. . . if I had three thumbs.
We watched Breakfast at Tiffany’s a few nights ago. This is one of those “classics” that one is supposed to watch and admire all its classic classicness, and observe that “they just don’t make ’em like that anymore.” Well, I’m sorry to say, they do. Hollywood is still cranking out empty romances featuring empty plots and empty characters. So this is nothing special.
Nearly forty years later, and this being such a “classic” that just everyone must have seen it, it seems unnecessary to provide any kind of plot synopsis. Nevertheless, for the sake of the great unwashed, I’ll sketch it out. Audrey Hepburn (contrary to my previous assumption, no relation to Katharine), plays Holly Golightly, a gold-digging socialite with absolutely no redeeming qualities. George Peppard is Paul Varjak, an equally useless once-published author who now makes his living as the plaything of a wealthy married woman (Patricia Neal). This is our romantic hero. These ingredients are mixed to yield 115 minutes of pure, senseless vanity. Our characters stumble through their morally vacant lives until Paul, for no discernable reason “falls in love” with Holly — even after learning that she has abandoned her husband (Buddy Ebson), the one decent character in the entire film — and Holly, after her other, richer prospect falls through, succumbs to his charms. We are left to assume that they live happily ever after, but can hardly believe that possible.
“Oh, but Audrey Hepburn is just so wonderful!” Right. Well, I may be a philistine, but I find her to be completely ordinary in every way. However, supposing she is just the greatest actress ever to grace the screen, so what? The story is garbage. And garbage served on china with a sprig of parsley and the best wine is still garbage.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a story with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Anyone who can call it “classic,” “must-see,” or even “mildly amusing” is morally and/or intellectually bankrupt.
On the plus side, it was interesting to see Colonel “Hannibal” Smith as a romantic lead. In this case, it would have been far better for him if the plan had not come together.
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1512
Share this post:
Posted in:
Link · 2 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
2 Comments:
#1 || 10·09·17··10:34 || jen
I never cared for it either. Much preferred Roman Holiday.
#2 || 10·09·17··13:10 || Kim in ON
I decided to watch this after seeing My Fair Lady. I was very disappointed. Hepburn was a beautiful woman and a good actress, but the store was bad.
Comments on this post are closed. If you have a question or comment concerning this post, feel free to email us.