Disappointed
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Breakfast at Tiffany's
mablecheng1981 — 14 years ago(August 26, 2011 04:07 AM)
I knew this is a classic and finally got the chance to watch it today. However, I am truly disappointed.
None of the character is likable. Holly is , to put it simply, rather shallow, superficial and pretentious.. Paul, a male prostitute! The Japanese character is the director's disgrace.
I can't believe this was written by Truman Capote who wrote In Cold Blood.
On the other hand, it shows how people's value change over time. I know this is a 1961 film after all. -
arual888 — 14 years ago(August 26, 2011 08:00 AM)
People's values haven't really changed since 1961. Most people still value wealth and fun and love. And for the record Copote's Holly has some major differences between the film version. Although you would probably hate the book version more. I think you are judging these characters superficially. Holly may act shallow but underneath it all is a scared 14 year old. And Paul is more than a technical male prostitute. He is a great writer who loves Holly. They are complex characters with more layers to them than a little black dress or nice suit. Micky Rooney's character, the Japanese one you spoke of is a reflection on 1961 society and is simply a dark spot in a great film.
We Choose to Go to the Moon JFK -
artistathome — 10 years ago(November 21, 2015 02:35 PM)
The movie is not classic at all. It is actually boring. And that is not because of no special effects!
Holly is a bore, she is shallow. But in the book altho shallow she was not a bore. but even in the book she is not likeable. and has no redeeming qualities.
She got married at 13 for goodness sakes. That is glossed over in the book and in the movie. But TC meant it to show how screwed up she is.
With AH in the part you don't get the crazy lady as much. To say this is a classic means AH had beautiful classic clothes and hair and sunglasses.
But that doesn't mean the movie is classic. This is stupid. -
tisket — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 11:17 PM)
Lol, whoa, slow down.
Holly is described throughout as a flake. A phony. The point of the movie is that people can be messed up and still pull their lives together and find someone to bond with/pair off with. A lot of people who move to NYC are running from something and want to start anew. Most people in NYC are phonies.
Both Holly and Paul are flawed. It pulls them towards each other but also keeps them somewhat detached from one another.
I wrote about Holly in another post that unfortunately got deleted. I'll try it again.
Holly got married at 13 because she had to. Doc stated she was physically abused and had a terrible family life. She married Doc so he would take care of her and her brother. Deep south, back in the day - I guess that was borderline acceptable. She didn't know what real, romantic love was.never experienced it. While she loved Doc, she wasn't in love with him. Yet, she managed to take opportunities thrown her way and try to find a better life for herself. She looked for rich men because she, at the heart of the matter, wanted to take care of herself and her brother. She deeply loved her brother. She was an escort/party girl to pay her bills but she was not happy. She was always searching. When she met Paul, she found probably her first real, nice guy, however he was in just as bad shape as she was. So, they learned together about love, slowly, but she couldn't realize it entirely because she didn't know what real love wasand she still wanted to protect herself and her brother, something that she had been doing all her life. While she unknowingly loved Paul, he couldn't afford her the life she wanted/needed. See, Holly appeared shallow on the surface (and it is easy to hate her for it), below the surface, she wanted to protect her brother whom she could not afford to care for on her own, and she wanted to find some kind of love, because she didn't love Doc. Does that really sound all that shallow?
Holly is more misunderstood and elusive. When nothing works out the way she had planned with the men in her life and the way she lives catches up to her, she realizes that the one guy in her life, who really loves her and who she finally realizes she really loves (it takes her a long time to figure out because she has never known true love) is Paul and in the last scene we see her digesting this realization and settling into her new life with Paul and Cat. -
Child_OfThe_Moon — 14 years ago(October 18, 2011 11:55 PM)
I found the film's Holly likeable because of Audrey's portrayal and the book's Holly unlikable but fascinating. I don't see it necessary for a character to be likeable in order to be a good character, nor do I see how Paul being a gigolo is relevant to his likeability. I'm more disappointed when I watch a film and every character is likeable to the point of dullness. Actually, I was disappointed for the opposite reason as you - Audrey's Holly was
too
likeable, which made her random acts of unkindness seem out of place.
And I agree with 'arul', what do you mean people's values have changed over time? -
CindyH — 14 years ago(October 21, 2011 02:10 PM)
I was not just disappointed, but completely disgusted with the film. I too couldn't find one quality in Holly that I liked. She was selfish, shallow and materialistic. She was a thief and even treated her cat badly. Let's just say, I actually began to hate her. I can't find one thing I liked about her. Not one.
You mention this being 1961 as if values in those days weren't to be had, but that is exactly the opposite. While they were not politically correct, what Holly did, and was, would have been disgraceful. Hence the Brazilian refusing to marry her.
Spare me your 6th grade Michael Moore logic! ~ Secretary Heller; 24, Day 4, 7:30:00 a.m. -
Youwillhateme — 14 years ago(March 12, 2012 05:42 AM)
Are you suggesting you HAVE To like the characters in order for a movie to be good?
I can name several great films that didn't have "likable" characters, such as the Godfather, Goodfellas, both which contained characters that killed for a living. Even Seinfeld was filled with selfish obnoxious characters. Little Children was also filled with cheaters and a pedophile and it is still a good movie.
I just don't accept your argument that you have to like the characters to make it a good movie.
What about movies like Downfall (which I didn't like, but not because of the unlikable characters) which is all about the nazi empire, and a ton of people find that to be a great movie. -
CindyH — 14 years ago(March 17, 2012 04:03 PM)
I just don't accept your argument that you have to like the characters to make it a good movie.
Where did I say that? I didn't!
I love it when people try to argue over things they perceive rather than using facts.
Spare me your 6th grade Michael Moore logic! ~ Secretary Heller; 24, Day 4, 7:30:00 a.m. -
Gypsy12 — 14 years ago(March 17, 2012 03:36 AM)
Agreed. I only just watched this movie last night for the first time, and I found it boring and very confusing. Holly was an ADHD schitzophrenic mentally unstable nutcase who should have been in a psychiatric asylum. Paul was ok but gullible. And yes, as a cat lover my heart broke seeing cat all soaked in the rain after being dumped. I didn't understand a lot of this movie, nor could I understand the characters. This movie is supposed to be a classic, but its a boring, irritating mess that doesn't mesh well or add up to anything. It was horrible! One of the most throughly unlikeable and nonsensical movies I have ever seen.
I've never seen that. I've never seen anybody drive their garbage down to the street and bang the hell out of it with a stick. I-I've never seen that.
The Burbs -
deforest-1 — 11 years ago(September 15, 2014 07:56 PM)
"I was not just disappointed, but completely disgusted with the film. I too couldn't find one quality in Holly that I liked. She was selfish, shallow and materialistic. She was a thief and even treated her cat badly. Let's just say, I actually began to hate her. I can't find one thing I liked about her. Not one."
Have to agree with you CindyH. I watched this movie (almost) right through for the first time today and struggled to get through the whole thing actually the last hour and a half because so slow moving but mainly because I found Holly/Lula-Mae was insufferable. Far from the "sweet bundle of neuroses" one review here describes her as, I would place her at least one step more destructive into the manic-depressive category, with narcissistic tendencies. The character reminds me very much of a woman I've known who didn't miraculously turn herself around on the spot as Audrey Hepburn does at the end, but is still basically the same person in her mid fifties, still clueless about how to behave with simple consideration for others. -
irishm — 9 years ago(August 02, 2016 09:19 AM)
I agree as well. The character of Holly was a total turn-off with no redeeming qualities. I was expecting a charming, wacky young woman based on comments I've read about the movie, and it was nothing like what I expected. It doesn't make it impossible for me to enjoy a movie if I don't like any of the characters, but it does make it more difficult.
-
equalthree — 14 years ago(October 23, 2011 11:53 PM)
I also only watched this for the first time the other day and I honesty can't believe what all the fuss is about.
Holly's character (IMHO) is mentally unstable. I don't think it's just a matter of being shallow or pretentious. She's bonkers, and even at the end, you feel that she will just go ahead and dump the poor sod.
At the very start I felt sorry for her when she was window shopping at Tiffany's while eating her breakfast (you'd think that she may have gone there more than once to have breakfast in the film - being the title and all, and also where someone can sympathize with her plight) but not long after I found myself not caring about her at all.
It's not my cup of tea. -
cyclee — 14 years ago(October 24, 2011 12:06 PM)
I have different opinion on this. I just watched this film over the weekend and was surprised how good it was. I totally expected a film with no substance and only took the fame because of Audrey Hepburn, but instead I got a story that made me think. I too do not like Holly, but I don't think that was the point. I saw an ordinary person desperately wanting to be "somebody" because she hated to be "nobody". Now, look around you, how many of those you know are just like that? Granted not many are as extreme as Holly to go out of her way changing names, moving to places and hunting down only the rich guys, but a lot of people do have that mentality. I know so many people who dislike themselves so much that they would take the chance to be somebody else in a heartbeat. For me, though I know I'm definitely nobody, but I still don't want to be anyone else but myself. Also, the movie gave me the idea of going out to do something I haven't done yet and I'm trying to involve my husband in this game. Life is too short, do wake up and start living before it's too late.
Please don't compare me with the hormonal teenagers. Youth is not one of my strong traits. -
kkhannah — 14 years ago(December 14, 2011 10:29 PM)
I have to agree with this post, to a point. I thought that Hepburn looked absolutely stunning in this role and I thought the cat was quite sweet but other than that, I can't really imagine what the fuss is about. I found nothing likeable about either main character; I actually found Holly absolutely grating on my nerves. I couldn't empathize with her on any level, even though I definitely tried to.
I must admit that I don't really understand why this film is deemed a classic but oh well. Everyone has different opinions. -
loonieloona — 14 years ago(December 23, 2011 09:35 AM)
I can't say I found anyone all that likeable in this movie either. Holly was a selfish princess, Paul was a doormat, and poor poor Cat I just wanted to take the cat home.
But Audrey Hepburn's portrayal of Holly Golightly was very well done and the acting in general was good. It was a good movie, just not one about likeable people.
And yes, Mickey Rooney's character is shocking and indefensible and I cringed all the way through his scenes. -
Gustafal — 14 years ago(December 30, 2011 03:35 AM)
Did you not listen to Paul's speech at the end, he clearly states that holly acts in her ways because she wants to claim to be a free spirit but what she is ending up doing is trapping herself in a cage with all the reasons you all don't like her, but she is finally going to give in to love and let Paul love her so that she can be his and he can be hers and also cat can be theirs. AND she wants to have enough money to be able to support her brother when he comes back from the war, which doesn't seem so selfish to me.