My thoughts about movies and TV shows I've been watching

See also my blog on books: Elliot's Reading

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Mad Men v Breakfast at Tiffany - which should you watch?

Writers (specifically Maureen Dowd) have compared "Breakfast at Tiffany" with Mad Men (didn't read Dowd's column so I don't know exactly her point - maybe the same as I'm making) - and of course they share a similar world view: Manhattan circa 1960 when New York was truly the center of the world, America was an unchallenged world power, people drank heavily, smoked a lot, ate poorly, and at least a certain set partied like criazy and had no family life - and New York, from the 20s onward (cf Gatsby) had been a place where people from the small towns came to make or remake themselves - today they'd be as likely to go to Portland (either one) or Austin. So yes the two works are similar on a superficial level - but the differences between Peggy Marsh/Don Draper and Holly Golightly/Paul Varjak are profound. In Mad Men the people work for a living and they work hard and say what you will about advertising it was a driving force at the time in American prosperity - but in Breakfast they do nothing but wallow in their own self-regard. Audrey Hepburn, beautiful as always, is completely noncredible as a call girl/glamor girl from Texas - no call girl ever lived/dressed/spoke the way she does in Breakfast - the only less credible character is Paul/George Peppard who seems as much like a writer as I do like an NFL left tackle. Though some scenes are very well staged - the riotous cocktail party (not as good is the one in La Dolce Vita, but still good), the purchase at Tiffany, the "robbery" at the 5&10 - the movie is absolutely hollow at its core, these people have no values whatever, they are leeches and sponges and yet the movie glamorizes them and plays up to their so-called values, as if it's great to moon over fine but unaffordable jewelry and then to make light of literature (hey, it's so easy - buy a ribbon for your typewriter and you, too, can sell a story to the New Yorker!), criminality, marriage, on and on. Holly is in fact one of the stupidest people ever to be filmed - has ostensibly no idea she's running messages for the mob? - and the movie with its idiotic Hollywood ending totally makes light of her criminality. The novel, which I've never read, may be better or at least more honest. Finally, Mickey Rooney playing a Japanese artist is shameful and painful to watch.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.