Moon River memories

There's a reason why "Breakfast at Tiffany's" continues to be cherished all these years later – it idealizes the pairing of romantic opposites in a sentimentalized big city and perpetuates the "and they lived happily ever after" storybook myth that adults and children alike love. It's also a handsomely directed, beautifully scored time capsule espousing early 1960s values and imbued with eye-catching fashionista visuals and values that can lure in even the country bumpkin viewers. Here's the official CineVerse assessment of this movie:

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT BREAKFAST AT TIFFANYS 56 YEARS LATER?

• The film is associated with style, wardrobe and the New York fashion scene: it made the little black dress popular. 
• New York is like a character in the story – the movie romanticizes the city and some of its popular destinations: 
• It’s a mythologized, sanitized Big Apple: the mobsters are nice and kind, people do live happily ever after, etc.; the whole film feels like a fantasy, a surreal vision or a dream. 
• We care about the character of Holly Golightly: she appears very superficial, materialistic and shallow, but she’s actually a “real phony” who has ensconced herself with bright, shiny, expensive things to hide her pain and fear. 
• There’s good chemistry between Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard and well-written dialogue sourced from a Truman Capote novel. 
• It’s a simple story, but effective, touching on themes of unrequited love, unfulfilled dreams, and the sacrificing of love and romance for pragmatism and security. 

WHAT ARE THE VALUES AND ETHICS ESPOUSED IN BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S, ESPECIALLY REGARDING LOVE, HAPPINESS AND FEMINISM?

• There is a focus on romantic, idealized love—fantasy wish fulfillment is the ultimate goal. Paul subscribes to this theory, and eventually convinces Holly of its virtues and his love for her. 
• In this way, Holly is a wild thing that Paul needs to tame for her own good. 
• Consider how Holly and Paul represent different animals – Holly exemplifies a wild cat, climbing fire escapes with feline grace, wearing fur, owning a pet cat, wearing a cat mask, etc.; Paul wears the mask of a dog and exhibits the loyal qualities of a canine companion. 
• These animal alter egos play into a theme at work here, that of disguises and aliases to mask one’s true self – consider how Holly and Paul each have alternate names (Lulamae and Fred, respectively). 
• There are other references to animals in the film, including rats and super rats, bulls, and horses. 
• The suggested implication here is that the woman must become subservient to her pursuer’s passion and desire for her to truly achieve happiness. 
• Before her surrender to Paul at the end, Holly is willing to sacrifice romance and love for security, pragmatic concerns and to prevent getting hurt. 
• The moral to the story? Take a chance on love; it’s worth the risk of possibly getting your heart broken. 
• Another moral: life is like a box of Cracker Jack – there’s a surprise in every box, and you never know what you’re going to get. Paul gets a cheap ring that he offers to Holly as a pledge of his love.

HOW IS THE ISSUE OF PROSTITUTION DEALT WITH IN THIS FILM?

• Holly’s original character in Capote’s story is an upscale prostitute; in the screenplay, she prostitutes herself in a nonsexual way, serving as a $50-a-night escort. 
• Paul is insinuated as a gigolo who sleeps with a married woman who pays him generously for sex. He’s the inverse of the “kept woman” character. 
• The film sentimentalizes prostitution, glossing over a deep social problem. 
• It’s interesting that this film pasteurizes the reality of being a hooker, when other films of the time, Butterfield 8 and The Apartment, were more frank and direct in their sexual contexts. 
• Hepburn, it could be argued, wasn’t as willing to take a risk with her screen personality than actresses like Shirley McLaine and Elizabeth Taylor; she was also more of an introvert now being asked to play an extrovert.

THE CARICATURED PERFORMANCE OF MICKEY ROONEY AS AN ASIAN IS OFTEN CHIDED AS THE MOVIE’S GREATEST FLAW. WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THIS DATED, STEREOTYPE-INFUSED CHARACTER?

• It may have been funny in 1961, but many consider it terribly insensitive by today’s standards. 
• It’s doubly offensive in that this character is played by a Caucasian, the equivalent of a white man in blackface exaggeratedly acting like an African American.

OTHER FILMS BY BLAKE EDWARDS

• Experiment in Terror 
• Days of Wine and Roses 
• The Pink Panther and many sequels 
• 10 Victor Victoria