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.
“Breakfast at Tiffany’s” ever since I watched the movie I extremely loved it! Audrey Hepburn shines in her role as Holly, and is probably best known for this role (especially because of her iconic image of her in a beautiful black dress with her hair up, and a cigarette holder in her hand). I think she played the character amazingly. Peppard was also great as Paul or to Holly named as a Fred and him and Audrey’s chemistry was just wonderful. The rest of the cast is great as well, and whoever played the drunken women who laughed and cried with herself in a mirror. It was hilarious! Overall the movie has a great story, great cast, and great comedy and romance. Holly is said to make money by going to the powder room with men, Paul makes his money in a similar way by having an affair with a married woman (nothing is shown, only mentioned, and implied). Also, there is quite a bit of smoking and drinking, and also Holly and Paul steal two masks from a store (out of fun, they are doing things they’ve never done before).
I agree, I thought Audrey looked gorgeous in the film and definitely acted well. I loved that drunk scene of the lady as well, the whole time I was like “Wow”. It seems as if during those years there was a ton of drinking and smoking. Overall, I too loved the film and loved the chemistry Paul and Holly had.
I agree that Audrey Hepburn had played a great role in the movie, and portrayed Holly Golightly very well. The part where you stated about the drunken woman who was first happy and was looking at the mirror then a few minutes later, was crying uncontrollably was very hilarious! Yes, and I too agree that this movie is very enjoyable, and I loved it.
I agree, while i was watching it I though ‘wow she is beautiful, I want to try doing that up-do she has her hair in!’ haha. That drunken woman in the mirror scene was great, I was dying laughing, there were some outstanding actors in the movie, Peppard was pretty good looking too. When they we in the store, I thought that they were going to get caught when Holly put her hat on the fish bowl and then they decided to steal the masks instead. The way the movie has “scandelous” elements like the implied sex for money, and the drunken party gives it a flare that further captivates the audience, and it makes the movie more fun.
Definitely, the cast was amazing for this movie. Before i seen the film I did not know that Audrey Hepburn was from the movie. The drunk lady made me laugh so much and helped keep me interested in the film.We can see the chemistry between Holly and Paul. The masks they stole were creepy. I thought they would look like they were for a masquerade.
I agree that the actors and the different scenes were done well. To a point I thought that the drunk women with the mirror reflection was really random and unexpected, which did make it quite funny. The way that the movie was made I must say is the total opposite of what the short story had me ready for. I was a little upset, yet the fact that the actors were picked well, kind of made up for the upset of the script of the movie.
I enjoyed watching the film, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. I think that Audrey Hepburn did a good job acting as Holly Golightly. Similar to the book, I didn’t like how Holly was everywhere and never took full responsibility for her actions and did as she please. Because I got the same feeling from the movie, I think it was well produced. I loved how the movie began because it caught me off guard when I especially didn’t expect her to pull out a pretzel (if that’s what it was) and start eating right in front of Tiffany’s. I can’t explain how I felt, but I thought that she looked as if she could afford anything by the way she dresses and presents herself. Moreover, throughout the film, yes, Holly was shown to be exactly just how she was described in the book. I loved the end and when she says goodbye to Doc because it shows how she doesn’t know who she really is. To me, that’s what the book and film is about, discovering oneself.
The film wasn’t exactly like the book, that’s why I don’t like watching films made from books, but I like this film because it was kind of how one would want the film or story to end. In the book, the guy doesn’t end up with Holly, in the film he was in love with her and ended up with her. It was a true romance film, a happy ending. On a side note, I though Paul was extremely handsome and I think the film cleared up the idea from class that maybe the writer wasn’t Capote himself, maybe. However, what I thought was interesting in the film was how Paul had an affair with a lady, the detailed party Holly hosted, and the romantic scenes of Paul and Holly going out of town. In the film, Holly understands love while in the book; she’s still searching for love.
I agree, that in the movie Holly was portrayed really well at presenting herself. Also along with the film aspect, I too do not like watch films based on novels because it seems to be two completely different things, along with the ending. Since in the movie Paul(Fred) that they end up together in love, while in the book she disappears. Lastly, I also enjoyed and loved the film as well.
Me too, it annoyed me how in both the book and film, Holly thought she could do whatever she wanted whenever, and never suffer any consequence. I agree, it was exactly how the audience would have wanted the story to end, I’m sure you’ve noticed that that’s what they always do in Hollywood, they change the ending so more people will enjoy it. It doesn’t depict the true story of the novel but its more fun to watch and overall more positive. I totally agree with you, how you said in the film Holly understands love, while in the book she’s still looking.
Agreed, Holly was careless of her actions, she was too free spirited trying to find who she was. The beginning helped me understand the title of the novel. it did seem as if she did not have money, she had little clothes. I think it was better that the narrator was not Capote.
I agree I think the film was about Holly discovering herself. For example she would reinvent herself in order to find who she is. I also agree that in the movie she understood love because Paul explained it to her and that she needs to stop running from love. I also liked that they stayed together in love and it was a happy ending.
I agree with the assertion of the book and film being about discovering oneself. I really felt like I wasn’t able to totally pick up on this in the book, but the film really clearly portrays it. I also definitely agree that Holly ultimately comes to understand love in the film, but in the book her character is portrayed as who may or may not have come to understand love, and is much more mysterious.
I couldn’t agree more! The romance between Holly and Paul definitely made the movie enjoyable to watch. However, I feel that Paul wasn’t really like the character in the short story because he changed his role from the observant narrator to the main love interest.
I would like to first point out that it was interesting to see how the movie began. It started with Holly Golightly habing breakfast at Tiffany’s while in the book, the author illustrates Paul going to an old bar where he usuall went to long ago and talked to an old friend that knew Holly as well. Both were reminiscing about Holly, and then the story unraveled. In the movie, it was a complete different beginning. Also in the book, it describes how Paul and Holly had a friendship, not a relationship where they both had feelings for each other. Also, the movie it showed how Paul was also the same as Holly, but he was not an escort. He had sex with women for money, but at the same time, he was trying to be an aspiring writer.
The movie overall had the “Hollywood” vibe to it. Very hilarious, and an enjoyment to watch. Especially in the part where Holly was having her fabulous party and everyone was all acting ridiculously. The cat and the crakle Jack ring seemed to have played a very significant role in the movie. The movie ended with Paul and Holly in love, while in the book it says that Holly was gone. She dispeared and was never found. So which explains such a “Hollywood” type of ending. Overall, this movie was an enjoyment and Audrey Hepburn was outstanding!
I noticed that too about how the movie began differently. It seems like movies always start off in a different place than the book, like how the capote movie started right off with the murders; maybe they do it to grab the audience’s attention. I think they added the relationship in and also the part with Paul having sex with women for money as another “movie attention grabber.” I agree, the movie was an enjoyment, the happy ending of the movie was more likeable obviously.
Yes, I did not mind how the film began, I thought it was perfect. However, after remember how the book began, I just thought it was interesting how they leave some people out of the story. I do love the little details the film focused on like their relationship and the ring and the cat who was important to Holly. Also, there was a hollywood vibe to the film, but it was enjoyable.
The film had an old hollywood feel to it, i thought it was interesting how they introduced the characters to each other by him moving in to the apartment. which is a typical way a love story begins, it was interesting how the apartment complex was somewhat lavish, which in the novel it is explained to be cheap and not very fancy to live in . the film and novel were very different but very similar at the same time.
I agree in the book the author and Holly were friends and in the movie it was a relationship. In addition I felt as if it was a hidden love the author felt towards Holly in the book. I also agree and feel the movie gave that Hollywood type ending versus Holly never being found.
I also thought it was interesting how the book portrays Holly and the narrator has having a friendship, and the film portrays them as having a romance. I also think it’s interesting how you point out that Holly and Paul make their living in similiar ways, which may kind of show how truly compatible they are in terms of a romantic relationship; at least in the film. Also, I was a little disappointed with the way the film’s ending differed from the book’s ending.
I agree the movie did have a “Hollywood” vibe to it, I thought this was very interesting and entertaining. I also noticed the remarks Holly made to Paul throughout the film, I’m not sure if everyone picked up or I might be wrong but I thought that was hilarious on the directors part.
The “hollywood” types of endings are my favorite. In my opinion, they changed it to excite the audience, to have them leave on a happy note. They both did the same jobs basically, but they ended up falling in love with each other. Their friendship was strong which I loved. The movie turned out just right, even though it wasn’t the same as the book.
I too thought it was interesting how the movie began and the differences between the character’s relationships. Like you said, these changes were made in the movie to appeal to the “hollywood” aspect and to make it more interesting and enjoyable to watch. Overall, I think these changes did not take away from the story and stayed true to the short story.
I thought Breakfast at Tiffany’s was a great movie. It’s the epitome of vintage glamour. Audrey did a great job in her portrayal of Holly, although she was not quite what I had expected after reading the novel; Audrey made the character more likable. There were some funny scenes I liked, such as when Holly lit that woman’s hat on fire at the party; that made me laugh hysterically. Rusty and Mag were what I anticipated; Mag tall, lanky, and stuck up; Rusty short, nerdy, and quiet. Holly’s character annoyed me in the novel with her materialism, and promiscuity. It was as if she downplayed her intelligence in order to make those men feel better about themselves. There were a copious amount of scenes in the film that made me laugh like when people were drunk at the party and that woman was talking to herself fin the mirror and later crying, and there was a scene where you only see this guy’s feet because he was standing on his head. I loved the part when Mag passed out, she wasn’t a likeable character, and I had been anticipating that funny depiction. There were a few elements which differentiated the novel from the film. In the film, when Paul starts writing the story on the typewriter he says, “there once was a …very frightened girl..” We get the sense that he pities her, I didn’t really pick up on that when I read the book. I also noticed the same thing when he left he in the taxi, I didn’t realize how much he saw through her until then. I really enjoyed Audrey’s portrayal of Holly, she seemed a bit less selfish such as when she agreed gleefully to accept a ten dollar gift from Paul at Tiffany’s. Contrarily though, she was still conveyed as self-centered and stubborn such as when she leaves the cat in the rain, or when Paul told her he loved he and she didn’t even say anything really, she could have come up with something remotely nice to say, it showed she didn’t care about his feelings at that point. So, overall, I really enjoyed the movie.
Audrey was more likeable as Holly in the movie then holly was in the book. I laughed at the hat catching on fire as well that entire party scene was entertaining. When we see the sentence on Paul’s typewriter I thought he felt sorry for her but also could maybe make money off of her life. When she does not reply to Paul’s feelings and then leaves the cat in the rain was disrespectful.
Yes, I agree that Audrey made Holly more likable because I did not like her in the book at all.Oh, at Tiffany’s when Paul was buying her a gift, I thought she would have said alright, but being okay with just a 10 dollar item, I thought it was sweet. I find her to be really stubborn as well, but I am glad that in the end she gave up and listened to herself. I also wanted to note that in the beginning it seemed as if Paul himself was indifferent to many things that went on in his life as well.
I noticed that too, about how Holly was portrayed! I did not like Holly in the novel due to her selfish acts and greed, but in the movie I really enjoyed the way how Hepburn made Holly seem likable in a way. I especially enjoyed the little humors around the film with Holly lighting the woman’s hat on fire, then asking for the time and the drink spilt on the hat to dispose of the fire. Overall, I agree with your blog.
I noticed that too, about how Holly was portrayed! I did not like Holly in the novel due to her selfish acts and greed, but in the movie I really enjoyed the way how Hepburn made Holly seem likable in a way. I especially enjoyed the little humors around the film with Holly lighting the woman’s hat on fire, then asking for the time and the drink spilt on the hat to dispose of the fire. Overall, I agree with your blog.
I agree that Holly’s character is still generally portrayed as being selfish, but eventually transforms to find love with Paul when she realizes how much he can see right through her. I also thought it was pretty funny when the drunk lady was laughing at herself in the mirror! Overal, Holly’s character was much more likeable in the film as opposed to her character in the book.
The movie definitely had many humorous parts and was quiet enjoyable to watch. Audrey Hepburn really did an amazing job of portraying Holly Golightly and captured a lot of her qualities shown in the book. But I do agree that she seemed less selfish in the movie and was easier to connect with.
The film Breakfast at Tiffany’s by Truman Capote was a well composed movie. It was not exactly the same as the novel. The main points were included in the film along with new ideas. The two main characters Holly Golightly and Paul Varjak (Fred) were well played by Audrey Hepburn and George Pappard. Hepburn was good at seeming like stuck up when she did not have much. Rusty was nothing close to what I thought he was going to look like. In the book we did not know who the narrator was, I wonder if they made up a random name for in the movie. I believed the narrator was Capote himself. When the movie started it got straight to the point like the other Capote film. I thought it was going to start with the narrator in Joe Bell’s bar, which they never mention throughout the movie. I really liked the scenery of it all it looked like it was in Hollywood.
Some small details stood out to me that made me laugh. The party was a hilarious scene to watch when Mag passed out and Holly shouted “Timber.” The library look way different and more complicated then it is today. When Paul and Holly go to Tiffany’s to look around; he wanted to buy her a present but only had ten dollars so he engraved the ring from the crackerjacks box, that part was adorable. I kind of wanted to see the medal he gave her in the book and the bird cage Holly gave Paul. The first two lines on Paul’s typewriter about Holly were interesting. Jose had a different last name. The end of the film I enjoyed more then the book because Holly and Paul were together with the cat, whereas in the novel they went their own ways. Overall great film.
I also thought it would start with the narrator in Joe Bell’s Bar. I agree that the party was hilarious it made me laugh as well. I also thought it was cute that he gave her that in graved ring and that they stayed together I kind imagined it as if he proposed to her and the cat was their baby.
I agree with the characters being well-played by the actors. Each actor did their part really well. I like Holly’s the most. Audrey played her part well. Furthermore, I thought there was a mystery to who the narrator was. I thought it was Capote himself too. However, i felt as if I was narrator. Capote did a good job of making the reader being engage in the reading. I found the stalking by Holly’s husband funny with the Crackerjacks box. It was so obvious and hilarious.
Yes! The bird cage I was waiting for the moment Holly gives the bird cage to Paul but unfortunately we were not given that. instead one of the scenes has a beautiful bird cage with a bird in it, I feel the film was making fun of the bird cage and the significance it had to Holly. I must admit I was a little sad to see both of them reconcile in the end, I think if the film portrayed what was in the book our feelings for Holly would be different rather than what we are built to expect throughout the film.
i agree that the actors were well chosen for the different parts. I thought the party scene was random and funny because a lot of unexpected things happened. I loved the fact that Holly accepted a ring from a cracker jack box when she seemed to be such a high maintenance person.
The book and the movie had differences and similarities. Some differences are that initially in the book the author is remembering Holly and the movie begins with Holly looking into Tiffany’s while she is eating breakfast. The movie omits many parts from the book. For example the conversation of what the author’s story was about and how Holly was uninterested when he was reading the story to her. In addition in the note Holly gave to the author it did not include that she would leave him alone and that she did leave him alone. Also in the book he had to leave her a note that said it is Thursday so he could get her attention again. I felt in the book the Holly was not interested in the author in the beginning and in the movie I felt she was initially trying to be friends with the author. Also the movie extended the party seen and showed how crazy her parties could get. In addition the movie does not include that Holly changes from calling the authors Freed to Buster. In the end Holly leaves in the taxi versus in the movie Holly and the author stay together.
Furthermore the movie portrayed Breakfast at Tiffany’s as a love story versus what the author remembered of Holly in the book. For example in the movie the author is with another woman and when the author falls in love with Holly he stops seeing the other women. Holly however similar to the book is in search for a rich husband that can take care of her financial circumstances. She wants a rich husband so she can be rich and take care of Freed and not have to worry about the mad reds which included stealing because she did not have any money. In the movie the author tells Holly how he feels about her and tells her that despite her being afraid of cages she is in a cage that she build one herself and that she is afraid to fall in love. In the end Holly and the author stay together in love.
I agree Holly was portrayed in a different light than in the book, she was very promiscuous and didnt care about others but in the film she only has true feeling and cared about the writer. which i thought it made holly mature into an adult in the very end. Holly left money and status to be with who she truly loves, which made it in a love story, not a memory of a charismatic women in the writer’s past.
There was a lot that was taken out from the short story that Truman Capote had written, but once you think about Capote had some kind of say on the movie since he was still living during the time when the movie was being made. Also even though she was freed she did not really leave the country but instead she decided to stay with Paul/narrator. It was a very Cinderella like movie.
There was differences and similarities between the movie and the book. There were many scenes that they left out and mixed up. I thought that it would have been more entertaining if the movie followed the book. The love relationship between the two main characters was surprising but good.
It is true that there some thing that were different and others that were omitted but some were no really that important. But the one difference that I agree is interesting is the ending, the way that they end up together yet in the book Holly leaves and the narrator has no idea where she may be at. When the narrator tells her what she really is, is interesting because she finally realizes how ignorant she has been.
The film, Breakfast at Tiffany’s was very interesting because I assumed it would be just like the book but it changed many of the scenes and had a very different ending than the short story. Though it had many differences the film and the novel were very similar. I recognized many lines that I read in the novel that were said in the film. Holly Golightly had a different personality in the film than she did in the novel. In the novel she was very carefree and had many men at her doorsteps, but in the film we didn’t see many men, that she got paid to be on their arm. I also thought it was interesting they put a twist on the writer and gave him a name and sort of a call man, he was living in an apartment that was paid by a wealthy married woman, Paul was the woman’s affair that she constantly went to for sexual intercourse. That was very interesting to me because this gave a connection to him and Holly, they were both paid to have an intimate relationship with people.
In the film we see Holly begin to become mature and regret her actions while the movie goes on and begin to have intimate feelings for Paul. In the novel, she never begins to have feelings for the writer, he is actually insinuated that he is gay, but in the film they have sex and fall in love. Which was very interesting because in the novel, after she is indict for her relationship with Sally Tomato, he leaves New York, which the writer ponders what she is doing now. But in the film she is confronted by Paul about their feelings and she begins to face her love for him, forgetting the notion of leaving to Brazil. I believe the film and the novel suit each other very well because it gives a different story from each other, answering the audiences questions of what if she stayed in New York or left?
I found out its really interesting too when Paul and Holly had much similar situation with their sexual life. I am also agree with you on Holly Golightly’s personality because in the novel she not only shares his philosophy, but his fears and anxieties as well – ‘the mean reds’ she calls them.
She didn’t have too many men at her doorstep, but she had a pretty good amount. They both did the same thing pretty much. They both burned each other at least once during the movie. He told her many times that he loves her but everytime, she doesn’t seem to listen. Maybe the changes in the film were for better business.
I was surprised when I found out Paul also got paid to have a relationship. I was not expecting both characters (Holly and Paul) to be in the same situation. It was good that Holly forgot all about going to Brazil and ended up staying with Paul. It would have been sad to see Paul give up his affair and have Holly just leave.
The movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s was very opposite compared to the short story that we had read. At the beginning there was the narrator did not have more of a play back to what happened years before. It was made for the time where it would become popular because as we read the story most of the men in the book are homosexual, especially the narrator, but as we keep on watching the movie we find out that the narrator is straight. It seemed as if it was a different story from the book that Truman Capote had written. As if the director had just used certain parts from the short story that was written. I found it very upsetting because I was imagining the movie to have more similarities to the story.
As I watched the movie I realized that I actually learn the real name of the narrator and that he was a published author, even though it was only one book. This did make it more interesting to get more of a story, but it was just not the way that I wanted the movie to shown. I love the use of the background, but knowing that certain characters were left out of the movie was just upsetting, like; Joe Bell, who owned the bar that the narrator and Holly would go to. I liked some of the scenes like when they got the Cracker Jack ring engraved. The movie was just more of a romantic drama, not the more of a storytelling concept that Truman Capote had used in the written version. It just makes me wonder, why would, Truman Capote would allow them to do so many major changes to the story that he had written?
I agree with you, that it is upsetting seeing how the film is very different from the short story. Usually in these translation we’d expect to see some differences but no so big like the ending which ruined the book in a way. And is it interesting how Capote would let his book be shown this way.
I wasn’t too disappointed that the book was different from the movie, it really just ended up as a romantic comedy with a happy ending. There were big changes, yes, that’s true, but I think that when they produced the movie, the audience wanted a happy ending, so they do what the audience wants. It’s understandable because they are a business. The company may have gotten approval from Capote, maybe he wanted to change how it ended.
There were a few major differences that I noticed between the movie and the film. Mostly, I noticed the dramatic shift between the narrator’s and Holly’s relationship. In the novel, the narrator is portrayed as someone who is simply an observer of Holly’s life. Although the narrator is portrayed as caring for Holly in the book, the relationship between the two in my opinion seems to be minimal. In the book, it is heavily insinuated that the narrator is homosexual, and in the movie he is depicted as having heterosexual relationships. Generally, the film seems to go much more in-depth about the narrator’s character, even going as far as revealing his name.
In my opinion, the film portrays Holly Golightly as a much more likeable and compassionate character. The book seems to portray her as someone who lives completely free, lacking complete discretion for others or the repercussions of her actions. However, in the film, Holly is portrayed as someone that finally finds true love with Paul (otherwise known as the narrator in the book). I felt like in the film, Holly’s character was much more clearly depicted as simply being someone seeking her own identity, and her life’s purpose. I wasn’t really able to pick up on that notion in the book. In the film, Holly even states “I’m not Lulumae Barnes, I’m not Holly Golightly. I don’t know who I am!” Finally, I found it really interesting how the film portrays Holly as getting a story-tale ending, falling in love, and living happily ever after with Paul. However, in the book she is portrayed as a character whose whereabouts are unknown, and she is conveyed as ultimately being a bit aloof.
I noticed the shift very quickly from the whole homosexual scene that we would expect from the book from the beginning from the fact that the narrator had moved in and his “designer” had come into the picture. I would also agree that Holly did seem more likable in the movie than what we read in the book and we do not see the women/neighbor hinting that she was a prostitute.
I agree with you about the different perceptive of the relationship between the narrator and Holly. In the book, the narrator had an admiration toward Holly from a far distance and was not able to act out his feeling. Yet, in the movie, he was able to confessed to Holly a few times. There was the big different there. Furthermore, Holly was portrayed more likable in the movie. She was seem more thoughtful and less selfish. She was doing what she did in order to buy a land in Mexico for her brother and her. She accepted Paul’s ten dollar gift.
I agree with you that in the film, Holly was a more likeable character which to me was a very critical thing because it changed that whole feeling of the book. She does finally admit that she does not even know who she is which in the book all she cared was for herself and had somewhat of an idea of what she wanted or she thought. At the end it is very interesting how they decied to end the film very different then the film which a minor change would be alright but they completely turned it around.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s was entertaining; yet, I was a bit disappointed how the movie did not follow the book. I thought that the actors were good. There weer some funny scene such as with Mr. Yunioshi. The storyline was good for a love story. I love the ending of the movie better because I like happy endings. I was surprised that Holly and Paul were having a romantic relationship in the movie because throughout the book, I felt that Holly only saw Paul more as a friend. The movie was more romance based, which was good.
I was really disappointed to see how the movie did not follow with the book. To me, the movie skipped a lot of the movie scene and mixed up the scenes. It really bothered me. I thought that it would have been more interesting if they did the movie based off a narrator. It was funny how they barely first met and became such good friends at that moment as if they known each other forever. Also, I did not expect for Paul to sleep around for money. I thought that it was very unnecessary for the movie. It would have been better if they mention about the birdcage and show more scenes of Holly’s mental issues. But overall, the movie was well-acted.
This is a marvelous movie that manages to be funny without racy, sexy without being explicit, and moving without being preachy. Characters talk about how much she must get paid. But, despite these verbal references, no nudity or sex is ever shown or hinted at. There is no language or violence.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a great film overall. As always, it was somewhat different from the book and one of the differences was unexpected. The unexpected difference was the ending because in the book Capote writes that Holly leaves to Brazil and the narrator and the bar owner never hear from her again until pictures of her arise from somewhere in Africa but in the film it ends with them kissing leading us to believe they stayed together. Of course it is nice to see a happy ending in every story but it did ruin the image that Truman Capote was trying to portray of Holly. Capote portrayed Holly as somewhat of a self-absorbent young girl and it proves it when she leaves to Brazil even though she cannot leave the country due to her arrest. Although she does have some moments where she shows her true self it still evident that she only cares for herself seeing that is still young and naïve. In the film, she is portrayed as more caring of others.
In my opinion, the film did a great job overall translating the book into it but this little difference did ruin the book in a sense. The film followed the book through the most part but it did leave an essential character out, which was Joe Bell. I felt he was an important character because he had loved Holly and still did to that day and this showed how much of Holly’s presence was still there even though she had been gone for a while now. All the characters were portrayed the same as in the book with some exception with Holly Golightly.
This movie is FANTASTIC. It deals with some serious subject, but in a very mild manner. I didn’t quite get that Audrey was a call girl, it’s so mild. I am guessing that the hint a being a call girl might classified as crude.
I must agree this film was great but I feel the writer should have remained unnamed. I’m not sure if all the characters were portrayed the same as in the book but overall I enjoyed seeing what each character could look like, if that makes sense.
Holly Golightly, the center focus of this movie, was shown enjoying breakfast outside Tiffany’s, the jeweler store, during the opening scene. The image created directly connects with the title, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, while establishing the values and appeal the store has on the main character. Obsessed with the idea that wealth being the primary means to happiness and security, Holly spent much of her time devising a plan that would eventually have her married to a very rich figure. Young, beautiful, and free from ties, the character proceeded about her affairs in a carefree manner. She seemed to have not cared for the well being of the many people she associated herself. Many suitors were left to assume that her actions and feelings made her a “phonie”. The narrator himself, like many other men, came to fall in love with the attractive,Ms. Golightly. He represented stability while she was quite the opposite. Uncertain of when and with whom to settle, Holly repeated the cyclical nature of searching and using men to provide herself with a means of living. Contrary to the details of the book, the movie ended the story on a romantic and happy note. The narrator was able to convince and win the young woman despite having faced the possibility of losing her.
The biggest connection with film and the book was how holly golightly was very driven to find a rich man who can give her anything. other than that connection the film switched many things around, giving a romantic relationship with the writer and holly. Holly begins to care and mature while the film proceeds and finally growing up in the end of the movie.
I agree, the movie was completely altered to focus on the relationship aspect instead of the freedom symbolism and the desire for Holly to grow up. The entire book was centered around that and the film doesn’t show Holly’s progression and growth. The movie was more cliche.
The film Breakfast at Tiffany’s was not what I expected. I expected the film to follow the book chapter by chapter. The film begins with Holly window shopping at her favorite store, Tiffany & Co, then wonders off home to her apartment building. I thought this was very nice for the first scene displaying what Holly does when she wants to relax and find peace. Shortly after we are introduced to the writer who was identified as Paul Varjack, I was a little upset the writer was given a name. I felt if he remained unnamed it would bring greater mystery to who the writer truly was. I think giving the writer a name makes him similar to all of the other men Holly has socialized with. In comparison to the book the writer, Paul, is not a homosexual man. Throughout the film the audience is given brief hints that Paul has liked Tiffany since the moment he laid eyes on her. I feel only a small portion of the important topics in the book are not displayed and this was a bit disappointing. I personally enjoyed the ending of the novel where the audience is asking themselves what could have been Holly’s future. But that ends with the conclusion of the film where Holly and Paul reconcile and decide to stay with one another. I feel the film was just used as a love story. I understand because of the time the movie was produced certain elements could have not been portrayed but I feel like they could have indirectly showed the audience that the writer was gay. Other than that I did enjoy the film, Audrey Hepburn does a very good job of portraying the character of Holly Golightly. Something I found very interesting was whenever Holly’s face was shown the image was a little blurred almost having an angelic feel to the image making her seem a sweet, pure and innocent girl.
I loved Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I like how there’s a message in the title. The “breakfast” at a jewelry store was very interesting. This film was amazing, it was comical at some points and it was quite unexpected. She made a living by being rich people’s arm toy. Holly Golightly went around, but she went around with class. The end didn’t follow how the book went, but I would rather have a happy ending after watching a movie instead of a sad ending. I thought that Audrey Hepburn playing the roll of Holly was a great choice because she was so beautiful, and I personally feel like that she could pull something off if she were to do that in real life. I really liked the scene when they went into the jewelry store and Holly accepted something that only costed ten dollars. Toward the end, I expected her to run back to him just because this was the movie even though the book was different. I thought about it and said to myself “why would they have a sad ending in such a good movie” . In the movie, you could tell that Holly was falling for him as time went on. Overall, this movie was amazing. I watched it the first time, I didn’t like it as much, but after reading the book, I liked it a lot more. I saw some changes, but I could think of a reason why they would change it. Movies and books don’t always follow each other down to the smallest detail.
I definitely agree that Audrey Hepburn was the right actress to play the part. She did a great job and made it an entertaining movie. I was glad the movie ended up having a happy ending as well. I thought it would have been a disappointment if Paul nd Holly did not end up together.
I really enjoyed watching Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I have always idolized Audrey Hepburn and thought she did a very good job of portraying Holly Golightly. Although I noticed many differences between the movie and book, I think the movie still stayed true to what Capote was trying to convey. I thought it was interesting that the narrator was a very handsome sort of lady’s man that played an active role in the movie because the book portrayed him as an outsider looking in to the life of Holly Golightly and in my opinion was gay. The fact that the narrator was given a name, Paul, also reinforced the idea that he wasn’t just an aloof outsider. The romance between Holly and Paul made the movie very enjoyable to watch. There was also many humorous moments which really made me laugh. For example, the party scene where the woman was hysterically laughing and crying in the mirror and when Mag passes out and Holly shouts “timber”. Holly’s overall character was very funny and entertaining to watch. The ending of the movie provided much more satisfaction for me than the book did. The book ended with Holly leaving and the narrator not knowing where she was so it was a little disappointing. The movie however, had a happy ending with a romantic hollywood kiss in the rain which I thought was very cute. Overall, the movie was well done and I had good time watching it.
I thought “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” was a great movie. Many people have recommended it before but I never had the chance to watch it. Now that I have seen it I will definitely suggest it to others. Holly Golightly was a fun and carefree character to follow throughout the movie. I think one reason why I enjoyed her in the film was because she was played by Audrey Hepburn. I loved the opening of the film when you see Holly walking by Tiffany’s and literally eating breakfast while looking through the window. The film and the book depict Holly as a “free bird.” She loves to do things her way without completely thinking things through. Her main priority in the film and the book is to find a rich man who will provide for her but in the end she is always left disappointed. Holly would rather be with someone that has money rather than the one man that would do anything for her, Paul. In the book, Holly Golightly does not end up with Paul because they do no develop a fling. I thought it was a good idea to change the ending in the movie and have Paul and Holly end up together. The movie needed a happy ending because Holly goes through a lot of difficult situations. It would have been a letdown if Paul and Holly did not wind up together. Overall, i enjoyed the film more than the book because of the way the characters were portrayed.
I really enjoyed reading Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s, but I did not enjoy the movie as much.. The main character, Holly Golightly is a very complex character and the movie doesn’t portray that. The symbolism with the bird cage was well portrayed though. I did not like the ending either. I did not like the way that they chose to let Paul and Holly end out as a couple. The end of the story loses the mystique by them ending up together. I understand that because it was a film that to be more popular that a happy ending is needed, but as a fan of the book, I would have prefered to see the ending be more in line with the novel. Overall, it was a good movie, but not accurate to the novel for my taste.