|
Post by darkpast on Sept 2, 2017 5:38:41 GMT
never saw this before, seems just about the rich white lifestyle, am i missing anything?
|
|
|
Post by Wesley Crusher on Sept 2, 2017 9:21:14 GMT
Cat squishing in the rain Great Film 8/10
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Sept 2, 2017 11:39:08 GMT
I don't get its appeal. Hepburn's character is mentally ill. The incredibly faux happy ending really grates on me.
Positives? The actors are good as is the music.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Sept 2, 2017 15:52:40 GMT
I might have gotten all this totally wrong, but Truman Capote was invited to a lot of parties, seeing a lot of people there that always turned up, but still had no idea who they where, and out of those experiences begun to fantasize about their stories. That's supposed to be the background to Tiffany's.
What made this movie so successful then?? Maybe because it was a bestseller, Audrey Hepburn, Moon River song... saving that cat. Maybe because those party people of yore was very shallow, the movie is also shallow.
No matter how much I like Mickey Rooney, that performace is so old fashioned in clichés and stereotypes it's incredible. That Mickey Rooney was always chased by the IRS, might be the reason he did it.
My brother who likes space movies, said he wanted to loan my DVD of this move, because there was a reference. His doom was booring movie except that scene inside Tiffany's, that little thing to use to dial numbers on a phone, that is funny the cheapest thing inside Tiffany's, youngsters should know that dialing numbers on a phone was a bit different back then.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 2, 2017 16:01:47 GMT
Used to like it, sentimental slop of a story and all. Re-watched it last summer. Noticed things I never noticed before. It's gone to the thrift store never to be seen again. No excuse for Rooney's character. None ! Boy toy giggilo, Peppard, Paid companion, beautiful Audrey. Wet cat. Repeated and repeated music, UGH !
|
|
|
Post by louise on Sept 2, 2017 20:33:25 GMT
I didn't find it very appealing. I thought Hepburn's charvater silly, and I hated it when she threw the cat out.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Sept 2, 2017 20:53:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Sept 2, 2017 21:15:05 GMT
Saw it recently---The charm of the movie is, besides the charisma of the two stars, is basically the theme music, without that,it'd be pretty bad--Her character is actually one of selfish materialism, borne out in so many scenes--The party scene was effective in showing the shallowness of everybody,and of course the Mickey Rooney caricature is cringe worthy today(he apologized years later for his cartoonish portrayal)--I found the exterior street romanticized scenes of NYC kind of funny,since its hardly realistic: no car horns blowing, sirens going, or crazy cab drivers to be found--but I still enjoyed the movie, since Audrey Hepburn looked so good--I'd still recommend it(just fast forward the Mickey Rooney scenes)
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 2, 2017 21:36:09 GMT
outrider127(just fast forward the Mickey Rooney scenes)
off topic BUT that's what I did with Magnolia every time Tom Cruise came on to rant. Improved the film immeasurably.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 2, 2017 22:41:12 GMT
If that's not your thing, I'd skip it. I can see why Hepburn fans would enjoy it. Glitzy and glamorous to a fault. But a lot of it's pretty dated now.
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Sept 3, 2017 1:07:04 GMT
I have to admit that I love watching this movie every few years. It just makes me feel good and there's no doubt that the film score is a big part of that. It's one of my favorite soundtracks. I love the short story, as well. The film is a big departure from the book. The biggest difference is that the George Peppard character (Paul?) is based on Capote himself. There's absolutely no romance at all between he and Holly. The ending is not a happy one but is very satisfying. I really recommend the short story. I think I remember reading that Capote was NOT pleased with what Hollywood did with B@T. It wasn't smart to get on Truman's bad side.
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Sept 3, 2017 1:49:32 GMT
I can't believe we are 10 comments in to this thread and I'm the first to offer a full- throated defense of this lovely film.
Okay full- throated may be a little strong because there is No excuse for Mickey Rooney's part. It was dated when he did it, though I have no doubt he did exactly what he was asked. Americans still weren't ready to see a Japanese character as anything but a caricature although films like Sayonara would take aim at this prejudice. In the novella Yunioshi was a slightly menacing man with a sexual interest in Holly, and there was a definite suggestion that she would be willing to sleep with him, or at least let him take suggestive photos to make him accept her constant use of his bell.
As has been discussed ad nauseum in the years since the film premiered, in the novella it was Holly who was flat out taking money for dates which generally ended with sex. She was demi-mondaine , café society but not A list. Her neighbor was not so much a love interest as a gay friend.
By making Him the one who was plainly being kept , while Holly was a madcap gamine who slightly abused the convention of men giving cab fare and powder room money to a companion, the film got past the censors.
The films strengths are the performances, the score, the fashions and the slice of life view of that time in New York. The look of the film, from Holly's Givenchy clothes to her bathtub loveseat and her long cigarette holder influenced a whole generation of women. It also contained the first of Blake Edwards' wonderful party montages, scored by Mancini.
It's very disappointing to me that so many who posted on this thread don't find any magic in this most magical film.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Sept 3, 2017 2:56:50 GMT
I can't believe we are 10 comments in to this thread and I'm the first to offer a full- throated defense of this lovely film. Okay full- throated may be a little strong because there is No excuse for Mickey Rooney's part. It was dated when he did it, though I have no doubt he did exactly what he was asked. Americans still weren't ready to see a Japanese character as anything but a caricature although films like Sayonara would take aim at this prejudice. In the novella Yunioshi was a slightly menacing man with a sexual interest in Holly, and there was a definite suggestion that she would be willing to sleep with him, or at least let him take suggestive photos to make him accept her constant use of his bell. As has been discussed ad nauseum in the years since the film premiered, in the novella it was Holly who was flat out taking money for dates which generally ended with sex. She was demi-mondaine , café society but not A list. Her neighbor was not so much a love interest as a gay friend. By making Him the one who was plainly being kept , while Holly was a madcap gamine who slightly abused the convention of men giving cab fare and powder room money to a companion, the film got past the censors. The films strengths are the performances, the score, the fashions and the slice of life view of that time in New York. The look of the film, from Holly's Givenchy clothes to her bathtub loveseat and her long cigarette holder influenced a whole generation of women. It also contained the first of Blake Edwards' wonderful party montages, scored by Mancini. It's very disappointing to me that so many who posted on this thread don't find any magic in this most magical film. I believe I concur, marshamae. You put the case for 'Breakfast At Tiffany's' forward beautifully. My friend who is 6'7" tall and asked me to be best man at his wedding, has posters and pictures of this movie in his house, with his (third) wife's blessing. It's a monumental picture. Not perfect, but soft, sentimental, iconic. To my mind, it's kind of like 'The Seven Year Itch' (1955). But Mickey Rooney is a thumb in the eye as usual. 'Breakfast At Tiffanys' - Deep Blue Something
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 3, 2017 3:25:28 GMT
marshamaeI used to find magic in it BUT on watching it after a long period of not seeing it I SEE that it a beautiful looking film and I realize that the characters are very well acted and all that BUT I just no longer like them as people. I wish that I had not watched it again and had kept that feeling of liking it. Sometimes what was a "forever film" is better left as a memory.
|
|