Screenwriter of the Week- Breakfast at Tiffany's

Published by: Robin on 23rd Jan 2012 | View all blogs by Robin
In all of the Patrick McGilligan interviews with screenwriters I have read, George Axelrod's is the only one to begin with the subject critiquing the Backstory books. I'm not sure what that says about him but I'm sure it says something. As you may have guessed Axelrod wrote the screenplay for Breakfast at Tiffany's, adapted from Truman Capote's novella. It was in fact on TV last week but I'd never seen it before, taped it, and just got round to watching it today, plus I'd recently read the Axelrod interview. I really enjoyed Tiffany's and I think part of the reason it's aged as well as it has is because of the vagueness forced upon it by the production code. In Capote's book Holly Golightly is a call girl and even as late in the day as 1961, a major studio would not have that. Worse still the man in the book is likely homosexual, a subject about which major studios still get jittery. Axelrod made sweeping changes, the largest being that the man (played by George Peppard in his pre-A Team days) becomes a gigolo, so he and Holly are basically in the same line. It's still impossible to mention either character's profession but Axelrod uses that to his advantage, our uncertainty about what they are mirrors the character's uncertain relationship, the undefined nature of which is the crux of the piece. From a remove of 50 years it also makes the film less dated; if they had talked about their occupations then the film would have showed its age, by not doing so Axelrod has inadvertently allowed it to stand the test of time. The film is not to everyone's taste, but I enjoyed it and I think there's room for an essentially sweet, offbeat romance amongst the more formulaic ones. The only thing I dislike is the same thing that Axelrod did; the bizarre casting of Mickey Rooney as the comedy Japanese neighbour. I've nothing but respect for Mr. Rooney and for Blake Edwards who directed, but the result is just not funny. Axelrod was a favourite target of the Production Code, Legion of Decency, and various other killjoys, as his films (some adapted from his own plays where rules were less stringent) frequently dealt with sex (The Seven Year Itch, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter). But that did not stop him from writing some very successful films, despite his belief that most of them were mangled to some extent, leading him to direct 2 himself (unsuccessfully). Arguably Axelrod's greatest film was banned, but not because of any sexual content. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) was banned after the assasination of President Kennedy and was not re-released until 1988. It is a phenomenal film, and one with a dark sense of humour that often goes unrecognised. It's a film that has not dated and so had no need of a remake which made me very cautious of the 2004 version, but you know what? it's actually a very good film too. How often does that happen? An alcohol problem blighted the second half of Axelrod's career and he never really recovered, but his work in the 50s and 60s is remarkable, capturing Hollywood as it evolves to keep up with the new era. If he had only written Manchurian Candidate he would be remembered as one of the greats, but Breakfast at Tiffany's confirms that position and shows a range that most writers would kill for.

Comments

4 Comments

  • MinxieAD
    by MinxieAD 4 months ago
    Thank you for the insight, Robin.

    I remember watching Breakfast at Tiffany's as a young teenager and being a little confused by the relationships, whereas watching in as an adult it made sense as you are given dots to join up.

    I like the naivity of Holly. You feel like she needs protecting and looking after.

    I think another reason why it hasn't dated is because most romance stories show a vulnerable young woman with a Knight in shining armour about to rescue her - that story never seems to date. Keeping it vague is something I'd never thought of before you mentioning it! It's an interesting blog!

    A lot went in to making this film.
  • mike
    by mike 4 months ago
    What about Audrey Hepburn? Would the film be memorable without her?
  • Robin
    by Robin 4 months ago
    I hadn't noticed but yeah I managed to get through that without mentionning Hepburn once. I suppose in that film she sort of goes without saying. I don't think it would be as memorable without her, she works as an unlikely yet somehow believable call girl.
  • MinxieAD
    by MinxieAD 4 months ago
    That is weird because I hadn't even noticed! It sort of went without saying...
Please login or sign up to post on this network.
Click here to sign up now.

Subscribe

Getting Published


Twitter

Visitor counter



Literature


 

Blog Roll Centre

Books

Blog Hints

Blog Directory