An interesting assessment of Breakfast At Tiffany's. I love the film. Like
many older films, it is a "snapshot" of times past. The Five and Dime
store. The cars on the street. The clothes. The hats. The parties. The
cigarette holders. Later, seeing what the "real" Fred Flintstone looked
like. Having been born in 1955, I can remember a time when women looked
like that. Being a minority, I think we also tend to look for ourselves in
the movies. While we are often disappointed in the images we see, we can
also occasionally find something endearing in the performer and the
unexpected joy the actor brings to a less than favorable character. Hattie
McDaniel comes to mind for me. She could do no wrong in my eyes. She
worked. Her brother worked. Her sister worked. While playing the
"stereotypical Black woman" she also imparted a strength and wisdom far
superior to those who either employed or "owned" her. That being said, (and
back to Breakfast At Tiffany's) I can appreciate the fact the Mickey Rooney
characterization of an Asian man was offensive to many...as was his
characterization of Blacks in some of his other films. These, too, were
unfortunately snapshots of their times. Afterall, what is a snapshot but a
moment in time, a picture, like-it-or-not of someone's reality (not
necessarily ours)? Yet, I am a Mickey Rooney fan. I love him and
appreciate his talent.
But, this subject has brought up something about which I have been curious
for some time. A few years ago, I saw a show where several young Asian men
and women were discussing the Charlie Chan series. They took great offense
at the character of Charlie Chan. One point of contention was the fact that
the character was not Asian. But, (and here is where I would like some
insight) they also disliked the demeaning stereotype portrayed by the
character. Not being Asian, I do not pretend to have any superior
understanding here. But I always saw the Charlie Chan character as being so
very more intelligent, wise and composed than anyone else. What am I
missing?
Oh, by the way...let's not forget the fact that the George Peppard character
was a little bit of a prostitute himself. Like Holly, he worked steadily
(although he had less variety). Both were lost souls for reasons which
seemed to bring them together.
TGormley
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kusumoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:00 AM
Subject: [MOPO] Breakfast at Tiffany's enigmas
** I love Audrey Hepburn and own paper to what I think are her five best
films (Tiffany's, Funny Face, Roman Holiday, Sabrina and her overlooked
masterpiece, Two for the Road). But I also have a love-hate feeling for
that Blake Edwards' film which people go ga-ga about.
** I can look at the one-sheet and the lobby cards to "Tiffany's" and feel
satisfied -- (but like Freeman, the up and down price swings for paper on
this title defy explanation; it seems to me that demand is constant -- and
so is supply. Hence I don't consider Tiffany's paper rare. It's just
something everyone wants and will sometimes pay through the nose to get,
vs. paper to, let's say, "Rear Window."
** But when I put "Tiffany's" in the DVD player and crank up my
speakers --
what bothers me is its uneven quality. Audrey saves the picture, IS the
picture, and without "Moon River," you wonder if it'd be considered
classic at all. The film is a patchwork of great and mediocre and awful
set pieces. Mickey Rooney's performance as a loud, obnoxious and horny
Asian is outrageously racist, even 20 years after Pearl Harbor. It's not
funny and ruins it for me. I speed through his scenes or in the same way
I now hate the restaurant orgasm scene in "When Harry Met Sally." It just
feels out of place to the rest of the so called "reality" created in this
picture.
** However, I think the film captures the type of adorable "Audrey" we
remember and like best -- hence its posters are iconic and so is the film,
that is, regarded warmly overall despite its bad manners. I think what
gets to us, what makes us overlook the film's flaws, is the fact that it's
book-ended with a spectacular beginning and a spectacular ending that
captures the romance beneath Audrey's character, who, on the surface, is a
flighty, I-don't-want-any-emotional-attachments promiscuous brat and
show-off clothes horse. "Moon River" on the guitar is the bridge in the
middle that works the same way the theme music to "Summer Place" by Percy
Faith helps move that other film along. I don't think Audrey is a
call-girl in the film, as is suggested by the book. She's just a loony
poser who calls her cat, "Cat" just to be hip.
** To me, "Tiffany's" falls under the list of films that aren't
necessarily great but in some way, like its posters, will forever
considered "essential." So many film noirs and monster movies have good
posters even though the films themselves are considered unwatchable. I
have to love a film on some level before I'll buy paper for it, no matter
how lifeless the art, e.g., my known love for all things from "The
Graduate." This is why I own a one-sheet to "Tiffany's" even though some
think the art is just "OK."
** My only collecting exceptions are cheesecake one-sheets of Raquel Welch
(and at one time, Jane Fonda). My favorite Raquel one-sheet of all time
is NOT "One Million Years B.C." or even "Bedazzled." (Even though I own
both.) It's the underpriced and boffo one-sheet to "The Biggest Bundle of
them All." It was drawn is by pin-up artist Robert McGinnis -- and as I
circle back to keep this post relevant to movie posters -- I will add that
McGinnis not only did the art to "Barbarella," but also the art for
"Breakfast at Tiffany's."
Please visit his super web site at: http://www.mcginnispaintings.com/
This guy has been flying under the shadow of Frazetta, Petty, Varga(s) and
Moran for years, and deserves greater attention. James Bond poster fans
already know him...
-koose.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Roger Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Roger Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: Hello Again and WTB Goldfinger Insert
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:14:38 -0700
Speaking of Breakfast at Tiffany's, I watched that film a few weeks ago
for the first time. It has some charm, but I don't understand what all the
fuss is about. The movie goes downhill quickly whenever Mickey Rooney
appears. He gives the worst portrayal of Asian man that I've ever seen.
Boris Karloff could have done much better.
Would a Breakfast at Tifany's poster lose value if it has Mickey Rooney's
autograph?
-rk
----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Hello Again and WTB Goldfinger Insert
...Regarding your inquiry of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S all semblance or
reason and logic has ceased to exist for that title.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely
responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
