading the book. The fact that you pointed out that the filmmakers were trying to emphasis that he was looking at Holly was a good point. Made me go back and realize a lot of other scenes showed the same thing also.
The book and the movie seemed completely different almost like a different story. I noticed that there was no Joe Bell and there was a new character a decorator, who decorated the narrator’s apartment. I also noticed that there was no birdcage, which I believe symbolizes freedom. I do not remember the narrator and Holly going to Tiffanies and getting a ring engraved. The ending of the movie was completely a Hollywood creation of the happy ever after fairytale version. In the movie they also gave Fred a name.
I like the new ending, but it takes away for Capotes original meaning. Holly was supposed to always be free. Also Holly was not supposed to find the cat, Fred was. The movie brought the characters to life. I liked the actress and actor who played the two leading parts. Holly’s was beautiful and Fred was handsome. They look like a good couple in the move, but in the book Fred had no sexual interest in Holly. Even though there were many changes I thought that the movie was cute.
I thought that the movie and the book was very related, but it did had some changes, as you mentioned. I believe that the film took away some of his meanings of Holly. For example, freedom. I thought the movies was great and also I was expecting the ending as the novel. However, it was a totally different ending.
A call girl is a prostitute.
Damnit… meant to reply to your comment above…
To be honest, I too feel the movie and the book are almost completely different things. However, some of the ideas and themes were still prevalent in the movie. Also, I believe in one of the scenes they showed a bird in a cage for a few seconds, but it wasn’t really purchased for Paul. How did you feel about the movie not having the scene where they did horseback riding, but instead took turns doing things the other person hasn’t? I honestly felt like it was just a way to get the romantic juices flowing in the audience, haha.
In a way I agree with you about it being an almost different story because giving the narrator a name and having the movie end happily takes away a lot of what the book was trying to say about being free. The message in the two story’s seem to be a little different but the two story’s still have a lot of the same events just tweaked a little to make the movie more romantic so it can sell.
I believe the book and movie were very close, except for the addition of seemingly unnecessary scenes. It might have been the director’s goal to make a happy ending and include more film time with the narrator and Holly in order to receive a more positive reception from people who did not read Capote’s short story. I find it odd that Holly has a sudden interest in the narrator as a lover; I think they are better off as best friends rather than lovers.
I agree, there were a lot of differences in the book and the movie. They still tried to keep the same message in the movie from the book but, it was funky. The film was more romantic than the book. There were a lot of twist for example, the bird cage your right and also how Holly goes to Tiffanies to buy a ring. There were parts in the movie that were never brought up in the book.
How do you think not giving the narrator a name contributed to the overall feel of the book? Was that a significant detail for you? I agree with what you said about how the ending took away from the intended meaning of Capote having written the story in the first place.
The film, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”, an adaption of the short story written by Truman Capote, was indeed very related. It had some minor changes between the book and the film. For example, the narrator was never given a name in the book, while in the film his name was Paul Barjak. Also Joe Bell, a character from the book, was never mention in the film. However, a decorator was introduced in the film when in the book she was never introduced. The film took away Capote’s true meaning of Holly, representing freedom. Capote’s true meaning was that she had to represent freedom because, in the novel, she feels the need to escape from people and places. She feels she doesn’t belong anywhere. However, the film took the idea away because at the end, of the film, she never leaves. Goes back with Paul. When in the book, she still leaves New York and leaves everyone behind.
Throughout the film, I’ve noticed many changes, but I presumed that was an idea from Hollywood’s creation because I’ve watched other films from Hollywood’s creation and at the end of each film there is always a happy ending. The film itself was great. It was a great film based on Truman Capote’s book, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. I did like the film, but I kind of got annoy because I thought the ending was going to be as the novel but it didn’t. So yea it ruined it for me since I was expecting a different ending. NOT a “they live happily ever after”.
I like how you brought the point of Holly coming back to “Paul” at the end of film up. It really bugged me because I too feel that the character “Holly” should have been portrayed as the headstrong, ready to do what she wants kind of person. But I think it was the director’s intent to make it more of a romance while Capote had a different meaning. However, I am intrigued on how you came to the conclusion that Holly represented freedom. I personally believe that she was just a person trying to find herself, but always ended up running away when she got close.
Of course she represented freedom! That’s the them of the book, dude!
theme*
Yes, the ending was a big disappointment. It changed the entire fabric of the story. But this film was hardly artistic and outgoing– the acting of the cast demonstrates that. If it had a different title, I’d call this film a cheap rip-off of Capote’s book.
I am wondering if reading the book before watching this romance movie biased my opinion or not, but I believe that the film “took away” Holly. Capote wrote this story based around her and didn’t focus on the narrator (“Paul”) at all. This, to me, gave us the ability to connect more to Holly. I didn’t get that same connection when watching the film. Do you believe that reading the book beforehand could bias everyone’s opinion on the film?
I noticed also how they just changed minor things through out the movie. I agree with you that its all hollywood that made those changes so the movie would be more romantic to people. Maybe the producers were going for people that have never read the book to watch the movie so they can fall in love with it. The people that did read the book would for sure get a big surprise at the end but it wasn’t a bad surprise. The ending might take away a lot of meaning from the book but it does make for a better movie.
You do have a point on saying that the book is different than the movie. Most of the time the book is more meaningful than the movie and that was with this case. The movie was a happy ending and the book did not end like that, but the movie always has a twist in it. Breakfast at Tiffanies Holly goes back to Paul. In the book she leaves everyone.
I was surprised they actually gave the narrator a name, Paul. Capote went out of his way to try and make the narrator as distant as possible. In the movie he was almost the main character himself. I find it confusing that the film makers actually quoted parts when Holly describes her “wildness” but in the end she ends up tamed.
The film Breakfast at Tiffany’s to me, was more of a romantic comedy compared to the dramatic and somewhat serious tone of the book. I feel this way because the characters were portrayed in a very comedic way. For example, the two that stood at the most to me were Yunioshi and Rusty Trawler. The character Yunioshi was just a play on the typical Asian stereotype which was pretty funny in the movie. But in the book, he seems more like a stickler for the rules he has in the building. On a side note, I didn’t really expect Rusty Trawler to look like he did in the movie because it was stated that he was an army vet in the book. However, what made up for the lack of comic relief and the hint of romance in the book, the movie lacked in sticking to the actual content of the story and drama. However, I do believe the soundtrack of the movie helped portray some of the emotions in the movie that couldn’t be felt in the book.
Focusing more of the analysis, the movie definitely took out some parts that I felt were crucial to the book. One of these being the horse riding that the narrator and Holly partook in for the narrator’s birthday. To me, it showed that Holly had more of a heart to share what she has done that the narrator hasn’t. In the movie, they just took turns doing stuff the other hasn’t done, such as the narrator taking Holly to the library and Holly taking the narrator to Tiffany’s. To me, they took this stuff out just to keep the constant theme of a romantic comedy. Another thing that bugged me was the fact that in the movie, the narrator had a name. I’m still a bit angry that they gave him a name because to me it didn’t really convey the theme of being unattached. However, to make up for it I felt the ending was a really nice touch. Aside from the cliché “I’ll come back to you!” sort of ending, the narrator just called Holly out on why she’s so eager to just keep running away. In the end, I feel the book and the movie are similar, yet different.
It is true that the movie left out some key events from the book but not all books that are turned into movies follow the book. I think that if they went with the more the book the movie would be boring and dull. And also, why are you disappointed when they gave the narrator a name.
To me it kept the narrator really mysterious and unknown. It was pretty cool that an unnamed character could have done so much and left a lot of his characteristics and personality up for interpretation. That’s just me, haha.
I definitely agree with what you said, about the feeling of detachment being pretty much destroyed by giving more attention to the narrator, Paul as he’s called in the film. It gave the movie a very different feeling compared to the book. I’m curious though, why do you think the novel had “a serious tone”? Likewise, why did you think the film was comedic?
You’re completely correct about the fact that they neglected to keep a few crucial points in the story. There was a lot of other scenes that could have also been changed or done more clearly but that was a good scene to try to put into it.
The film version of Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) was slightly disappointing. It bares only slight fidelity to Capote’s novella. The book centers on a woman who survives on her talents and personality alone; a charming heartbreaker who sails off into the sunset to wild to tame. In the film, her wings are clipped and she ends up with the handsome writer who (like everyone else) falls in love with her. I’m not sure I like the transition. What disappoints me is that this film, rather than being about an unforgettable personality, is instead a romance, like so many other stories. It saps from the uniqueness of Holly as a character—as do the other actors. Whereas in the book, she is lively and characterized to a much greater degree than her friends, every personality in this film is played up to a cartoonish degree, as Paul plays the only “straight man.” This means that the roles are reversed; rather than the narrator falling in love with Holly (who represents a zest for life), Holly remains with him, breaking down and losing that zest.
Perhaps I am simply tired of romance movies, but I believe Capote wrote the novella the way he did for a reason. The theme of the book is not one of romance, but adventure. Sure, Holly had a flawed personality, but that was what made her who she was (and is). The escape from her last husband is supposed to demonstrate that she can *never* settle down. It goes against her original character for her to end up with the man in the end (unless she later leaves him as well, but the film does not go that far). I find it disappointing that she was tamed in the end. It steals from her memorable nature—the very thing that made the novella famous in the first place. The movie is not bad; it is merely standard.
I agree with you, the movie was definitely disappointing because it reverted the whole story into a sappy romance film. I like how you pointed out that their roles were reversed, it is true, instead of the narrator falling for her like everyone else, Holly falls for him as well and buckles down. Yes it is adorable that she would stay with him, but it takes Capote’s actual writing of Holly’s character, she’s supposed to be that wild spirit that no one (not even the one she loves) can tame. Good post.
Thanks.
I find it interesting how you mention how their roles are switched in the film. In the movie, Paul ends up fleeing Holly and her “chaotic” lifestyle where-after she follows and in the book Holly is the one to flee and remain her free and untamed self while our narrator hopes the best for her. In the end, this change really does detract from what Capote attempts to make her out as, a wild and free spirit. By chasing after Paul and finding her cat, we are led to assume she has changed and settled down with Paul destroying this theme of freedom in the end.
You make very good points on how the movie is just another romantic film. However given that Holly is supposed to be this ‘gold digger’ and how she is never supposed to settle down is what kind of interests me. I think she loses that “zest” because Paul is the only one who can get through her. Her zest is just an illusion to other men because they throw money at her to please her but she just wants nothing more than to prove to herself that she does not need anyone. Great post though.
Good points! I did feel as if the movie took out the charisma of the book and replaced it as a “sappy romance film” stated by somebody else. The characters were all different from how Capote tried to describe them as.
I completely agree, the whole perspective of the story was changed and not at all expected. I believe the reading was better in portraying the story than the movie. It was entertaining to watch the movie after reading but I believe the movie wouldn’t have been interesting if I hadn’t read the story first. The small things that were missed here and there made the movie less interesting and things like the bar scene where the narrator talks about Holly throws off the story from what it was in the reading.
The film version of Breakfast at Tiffany’s shows a clearer demonstration of Holly relationships, especially between her and her fellow neighbors. The film includes many details important to understanding the very free life style of people during the time. The portrayal of Holly in the film is accurate to Capote’s short story: we see a highly individualistic woman who strives to try to have a good time and not be restricted by her own past. Holly is almost uncaring for the situations of others and sometimes seems impartial to the consequences of her actions. Unfortunately, there are characters from the short story that are not presented in the film and some new characters are introduced. In the short story, we do not learn the name of the narrator, whom Holly calls Fred; however, in the film, the director explicitly names him Paul.
Compared to the short story, I did not sympathize as much with Holly from the film mostly because I could not experience or feel the internal struggle that is occurring. It may be also because her lifestyle is so different from people’s today. Also, the director chose to end the film with an “American ending”: the love between the leading female and male is finally reciprocated, and there is a happy ending. In my opinion, I found this out of character for Holly because she did not any interest in our narrator beyond mutual friendship. Perhaps the director is hoping to show that Holly finally acknowledges her need for the support of a strong man.
You’re right in saying that a visual of the characters and neighbors was more helpful when visualizing the story. Also we are in agreement that the fact that the audience didn’t get to connect intimately with Holly in the film took Capote’s overall meaning of the book. So did you like the film better than the book? Or vise versa?
I agree, with you. Holly is trying to forget about the past and move on with her life. But through out the film she is doing her own thing and also here and there she has moments where she remembers her past. On the other hand she does start to have feelings for the narrator (Paul) but she is scared from her past.
I think that the movie paid too much attention of the relationship between the characters rather than the characters themselves. Like you said, in the book, Holly is described in great detail and we get a deeper understanding of her personality through words. This is probably due to the fact that a movie uses pictures for a medium of communication rather than words. This limits the depth in which you can describe a person and I think that the director decided that he would try to show their personalities through their relationships. In the end, I think the movie’s method of portraying Holly is simply inferior.
I agree that the movie showed an American ending, like the happily ever after in a fairy tale. The ending of the movie went away from everything that Holly was standing for, she wanted to get away from responsibility and marriage, but she ends up falling in love with Fred/Paul. By ending up with Fred/Paul Holly loses her individualism and becomes like most women during that time.
I agree with your statement that the movie focused more on the relationships between characters instead of the characters themselves. But even so, I was able to sympathize with Holly at a few points in the movie because her highly individualistic characteristics caused mishaps in her relationships, especially with the narrator. What they had was “good” in a sense, but I felt sorry for her because she just didn’t know how to settle down.
The movie, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” did not share similar qualities the book did. For instance, Truman Capote focused on Holly Golightly’s life and her personality, even leaving out the first person character’s name. This allowed the audience to fully connect to Holly’s character and form an opinion. The narrator’s personal life was mentioned, but not in great detail giving the reader an unobscured view as to the type of person Holly and the other characters introduced were. In the film, however, the audience sees the narrator’s life, the director added a few extra unnecessary details about the narrator’s person – his name being Paul who was a male prostitute. The fact that the film focused on Paul disconnected the viewer with Holly, which in turn made her seem like a crazy lady without a real personality. The actor who had character was Paul, the director gave the audience more of an impression of Paul than of Holly. I feel this was totally against what Capote intended this story to be portrayed as and the overall movie (after reading the book) was awful.
There were multiple differences between the book and the film. The director of the film added mishaps with Holly and Paul, excluded Rusty Trawler and Holly saving Paul. It seems like the director based his/her film on the book’s ideas, but then made the movie more as a love story then a sad one. I believe the message in the book, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, was to never love a free spirit because you’ll end up hurt in the end. The overall affect I got from the movie was: if you fall in love, keep persisting and maybe the significant other will realize their love for you as well. I liked the book way better than the film because it connected us to one main character and didn’t stray the audience to multiple.
I guess we’re all in agreement that the novella was more interesting. The book was very much about Holly Golightly’s character. A film simply gives us too much information at once, and so the director attempts to compensate by blowing acting performances way out of proportion. The whole film ends up cartoonish and forgettable. Oh well. That’s Hollywood for you.
I highly agree that the main message of the movie is related to love rather than the underlying messages that Capote communicated in his short story. The purpose of the movie is to probably support a love story, resulting in the happy ending. The director removed the motifs he or she found that would restrict the relationship between Holly and the narrator, and included ones that would promote their relationship and have it bloom into a relationship between lovers.
However, there are parts of the film that I found help to clarify some of the events in the short story. Overall, I enjoyed the short story more than the film. I think people who did not read the book and are hoping for a cute romance film to watch would enjoy it.
Yes the movie was a bit underdeveloped and I agree that the book had substance but I think the movie was just trying to please the audience. Your interpretation of the movie is right on saying that being persistent can help the significant other fall for you. People can change or just stay the same forever. Holly changed in the movie and stayed the same in the movie, it depends what ending you like better.
The movie, Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961), was a pretty big disappointment to me because of all of the details that were left out or changed from the book that I felt really added to the themes and overall meaning. One change that was especially strange to me was how the movie producers decided to give the narrator a name when this detail was purposefully left out in the book. I understand that it would be difficult to tell a movie from a first person perspective as was the point of view of the book but I felt that this somewhat isolates the viewer from fully experiencing what the narrator is feeling. Additionally, the iconic birdcage in the book never makes its appearance in the movie in the way it did in the book. As one scene begins we are brought upon the view of a birdcage but this is a one-time appearance and doesn’t play the role as gift from Holly as it did in the book. I felt that this view of a birdcage in this scene was somewhat of an afterthought and something that the producers felt they should add after removing the original and symbolic birdcage from the story. I believe that in removing this symbol they made the theme of freedom vs. control less prominent in the movie.
I also saw that the ending of the book had really changed in this movie which gives an unrealistic fairytale style ending to the movie which was not present in the book. The book ends more in the idea that freedom cannot be controlled as Holly makes her way to Brazil and then Buenos Aires, leaving our narrator without a controlled relationship with Holly. The movie ends in a way that says quite the opposite. It shows a type of sudden reform within Holly in which she realizes that her free and unpredictable life is not going to work out and she and Paul get together and live happily ever after. This does not give us an accurate representation of what Capote was trying to say in writing his book and I think that this movie would have been better off under another name. By changing the ending of the book they have, in essence, written a whole different story separate from the original Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
I agree that the ending for the film and some of the added scenes are highly unnecessary. The overall ideas of the short story are thrown off in order to get the happy ending between the narrator and Holly. Perhaps the movie should include a line about it being an adaptation rather than being based of Truman Capote’s short story. It saddens me also to see that much of the motifs, as mentioned the bird cage and the narrator’s name, removed. Overall, the director may be concerned more in trying to achieve the happy ending, rather than the underlying meanings, and turn Capote’s short story into a love story.
You make a good argument for one of the central themes of the book. Do you think even though Holly betrays the free spirit the beginning of the film and novel make her out to be as derogatory to women’s independence in that era? Why do you think Capote wanted to portray Holly in the way that he did?
Very true. I also thought that the movie didn’t focus on some of the more important features that the book mentioned. Actually, the birdcage was shown in the movie, but only for a very short amount of time. So it was never really a “memorable” scene as it was in the book. That, in turn, as you concluded, made the freedom theme less noticeable.
The Movie of breakfast at tiffany’s overall didn’t do to bad of a job on connecting the book main points. Sure the book still was more in depth and focused more on Holly. Which is normal, books are often more in depth and are better then the movies that come out afterwards, no movie gets all 100% of the book in it. The movie did get the main parts of book in it. Like, her brother fred and finding out he died, jose, the meetings at the jail and so on, though was surprised they took out the horseback riding scene which was surprising to me. It seemed like that could have been incorporated into a romantic movie by changing a couple minor details. Which was mainly what they change was just minor parts and ending with a big change. They even gave the narrator a name and a kind of a bigger part in the story.
When they made the movie they really just picked the parts they wanted from the book to make a romantic movie. No one wants to go to the movies and watch a sad movie about a woman’s life and how she ends up missing. Instead it was a romantic warming movie. It had a happy ending and seemed to end with everything going just right. Both the movie and the book I though could have been more interesting but still wasnt to bad.
I think you’re right. It does appear that they picked out almost all of the parts in the book that were romantic or happy. They left out the horse riding scene that caused Holly to lose her baby and even took out the pregnancy all together. The ending was also highly romanticized and, as you mentioned, this wasn’t necessarily to betray the plot of the book. People often go to the movies and want to be uplifted and happy by the end of it, not wondering what happened after the movie ended. I have been to my fair share of open ended movies and realize how frustrating it is to not know the ending to something I paid good money to go and see. This book is probably just one of the many books that aren’t meant to become movies that people want to see in their original and undisturbed state.
You’re right, the film makers did try to shape the novel for it to be a romantic movie. Even though they gave the happily ever after ending, it did not suit the movie at all, since in the novel, Holly was supposed to end up alone. Holly represents freedom, and her being in a happily ever after situation does not fit…
I agree with you that the movie took the important parts from the book and wasn’t much in depth as in the book. About the horseback riding scene, I also was surprise that they took it out. But I didn’t liked the ending of the film because it should’ve been the same ending as in the book. I was expecting a different ending but the movie itself was good.
I wondered why the book changed so much when it was being made into a movie. I agree that the movie makers picked parts of the movie that would help them make a romantic comedy. I also think the movie added in other scenes to show how Fred cared for Holly.
The film Breakfast at Tiffanies was different than the book itself. Majority of the films are different than the books but, this book had one description and the film had another based on the characters. For example, Holly is pretty in the film and in the book they describe her as always being involved with older men. In this case one would think that she is beautiful. Well she is but on the other hand we can see that she is young compare to the men in the book and in the film. But Truman Capote makes the men from the book look old and not that attractive. On the other hand we have the film and Paul is attractive to be an old man. He is not the best but in comparison to the book he is good looking.
On the other hand the film is more of a fairy tale. At the end is a happy ending. When one would think that the book is similar to the film. In the book they give a different picture for example, the thoughts are the same but the descriptions are different. Once you see the film you are able to tell who is what character and see how they are and the way that they act. For instance, you can see how the scene of the party in the book it was more of a get together type of thing. But, in the movie they were all having a blast and there were drinks everywhere and it was crowded. The cops got there too to calm everyone down. After all, the film was a well done and so was the book.
The movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s is very different from the book. In the movie, it never shows the narrator talking to the bartender and reminiscing about Holly and wondering where she has gone. Also it never shows that Holly was every pregnant to the lawyer. The movie portrays the narrator just as it does in the book. He is very kind and caring. Holly is as well portrayed like a gold digger and only wants older men. Which goes along with the book but the narrator does not look as old as he is portrayed in the book. Holly also is very outgoing and does not want anyone to slow her down. Also in the movie, Paul (who is the narrator) goes with Holly to visit Mr. Tomato which Capote never describes in the book. Also Paul and Holly never go on the horseback ride that happens in the book which is okay I guess. I was hoping for the movie to be more in line with the book.
If I had to choose between the movie and the book, it would be the movie because even though it skipped a few events that happened in the book it was still i good movie. And also i was not expecting Holly to be so beautiful. The thing that is so interesting about Holly is that she is care free. She does not need to depend on anyone. Overall the movie is good.
The movie had a completely different perspective from the book so it changed the story quite a bit in some instances. Like the example you bring up about the bar scene, and some others through the story. I do believe that the reading is more detailed and gave a better perspective. After reading the story, the movie is definitely fun to watch but I don’t think I would be able to understand the story as well if I hadn’t read the story first.
Agreed, the movie did skip a lot of parts from the book but instead, they added a lot of different things.This causes the story to change a lot and this is pretty common in a lot of movies. Even though both the endings of the books were different, I also think they were both good.
The movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” begins the same way as the short novel: a man following Holly to her apartment and Holly ringing Mr. Yunioshi’s doorbell, which is portrayed as an extremely clumsy man. The first difference from the novel was that the narrator rings Holly’s doorbell instead of her ringing his doorbell in the middle of the night. He asks Holly for the phone and after they converse in her apartment. A major difference in the movie was that the narrator comes along with his “decorator”; in the book he is meant to be alone, an outsider. Another difference was the absence of Joe Bell and the narrator is actually given a name, Paul. We find out Holly is a call girl and Paul does the same thing.
The ending is purposely different from the actual short novel in order to bring in more revenue. The movie has the famous happily ever after ending. This ending is pleasant; however it does not fit the meaning the novel meant to convey. Holly is a wild thing; the filmmakers even quoted this part of the book, when she was justifying her refusal to go with Doc back home. Holly represents freedom itself, a sense of adventure and constantly feels the need to escape from things and people.
I agree that the meaning of freedom that Holly had was taken away when she ended up with the narrator. I did not like all of the changes that the movie created, I thought it took away from the meaning of the book. The movie changed the way we view each character.
I also thought that it was interesting that they gave the narrator a name in the movie. I though that it was a substantial part of the movie not to have his name. There were many things that were different between the movie and book, but there were some scenes that the movie directors portrayed very clearly and closely to the book. Everyone likes a happy ending, and movies love to please their audience. The book does have a different ending, but somehow more real.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s the movie was very different than Truman Capote’s short novel. The way the movie is portrayed is very different and many of the parts of the book are placed out of order or not at all in the movie. The movie however is a classic. Everyone has heard of Breakfast at Tiffany’s and the star actress Audrey Hepburn. I really enjoyed the way Audrey Hepburn acted in this movie. When I imagined Miss Holly Golightly while reading the book, I imagined what I saw in the movie. This may have something to do with the highly popular image of Audrey Hepburn in this movie. I did enjoy viewing this film.
I liked Capote’s short novel more than the movie. The way the characters were portrayed in the book gave more options to what message the book could tell you. There are more details included in the book that the movie missed. However, it is natural for the movie to miss some parts of a book. Miss Golightly seen through the eyes of the narrator of the book, gave more to her character. You see more sides to her and get to make inferences based on your own experiences and how you are picturing the book. Miss Golightly never quite knew where she belonged or what she even wanted and that is something most people can relate to. The ending provides hope that she at some point found what she was looking for.
Agreed, the book gives more detail about Holly and we go to know her better from it. The movie tried understand Holly from her point of view and it did. The cat was an example because they both didn’t know who they are and they were lost. This relates to your idea and the cat was the symbolism to that plot.
I feel the same way that everybody felt about the differences of the movie and the book. I felt as though it did not grasp the whole story and how it should/could have been portrayed. It may have been the fact that the narrator wasn’t technically narrating and instead was just another character. I felt as though that may have been a reason it took away from the personal connections I felt with the narrator and also with Holly through his views. The narrator having a name was also something different from the book that I felt made took away from the mystery man we followed in the book. I felt as though each of the characters were also portrayed differently from the book, but not always in a bad way. As I had read in other people’s responses some of the major character seemed to be chosen out of comic relief more than their accuracy.
The set-up of the story, era, and mannerisms seemed a little inaccurate with the time period. The book took place in the 1940’s but I feel as though was not accurately portrayed in the movie. This was the time during World War II, and the roles of the extras were not as accurate as they probably could have been. I felt as though they had made the characters and scenes to extravagant at times.
That is the same way I feel. I liked the actual reading more than the movie and believe it was more insightful as far as knowing where the story is coming from. The movie was fun to watch to gain a different perspective but it was not as detailed and missed some vital information.
I agree with your view of the narrator becoming more of a character in the movie, and that it created less of a connection with him. In the book, his name was omitted probably because the novel was more focused on Holly. Yet, his name might’ve been included in the movie so that the focus could be on the interactions between Holly and him.
I felt as you did, that the movie did not give the whole story that the book did, but I liked both nonetheless. I felt personal connections with the characters, maybe not as deep as in the book, but I liked how Holly was portrayed. She kept the adventurousness of the book, but added a little more personality and humanity in the movie. I really like visualizing the characters first in the book and then seeing how they were then portrayed in the movie. Sometimes one must look at a book and movie separately to appreciate what they both have to offer. Good comments though.
The movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s was not at all what I expected when I just had read the short story by Capote. The thing that stood out to me the most was the fact that the narrator was more of a character instead of being just a third person point of view. The narrator was also more of a friend who even thought about Holly at one point. The movie and the story were not exactly the same but came pretty close. Some parts, such as the horseback riding part were not at all mentioned in the movie which I thought was important to the story. Movies and stories are rarely the exact same so this was to be expected. Holly’s character is defined pretty well and correlates to how it is described in the reading. She is portrayed as being someone who likes older rich men but the movie did not do a good job portraying her physical traits. The story states that Holly looks older than she is but in the movie she looks young. Holly is portrayed as being involved with older men in the book but in the movie there is a specific example when she gets pregnant with the lawyer.
The movie and book both give the same story in a different form with many little things that are different. The book gives a better explanation and gives more background into things and overall, I believe the reading is more interesting and is more fun to read.
The movie, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, is the “Hollywood” version of the short novel. In the movie, the narrator explicitly confesses his love to Holly, and they both end up happily together; a romantic movie. In contrast, the “happy ending” wasn’t present in the novel; the novel was more of a telling of freedom. Though I didn’t really prefer the change, consideration has to be put on the fact that in order for this novel to be a hit movie, changes have to be made to attract the general public audience. Overall, the movie was well made; it flowed nicely, at least.
For the most part, the translation between Holly’s character in the book and the movie captured her sense of freedom and adventure. As her last name, Golightly, suggests, she doesn’t take on any commitments, and if she does, it won’t be for long. I pictured Holly as a very care-free type of person in the novel. I thought that the movie did a great job in portraying care-free, adventurous Holly. The only disappointment was the ending of the movie. Holly’s character is memorable because of her wildness. But in the end of the movie, she was “tamed.” For instance, she reunited with her cat after letting it go to the streets. It also seems that she has finally settled onto one man – the narrator. The shift between her two opposite personas takes away from her character because she’s not as wild as she seems anymore; she’s not as memorable anymore because she fell into the norms of stabilizing her life.
I agree with you about Holly’s lifestyle in that she can’t make commitments. I however think that the ending was good for her because she was unhappy with her life because she couldn’t settle down. She then however finally got the chance to calm down and this was her answer to feeling “red”. Holly was feeling “red” because she wasn’t happy with all the men she has been with.
I think that it is very interesting how the book and movie’s endings were different. It really changes a story, or at least the feeling the story has, when the ending is different. I liked how the movie portrayed Holly as care-free and adventurous as well. I liked how the movie and book drew a parallel between Holly and the cat, and how they both found their places in society and Holly, within herself.
Just like the movie “Capote”, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” plot was completely different from the book. The book and the movie both represent Holly as the same person. She uses other rich men for gifts and money, however, the movie represents it in different ways. The book has flashbacks about Holly and the most of the story took place in the past. The movie however is completely different in that, the movie is in present time and keeps moving forward. The movie also drastically altered the plot and basically became a completely different movie.
In the movie, Fred is Holly’s brother but in the book, Fred is the narrator. The narrator in the book is portrayed by Paul and the movie goes more deeply into the relationship between Holly and him. The relationship between those two also took a different turn at the end. The book also introduces Paul with his boss in which he sleeps with. However, the book cut out or changes a lot of characters. The bartender Joe wasn’t even in the movie and the upstairs Japanese photographer was basically a comic relief character that gave a stereotypical portrayal of Asians.
The movie wasn’t that bad and there were some funny parts. I would recommend the book and the movie to other people but also tell them that the it’s basically two complete different story. Two different stories that is centered around the interesting life of a women that uses other men.
The movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and the book varied in some fundamental ways, but had a similar message. The movie was a love story about a woman who did not know what she wanted from life, did things that made her happy, but never really knew her place until she fell in love with the narrator. I was really surprised at the beginning of the film because it followed the book so closely. It was almost the exact same thing that happened, but then it just became about the her and the narrator’s relationship. The movie did give a great representation of the sort of woman Holly was, but the book gave a completely different picture of her. She was much younger in the book, and seemed to have more problems than the one in the movie. They both had the same flighty nature though, with the same circumstances happen to them. They both seem to have men running after them and like that attention, but they do not know how to truly be happy. The book had a lot more descriptive details than the movie did, but the movie really put a “time” and “place” to the words in the book for me. I really liked the part about the cat in the movie. It was not as identified in the book, but it was an interesting part of the movie I thought. It was the fact that she kept changing her name because she did not know who she really was, and the narrator did not really have a name, and then she did not give her cat a name. They all do not belong to anyone or have a place, so she did not think that she deserved to give them a name. I think that was my favorite part of the book and movie.