I've heard of Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) because I'm a film major, I don't live underneath a rock and mostly because of Gossip Girl. For those of you who read the Gossip Girl series by Cecily von Ziegesar, Blair Waldorf is obsessed with Breakfast at Tiffany's and Audrey Hepburn. After watching the film, I understood why.
It was either in the credits or stalking the Breakfast at Tiffany's IMDb page that led me to discover it was a book first. But I had the same reaction (astonishment) I did when I discovered Drive was a book first. I do hate reading the book after watching the film, but in this case it was worth it.
Just in case you want to read or watch the film before reading this post (because this post may contain spoilers), here's some information about the two versions of Breakfast at Tiffany's.
The novella was written by Truman Capote and you can find it at your local library or Amazon. The copy I got was borrowed from the library and contained three other short stories.
The film, starring Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard, was written by George Axelrod and directed by Blake Edwards. It's on Netflix, probably found at your local library and you can buy it on Amazon. (It's worth the money.)
Breakfast at Tiffany's by Truman Capote is a one hundred eleven page novella published in 1958.
It's told by an unnamed narrator about his interaction with and Miss Holiday Golightly, Traveling.
Although the story has a lot of details, we never learn the narrator's name. This makes me think, maybe the narrator is just as independent as Holly thinks about herself. Breakfast at Tiffany's is not a linear structure. You know where the narrator and Holly end up at the beginning of the story. The narrator tells the story of how they got there. It's like one big flashback.
The story is quite complicated and the characters are large. Capote really is an amazing writer. The story may be complicated, but it's a simple read. You could probably finish it in a day. And it's not so complicated that you will be confused by the end. The internal conflict of the characters is highly complicated and if you read between the lines, you'll see it. The ending of the novella was so sad, but sometimes I like an ending like that. It's more realistic.
I liked the novella for all of it's details and it was funny, but I loved the film more.
(Image curiosity of bookcoverarchive.com)
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) written by George Axelrod is a one hundred fifteen minute film about: A young New York Socialite who becomes interested in a young man who has moved into her apartment building. I couldn't get a hold of the actual script because, well, it's Breakfast at Tiffany's one of the most highly regarded classic films in history. The script was just up for auction and sold for about $306, 000. So you can imagine it's been secured for years. I found "transcripts" of the film which shouldn't be a thing because one of the transcripts didn't even have the characters' names, just the lines. But I've seen the film twice and I can compare it fairly with the novella.
The first difference between the film and the novella is that Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) is a linear story. It's not a retelling of the story and you don't know what's going to happen at the end.
A major difference is the perspective in which the story is being told. Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) is told by Holly. We learn her love interest's name is Paul Varjak. In novella she only calls him Fred or Buster. Holly calls him Fred in the film, but we learn his real name as well.
The tremendous details that filled the novella are trickled down and simplified in the film, for the better. For the most part, George Axelrod stuck to what happened in the novella. He just changed the order and changed the end (spoilers). I loved that George stuck to the story, but was still able to add his own ideas. The only bad thing that came from this film was Mickey Rooney playing Mr. Yunioshi. I don't know if George wrote the character like that or if Blake Edwards, the director, told Rooney to act like that, but that performance became a major flaw of the film. In the novella, Mr. I. Y. Yunioshi only comes up at the beginning of the story. It was another neighbor, Madame Spanella, who was always complained about Holly. As for the dialogue, everything was kept the same. I know I prefer when the dialogue from the book and film is the same. I think that it makes the screenwriter's job a little easier because they don't have to think of every single line. Now they can think of making the narrative lines better and think of a few new dialogue lines here and there. I think Truman Capote really nailed the dialogue in the book and George Axelrod recognized that.
The film also added some funny shots that weren't in the book. A shot that made me laugh was during the scene when Holly is having a party in her apartment, a drunk woman is facing a mirror and laughing with herself. They cut away from the woman then back and she's crying at herself in the mirror. It was quaint addition to the story.
(Image curiosity of www.impawards.com)
Even though the endings were different and I liked one more than the other, the endings fit with the story. The narrator/Paul Varjak was a different kind of character in both versions. He was more passive in the novella and didn't exactly know if he was in love with Holly. I think that's why I love the film more because Paul was more assertive and knew what he wanted. Both versions of Breakfast at Tiffany's were definitely about Holly Golightly, but her male counterpart played an essential role.
I much prefer the film because I liked how simple it was, how the story was told and the acting. I think this is one case where the film made the book better.
It doesn't matter whether you read the novella first or watch the film. But you definitely must watch the film.
No comments:
Post a Comment