Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Breakfast at Tiffany's - Pure Food Poisioning


I don't know how many people, and by people I do mean both men and women, have said to me that the 1961 Audrey Hepburn film Breakfast at Tiffany's is their favorite film. Whatever the number, believe me, it has been many.  As an exercise in keeping myself knowledgeable of the canonical body of film "classics", I decided to finally watch this film, after all, how could so many people say they love this film and it have nothing interesting to say?  I would agree, this film contains a chatter-boxy diatribe of overtly didactic messages...too bad they are all inherently negative.  Racist... Sexist... Obnoxious... Forced...  These are the words that floated through my mind.  It must have been refreshing back in 1961 to find a film heroin such as Holly Golightly: wispy, free-spirited, independent, fashionable - but with a semi-relatable girl-next-door quality; a far cry from the conservative/matronly vs. vixen/temptress roles reserved for women in the B&W era. However, the script is limited to what was culturally acceptable subject matter in the early 60'.  Holly Golightly is obviously a prostitute, or at least she is a well paid escort.  The stage name, which she assigned to herself after making a break from the country to the city, reeks of a bygone era of cutesy-poo stripperdom.  As a character, it is apparent that Holly is supposed to pass for an actress of some sort, with an agent who comes to the rescue on more than one occasion, but whom should probably be interpreted as more pimp than agent.  I don't deny that Audrey Hepburn is a beautiful woman, and embodies the waifish aesthetics popularized by the French New Wave, but the role, her Holly character, is so obnoxious I almost couldn't watch it.  In the end, I would imagine that the moral of the story is to follow your heart, not your pocketbook, but even that is a bit of a shame.  Holly needed to be saved by Paul, aka Fred, and brought around to her senses, a sort of daddy-come-and-clean-up-my-mess narrative.  These damsels in distress / gentleman savior narratives are as old as cinema, but Breakfast at Tiffany's is merciless.  Rather than approaching Holly as a confused and complicated woman, Holly is made to be an insufferable child who happens to be pretty and can flaunt her sex-appeal to attract a suitable man, Paul, who will help her to see the error of her gold-digging ways. 
Mickey Rooney plays the Chinese neighbor from upstairs.  Within the first several minutes of the film, we are bludgeoned by despicable, racist representations of minority culture, beginning with the basic fact that a white actor has been made-up to play a Chinese man with stereotypically exaggerated features, ending with the slapstick stupidity with which the character interacts with his environment. Disgusting. That alone would lose my vote completely for "favorite film". It leaves me to wonder why anyone would call Breakfast at Tiffany's a classic.  I found it to be nearly unwatchable.         
   

4 comments:

  1. First off, this is a fabulous review! I enjoyed reading it immensely, probably more so than I would enjoy watching the film, according you you. I know we tend to disagree about films, but I think that you've convinced me on this one. I have not seen this movie. I have been curious about it because a good friend of mine espouses its greatness as well. I tend to give older movies the benefit of the doubt in terms of their context. After all, all these films are reflections of the culture that they aimed to influence. Yes, the paradox is inevitable. Your description of Micky Rooney in his role made me think back to watching The Good Earth. The thing about that film was that, despite its obvious flaws and failure to realize its own hypocrisy, there was a genuine attempt to represent the minority culture as equal, or at least, relatable. It takes a step forward and reaches out to the cultural mirror as if self-aware. As far as Breakfast at Tiffany's is concerned, I think when people talk about it being their favorite movie, what they mean is that the film conjures up for them a time when they were younger. The memory sparked from seeing something from the past that brings them to moments of simplicity and predictability in their youth, and yet, with that salient promise of all the amazing possibilities to come. It is a cliche, just like the film I suppose. But one that we all long for on some level. To put it another way...I can sit through Howard the Duck and easily argue its merits as a movie. Hmmm, perhaps that's a bad example. But I still love that movie, reminds me of sunny days on the swings and wading through creeks barefoot...and Tang. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said my friend, but one problem with your agrument: most of the people who have told me that they love Breakfast at Tiffany's were born in the late 70's and throughout the 80's...how could this film remind them of their childhood. The Good Earth is one thing...this was something else. Rancid. Anyway, I would enjoy for someone who has seen the movie and professes to love the film to explain to me why exactly that is. Is it nostalgia?

    ReplyDelete
  3. no, what I meant was that perhaps they first SAW the movie when they were young. Not that they were young when it first came out. That's just a notion. For example, I saw several movies for the first time when I was a kid, even though they were old movies. But yes, I agree, without that nostalgic element, I'd be curious as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can see your point on some of the rasicim but sadly there was nothing PC in movies or TV in those days. Remember Donna Reed. I honestly just enjoy Audery. They dont make them like that anymore.

    ReplyDelete