I kept waiting for the plot, but I never got it.
-
chungmusic — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 04:57 AM)
Please let's not cite that daft list by the AFI elitist. The same daft list had her and Monroe above frigging Ingrid Bergman; James Dean above Keaton and Poiter; Fred Astair above Gable & Tracey with actors/actresses like Norma Shearer, Leslie Howard, Deborah Kerr, Monty Clift, Jack Lemmon, and Paul Newman nowhere to be seen.
One day in the year of the fox came a time remembered well -
mdonln — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 04:39 PM)
atomicgirl24-894-130281 says > The point was that Hollya very shallow, materialistic, immature womanfinally grew up and chose a stable relationship over a childish gold digger fantasy.
I'm not one of those who believes the movie has no point. I think there is a point but I don't agree with your assessment. I agree that Holly was shallow, materialistic, and immature but, at the end of the movie I wondered how much she had actually grown. She was in big trouble with the law, her rich husband prospect had jilted her, and she was feeling desperate and alone. That's not exactly growth; it's circumstance.
In my opinion, for Holly, latching on to Paul is par for the course. When she was young, hungry, and had no place to go, she latched on to Doc; her rescuer. She stayed with him for as long as he was useful then she ditched him, moved to New York, and reinvented herself.
When she realized she wasn't getting anywhere financially; her money making schemes weren't enough, she decided to hook a rich man. First it was Rusty. She described him as an unattractive pig yet she'd do and say whatever was necessary to get him to marry her. When that fell through she immediately moved on to Jos. As we see, she started the transformation; learning all about South America and how to speak Portuguese.
Paul, as I see it, is simply another stepping stone on Holly's path to nowhere. He wants to rescue her and she needs him at the moment so he'll do for now, but how long will that last? Is she in love with him? She claimed to love Doc too; a lot of good that did him.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan.
[Tarzan and his mate] -
weikelm — 9 years ago(April 05, 2016 12:45 PM)
I think it all comes down to whether you see whether you see Holly as a naive childlike dreamer too easily taken advantage of and needing a man's protection, like most of her admirers do, or a conniving grifting con artist the way most of us see her as.
I can't buy for one second she didn't know why Tomato was paying her for her conversation. Or believed her Brazilian millionaire was going to marry her. I think Holly was exploiting her looks while she still could, feathering a nest for herself and her baby brother.
I think everyone agrees with me. When she had her brother to worry about she couldn't cut all ties to her former life. So in the end, the easiest thing for Holly to do would be to hop on a plane to another country, play the innocent little waif and look for another rich sugardaddy.
By choosing Paul she knows she'll have to pay the piper, maybe even facing prison. But she did so because she knows he will stay with her through it, and a guy who will stand by her without exploiting her is the one thing she's never had. -
!!!deleted!!! (49761343) — 9 years ago(August 14, 2016 03:38 PM)
If this movie had been directed by Billy Wilderwho would have taken a more realistic and cynical approach to the storyI would agree with you 100% that Holly hadn't grown at all. Wilder is the only director at the time who would've had the balls to play out Holly in this way and been able to get away with it.
The thing is, though, is that it was directed by Blake Edwards, who more or less played it safe throughout his career with these very upbeat, sentimental endings. Look at Micki and Maude, where Dudley Moore's character
knocks up two women and gets to live happily ever after when they find out
. So that's why I believe that this is what the movie was about, about Holly finally "growing up" and choosing love over materialism.
IMDB, flagging ppl for bull
since 1995. -
mdonln — 9 years ago(August 14, 2016 07:06 PM)
atomicgirl24-894-130281 says > So that's why I believe that this is what the movie was about, about Holly finally "growing up" and choosing love over materialism.
You're entitled to your opinion; just as I am to mine. I don't even doubt that you're right about how Edwards wanted us to feel at the end of the movie but that doesn't change my opinion.
It may be a 'happy ending' but that's only because we leave them during the early, happier stages of the relationship. Based on past history, we know what's coming next. She's been there before; she has a history of making poor choices in men and in life choices. Now she's done it again. I don't see what's changed.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan.
[Tarzan and his mate] -
FromaBuick8 — 11 years ago(February 21, 2015 12:37 PM)
The movie is beautifully shot and is a nice love story about a cat with no name and how he became a big part of two peoples lives.
Often represented as a misquotation by Ronald Reagan of the words of John Adams (second President of the United States), defending soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials in March 1770. In the course of his speech, he uttered the words:
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the states of facts and evidence.
In his address to the 1988 Republican National Convention, Ronald Reagan introduced a section of his speech with the words:
Before we came to Washington, Americans had just suffered the two worst back-to-back years of inflation in 60 years. Those are the facts, and as John Adams said, Facts are stubborn things.
This paragraph, and the following four paragraphs, finished with Adamss words. However, at the end of the third paragraph, Reagan made a verbal slip, which he immediately corrected. A transcript of the speech reads,
'Facts are stupid things stubborn things, should I say. [Laughter].
However, despite its origin as a slip of the tongue, Facts are stupid things has taken on a life of its own in the world of quotations.
From Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. -
monkey714 — 11 years ago(March 09, 2015 03:14 PM)
There are a lot of repeated references in the movie. The cat and Varjak's book (Nine Lives). The friend motif - Holly tells Varjak they are friends when she slides into his bed, Varjak's new book is entitled My Friend, Doc says he needs a friend.
I think it's a movie about friendship. Holiday never had a reciprocal friendship, except, maybe, the one with Fred, her brother.
Cats can be good friends, if you find the right one; people even better. -
pturman-929-979676 — 11 years ago(March 19, 2015 07:34 PM)
The point was a girl who wouldn't let anybody love her. She pushed people away & was dooming herself to a terrible, lonely future. Until she finally wised up at the end. Ever hear the song Desperado by the Eagles: You better let somebody love you before it's too late.
-
mackjay2 — 10 years ago(April 18, 2015 03:42 PM)
The point was a girl who wouldn't let anybody love her. She pushed people away & was dooming herself to a terrible, lonely future. Until she finally wised up at the end. Ever hear the song Desperado by the Eagles: You better let somebody love you before it's too late.
Agree, but it was about the man Paul as well. He didn't believe in himself, and learned to be independent, taking care of Holly..he and Holly are two sides of the same coin, prostituting themselves needlessly. They find what they need in each other. Sure it's romantic, but a well done film. -
irishm — 10 years ago(May 11, 2015 05:43 AM)
I didn't get the plot or the point either. Very disappointing. I like Hepburn and Peppard a lot, and I really expected to like this movie. Couldn't stand it, and every time I see a picture of her dressed as Holly in the home-decorating department I cringe. Who could look at that unappealing character every day and feel good about it? Hang up a photo of Hepburn in "Roman Holiday"; that would make sense. Maybe reading the book would shed some light on the goings-on in this film, but I disliked the movie so much there's very little chance I'll ever attempt to read the book it was based on.
-
ZurichGnome — 10 years ago(June 02, 2015 03:23 AM)
It's quite simple. One cannot love another person until one can love oneself. And one cannot love oneself until one comes to terms with oneself and lets oneself be vulnerable to love.
This sentence is false.
The Zurich Gnome -
duckie_bb — 10 years ago(June 18, 2015 11:48 AM)
Breakfast at Tiffany's was good as a short story (100 pages or less depending on the size of the pages), maybe it could have been made into a good film if they kept true to the story. They changed too much, the film goes nowhere, it is pointless. If they kept the beginning,
that she did commit a crime and unknowingly helped a criminal
, ending etc., and didn't add everything they did e.g.
Holly staying, cat being found and kept (a month later Paul did find cat but by then cat had a new home
the film could have been enjoyable.