Breakfast at Tiffinys.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is based on a novella by Truman Capote. He sold the rights to the novella, which made it the property of the film's producer. The ending of the novella was changed for the motion picture, in order to make it more "popular" with the public. It was made about 1960 (?), so the Hollywood boys were making it "wholesome" in terms of what people were expected to believe about women and society at the time.

I tried to find Breakfast at Tiffany's for you online, but haven't succeeded (i'm not going to spend a lot of time looking for it). I suggest that you try to get a copy from the local library (maybe on inter-library loan), and then read Capote's novella, and compare it to the motion picture.

Holly was not fine, she was lonely and confused, ready to run off to South America simply because she had nothing better to do. The male/female, masculine/feminine play in the movie is nearly pitch perfect, though it is offensive to moderns.

I saw an interview with the director done many years after, and he claimed that the movie was almost perfect, that the only thing he got wrong was the chink (yes, I am using this outdated term on purpose) character. I agree.

Someday someone might turn the actual Capote work unwashed by morays of the time Blake Edwards churned it into a sentimental romantic dramady not very different from the Rock Hudson, Doris Day flicks.

In Capote's original, published first in The New Yorker, Holly is explicitly a prostitute and Paul is gay. The ending is not a rainy day miracle with a cat.
Probably, except for "In Cold Blood," Capote is virtually impossible to transfer to the screen.

Not to say I don't appreciate and enjoy this film whenever I've revisited it on cable or DVD. Mickey Rooney, however, was as miscast as Marlon Brando in "Teahouse of the August Moon." It could be taken as racist and even Edwards said the film was almost perfect if he hadn't made the mistake with the "chink." (Pardon the distaste of the quote).

Yep...the novella had no such ending...and Holly was, indeed, very clearly a high-class working girl.....and Paul, as I recall was a kept man, as he is in the film, but by a man, I think. (Both are clear in the film, if you look except, of course, Paul's gender preferences get changed.)


Holly ends up who-knows-where, she leaves New York.....except that a carving of her made in Africa turns up and spurs Paul to write about her....she is still, clearly, "Holly-Go-Lightly, travelling."


I do find the film enchanting, though...even with the sacchinarized ending, which I turn off my critical faculties to forgive.

Hepburn and Paul's sugar-mummy (played by the wonderful Patricia Neal) are enough to love the film for.

Don't forget that Paul was equally as lost and drifting in the film as Holly, and she forces him to examine his life and stop whoring himself, while CLAIMING to be a writer.

That the director who made the film with the reversed ending likes it is no evidence of ANYTHING, except Hollywood's liking for saccharine, Hawkeye.

You'll not find it legitimately online, as it is still within copyright...well within.

I read the novella, and came away feeling it missed the mark. Watched the film, didn't like it.

100% in agreement with dlowan's assessment. The original novella was, as always, based on people in Capote's life, including, of course, himself. The character study in the film isn't that much different but motivations are turned topsy-turvy. George Axelrod was always a good script writer -- this is what he turned out before and after "Breakfast:"

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) (screenplay)
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) (screenplay)
Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957) (play)
Bus Stop (1956) (screenplay)
The Seven Year Itch (1955) (play "The Seven Year Itch") (screenplay)

Doesn't one have to separate the narrative of the original with all adaptations, even the excellent ones? Enjoy it in its film media trappings without casting a critical eye on the mechanics of cinematic license is necessary for me, at least, even if it's difficult to do.

I'd still like to see a more faithful adaptations and today it certainly would not turn off most of the audience as they believed at the time "Breakfast" was filmed.

I would like to see it remade, with Holly and Paul being the characters described in the original work. I really like the movie (even the ending), but with Holly the whore with a passion for bling and Paul the gay artist sleeping with his benefactor woman there would be a lot to explore.

Well, it took Blake Edwards from 1961's "Breakfast At Tiffany's" to 1995's "Victor, Victoria" to loosen up on the gay themes and he pretty much let it all hang out (double entendre intended) with what I consider his best film, maybe a tie with "The Days of Wine and Roses". Robert Preston in the big finale is the most outrageous drag in any film until "Tootsie." Red hot jazz, baby!

Everything Capote wrote in his life was, at bottom, almost completely self-referential. Of course, his biographers have shown that the poor man was an emotional wreck filled with self loathing and confusion. He will, of course, be remembered as being an icon for his time!!

I haven[t read it yet. I read Truman Capote's "On Cold Blood", but looking forward to read this one now I know it's a novel.