Ranking the Breakfast’s at Tiffany’s
Spoiler alert, no one eats cereal at an expensive jewelry store in this blog or in any of the media we are going to talk about. There is a song, a movie, and a book, but alas no Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The 1995 song comes from a lyric directly referencing the 1961 film that is an adaptation of the 1958 novella. Anecdotedly, i would say the film is the most famous, followed by the book, then the song, yet I experienced them in reverse of that. I might have seen famous Audrey Hepburn still shots technically before hearing the song, but I don’t think i connected them to the film in particular. The song is a certain type of poppy alt-rock from the 90s that i listen to and thus, though though this song isn’t a real favorite, I’ve heard it a lot and dont mind it when it comes on. The song alone never made me in a hurry to watch the movie and I didn’t even know the novel existed. TBH, the thing I knew the most about the movie was this image of Hepburn and that Mickey Rooney's asian stereotype was unsavory. Then my favorite youtube creator released a video this week on the history of the name Tiffany (older than you think) and credited the apparent 70-80s name boom on the book and film. This is the first I’d heard of the book and was even more surprised to hear it was by Truman Capote. So I hurried and read the novella (and the three other short stories in my copy) and then the movie. So, without further ado or no more obligatory throat clearing, my ranking of the song, movie, and novella.
The Book
Classic “the book is better.“ This is usually true for me, though I would say the Lord of the Rings movies are a notable exception. But the novella is assuredly the best of the three. On its own, it is a book I quite enjoyed. I read it just this week in two days (its short, 112 pages in my copy). It follows a young struggling writer and his interactions with his neighbor in WWII-era NYC. The novella is in the first-person and the narrator could easily be seen as a fictionalized/fantasy Capote. The only name we get for him is Frank, which is merely the false name the neighbor, Holly Golightly, gives to him because he reminds her of her brother. This is one symptom of Ms. Golightly’s most apparent trait: creating her own reality to suit her. The book has some lovely twists and turns, so I won’t go into plot details and instead focus on what seperates and elevates it over the film. The primary way for me is how the novella’s “Frank“ is really swept up into being one of Ms. Golightly’s background characters—and she has several—instead of being the co-lead as in the movie. The spotlight shines solely on Golightly, as it should. Eventually Frank does develop romantic feelings for her but that is later in the book and not really focused on. Rather, we have a series of dream-like vignettes of Frank bumping into Golightly’s story—often literally. Its a style that works so well for the character and thus the novella. I could go into more, but as i said its pretty new in my mind and this is really a comparison piece. More than anything, the separation is that like most books with movie counterparts, the details possible just give that added nuance and context. Everything just makes more sense and with Capote’s beautiful prose and style, it’s just better. Probably the best book I have read this year.
2. The Film
The film is a classic for a reason and it really was quite a fun ride. Audrey Hepburn is the perfect Holly Golightly; I read the book with her already in mind and it worked perfectly. She is the ideal amount of stunning, but also girlish charm that makes her fit as a literal girl next-door. You can see why so can wrap so many men into her life. Its set in the early 1960s rather than 40s and as anyone who has watched Mad Men can tell you, 1960s NYC is a great setting. It really couldn’t be set anywhere else; the walkup apartment, cabs, restaurants, and of course the titular Tiffanys jewelry store are all vital set pieces. George Peppard is more handsome as “Frank“ (and given a real name of Paul) then i pictured in the book, but that works fine here. Definite “look“ goals.
The visual element is obviously a detail only a film can give and Audrey Hepburn and her world brought to screen is almost enough to put it over the excellent novella. However, the movie’s insistence on adding in additional love stories and elevating Frank’s affection to a primary motivator holds it back. First, there is a new romance for Frank created solely for the film with an older married woman who financially supports him. It really isn’t necessary and it doesn’t even give added tension. Holly and Frank talk about the relationship some and the sugar-mama flutters in and out, but it does not come to anything and the brief break between Holly and Frank happens in the same way as in the book and without the cougar. I guess it justifies why Frank’s room is fancier than you would picture in the book and justifies how an aspiring writer can live in the same building as Holly. Except that that is explained by the fact that Holly is terrible with money, so even that doesn’t work. I think its there to contrast with the will-they-or-won’t-they between Holly and Frank, which is not in the book at all. For a brief time in the book, Frank falls for her, but that turns to paternal caring by the end. spoiler warning through the remainder of the paragraph The book ends with Holly jumping bail and flying off to Brazil, to never be seen by Frank again, which we knew was the outcome from the start of the book. The movie, in contrast, ends with a classic Hollywood kissing scene as the camera pans out and away. It is clear that will be together for the near future and Holly won’t flee bail. Happily ever after. Which works fine, but the book’s ending is more powerful and more fitting of the characters. Everyone in the movie and book suggest that Holly and Frank—or no man for that matter—cannot be together for long because Holly will run from any commitment. The book uses a bird cage that Frank wants as a symbol for Holly indicating that she will not be caged. After she buys it for him as a present she says “Promise me Frank, that you won’t put anything in it until I am gone.” She also refuses to name her cat because it doesn’t belong to her and she has no right to control it. They are just together for a time, just like Holly and Frank were. Returning to the film, the movie is explicit about this theme too and instead of the birdcage (which weirdly Holly does have with a bird in it in her apartment, but thats a book-nerd nitpick) there is a conversation in the cab when Frank/Paul says that she belongs to him and him to her and she recoils from that idea. Yet they still end up together in the end with no indication as to why or how Holly has changed.
It also has to be touched on briefly that the Mickey Rooney part is distracting in its horror. I’m not one to often “cancel“ or punish old movies for not being with the times—you work with what you have in the moment, Abe Lincoln can’t be critiqued for his racial or LGBT views, etc.—but this is more than bad. I am not of any asian descent and not a minority at all so I am much of one to even comment, but I’d hate to heap praise on the movie without mentioning this. The portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi would be offending if done by an asian actor: he has protruding teeth, very squinted eyes, and every scene with him involves stumbling into some asian-related item with lots of gong sounds. Add in that he is played by the very white Mickey Rooney with painted skin and its basically unconscionable. You have to think they knew better back in 1961 and its such an unforced error in any case. The movie took a brief scene from early in the book (Mr. Yunioshi is the victim for Holly repeatedly needing to be buzzed into their shared building when Frank first meets her and Yunioshi is not pleased) and plays the same act over several additional scenes not found in the book. From his prime place on the poster and what little i know, they are leaning into his fame and adding some comedy, both physical and vocal. But if it was funny at one point to some, it isn’t today.
But it is a really good film despite these complaints and I have ragged on it more than it deserves in service of elevating the book. Its not on streaming anywhere, but well worth your $4 to rent.
3. The Song
Its a catchy song and I would recommend it you like 90s alt-rock. Think Hootie and the Blowfish, Goo Goo Dolls, Counting Crows, Blues Travelers, etc.
It has nothing really to do with the book or movie though. Which is kinda great in how much of a throw-off it is to really popular IP. The song is about a couple who are on the verge of a break up. They’ve lost the common ground they had and realize they are too different. But then the chorus kicks in:
And I said what about Breakfast at Tiffany's
She said I think I remember the film
And as I recall I think we both kind of liked it
And I said well that's the one thing we've got
So it is sort of about the film. They watched it together (netflix and chill perhaps, or maybe vhs and chill) and they both kind of liked it. They didn’t love it mind you and it isn’t a core part of their relationship. But they are so close to the end of their relationship that this movie they didn’t mind watching is the best they’ve got.
Its third because it’s just a little disposable. Its highlight is the dissonance between the inanity of the song and how serious they take their material, shown best with how they rock out to the chorus like they are singing the most powerful and emotional thing ever. Its fun, but it is clearly the remora to the book/movie’s shark.