Because he really is bland. And he's the reason I can't enjoy it.
-
hka-3 — 11 years ago(January 19, 2015 11:56 AM)
I was never a George Peppard fan until I saw Breakfast at Tiffany's. He had the right amount of humor and compassion when scenes called for it
and
he was attentive to Cat.
The director wanted Paul Varjak to seem like more of a pushover, such as when dealing with "2-E," but I'm glad Peppard insisted on playing the role with more of a backbone. -
jane_bront — 10 years ago(September 19, 2015 07:29 PM)
If true, fortunately that doesn't come across onscreen. I honestly can't see Tony Curtis, Steve McQueen, or Robert Redford as a fit for the role of Paul opposite Hepburn's Golightly. Peppard will always be the one and only "Fred Baby." I don't see him as dull, just very mild and laid back. He loses some of that though after he falls in love with Holly.
-
naja12168-7 — 10 years ago(December 27, 2015 05:26 PM)
I saw him as dull at first, but as the film progressed that quickly wore off. He seemed colorful and alive enough during the party scene and of course towards the end when he falls in love with Holly. I like that he didn't overact, which I do feel Audrey did at times, but showed enough emotion when needed. Plus, he was kind of nice to look at too.
-
SaliceMcD — 9 years ago(July 09, 2016 04:55 PM)
At 43, I think Holden would have been too old for the role. Audrey looked younger than her years in this, IMO, and I think Holden always looked older - more mature? - than his. Given the (overall) story, and to contrast Doc, I think it was important that Paul and Holly both looked to be young - late 20s - and of the same age, and I think in this regard Peppard was a good choice. (And I couldn't have bought Holden as a struggling young writer with Patricia Neal as a sugar-mama.)