Talk:Breakfast at Tiffany's (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeBreakfast at Tiffany's (film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 17, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Differences section?[edit]

Many other film entries based on books have sections listing major deviations from the source material. I think this would be a prime candidate for such a section. However, I have not read the book yet (and even if I did, that would be considered 'original research'). I'm hoping somebody can take a bite on this. I'll try myself when I get time... --Bridgecross (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

old chat/comments[edit]

Holly Golightly first appeared in the the pages of Truman Capote's short novel, Breakfast at Tiffany's in 1958 - from there her story has inspired what is considered one of the most memorable romantic films of all time, a classic fashion style, and the most popular and reproduced theme song in cinema history. [1]

It is a short book that can easily be read in one sitting. [2]

what does that mean?

What are you talking about? Pcb21| Pete 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonfactual points[edit]

The below passage does not appear to be objective:

"A number of changes had to be made to make the storyline acceptable to a film audience and fans of Audrey Hepburn. For example, in the novella, Holly is more explicitly described as being a prostitute, something only hinted at in the film. There was also no love story between the narrator (played by George Peppard in the film) and Holly, because he was a closet homosexual. Capote's novel also included language that was toned down as well as a more complex ending which became a conventional romantic happy ending for the film."

First, as far as I can see, the book makes no more explicit reference to Holly's 'profession' than does the movie.

Second, there are no references to Paul Varjak as a closet homosexual in the book. In fact, he states that his hand wants to feel Holly (in a sexual manner) as he is massaging her back.

I aggree. Be Bold and change it!! Monkey Tennis 15:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I just finished reading the book. I absolutely must agree that the book makes no more explicit reference to Holly's 'profession' than does the movie. I never ever interpreted the the book's writer character, known as "Fred" in the book and christened Paul Varjak for the film, to be homosexual. Nowhere is this even hinted at, while he has a strong and intense longing for Holly that seems like unrequited love. Also, where in the book do Holly and Mag enter into a possibly "bisexual" (?) relationship? They are both strongly and fervently heterosexual in the book, and Holly clearly states that she is not a lesbian. Main change from book to movie is the film's addition of the Tooley character, as portrayed by Patricia Neal, a character who absolutely is not in the book. Asa01 11:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Vaguely bisexual" indeed![edit]

"In the original novella, Holly and Mag Wildwood, a model with a stuttering problem enter into a vaguely bisexual relationship." More "vague" than "bisexual" one would think. What would a bisexual relationship be like? Who would be partaking of a "bisexual" relationship? --Wetman 05:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Who would be partaking of a "bisexual" relationship?" Bisexual people, of course. A bisexual relationship would be like any other relationship, accept that one or both partners are bisexual. Simple as that. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No spoilers[edit]

Anyone else notice there are absolutly no spoilers in the spoiler section, and that not even a simple plot outline is written?

I noticed this, it leaves me baffled. This may be the only article more than a paragraph long on an award-winning film that does not have a single word to say about the actual storyline of the film. siafu 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Would themes be an acceptable substitute for the missing storyline? Might be more encyclopedic. Doesn't need a "spoiler tag" either! --Wetman 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure doesn't need the tag, but it does need a plot synopsis either way. I came to this article to find out about that because I haven't seen it, so I can't be much help there. At least for the moment. siafu 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to remedy this by actually writing about the movie. :) In the process I am trying to disambiguate this page about the movie from pages about the novella, the play, and the song. When this disambiguation is finalized, I will write more about the movie. --Sp3lly 14:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As this pertains to spoilers, the line "The film ends with a famous scene in the rain (no spoilers here)," with the actual picture of the kiss in the rain a few lines down, and directly underneath a spoiler banner, confuses me greatly.

Why the re-direct from "Orangey"?[edit]

The tagline says it all... why does this article redirect from the word "Orangey"? I have not seen the film, nor did I find anything in the article pertaining to Oranges or Orangey-ness. Just wondering. 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You got me. Maybe it's the name of the cat? Haven't a clue. 23skidoo 02:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it the name of the cat that portrays Holly's cat, which remains unnamed, in the film. Asa01 07:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Was the animal actor particularly notable? If not, I don't really see the need for a redirect. I'd support RFD. 23skidoo 14:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made it a redirect to Orangy, the name of the cat actor who played Cat. Angr (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


The character played by patricia neil is supposed to be named 2E, not Tooley. I have made this cange. I watched the film, and the subtitles reffered to her as 2e.

I agree 100%. I have no idea where that character name came from. Even on the DVD featurette her character is referred to as 2E. 23skidoo 00:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The first time she is introduced, she is refered as Mrs Falenson. I replaced 2-E references in the Plot section with Mrs Falenson, hope that is ok. It seemed strange to refer to her as 2-E like some kind of prisoner. Alexandru Stanoi (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tooley is evidently a mis-hearing of Tooey, which is how the name is sometimes (erroneously) rendered. I believe the origin of Tooey is people trying to figure out the name of the character, 2E, and not understanding that 2E is her nickname. Additionally, 2E is often thought to be the flat number of this character, but it stands for her first and middle names, Emily Eustice. --Sp3lly 13:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed[edit]

The Good article nomination for Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) has failed, for the following reason(s):

There are no references. Tarret 11:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusion with song?[edit]

I notice that the article is included in the category "1995 singles", which undoubtedly refers to the pop song of the same title, by Deep Blue Something, with lyrics that reference the movie, as follows:

And I said, "What about 'Breakfast at Tiffany's?'"
She said, "I think I remember the film,
And as I recall, I think, we both kind of liked it."
And I said, "Well that's, the one thing we've got."

Obviously the link intended to be that song shouldn't point to this article. Somebody who knows something about Everclear's music (unlike me) ought to start an article with a title like "Breakfast at Tiffany's (song)". Since I hear this song on the radio all the time, eleven years after it came out, I'm guessing it's plenty notable.

And just maybe, the fact that the movie was specifically referenced in a widely played hit song is worth mentioning in this article. But here again, I'll leave that to someone who knows this material. Kestenbaum 02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The song is already mentioned in the section "Tributes"; however, there it is attributed to Deep Blue Something rather than Everclear. User:Angr 11:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely Deep Blue Something that made it famous. I don't know who else has covered it since. I've made the article Breakfast at Tiffany's (song) because I've seen red links to it other places, although it's really just made up of the information in the articles in Deep Blue Something and Breakfast at Tiffany's.Gregory j 09:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the page to mention that the lyrics of the song were inspired by Audrey Hepburn's performance in Roman Holiday; naturally, I have cited the reference. I'd forgotten I hadn't logged in when I made the edit. --Mickraus 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Paul's name[edit]

the article states Paul's last name as "Paul Varjak", but I think I remember him in fact spelling it out in the film as "Paul Varjack" does anyone remember specifically? --Gtorell 00:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He spells it P-A-U-L V-A-R-J-A-K when speaking on the phone

Yes, I remember "specifically": he spells it out in the film at least twice, in the library to Holly and to the police officer at the precinct. It is always V A R J A K. (Sp3lly 12:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC))


I have made this page the main page for search links for "Breakfast at Tiffany's", since in contemporary culture the movie is surely the main meaning one has in mind for the phrase. This is attested by google and by the fact that the movie has very much overtaken the novella in popularity. I am in the process of pasting (i.e., word for word) the former sections about the book (actually, a novella) and the play (which I had never heard of before) into new pages, which link from the disambiguation page. On that last page, I am also adding the link to the entry about the song of the same name. --Sp3lly 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to remove the box at the beginning of the article suggesting that that page needs disambiguation, which I am in the process of doing.

Just go to edit page and delete the tag. However if we're going to split the article up we need to change some titles around. The original novel needs to have the "undisambiguated" Breakfast at Tiffany's title, while the film article needs to be named Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). 23skidoo 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the movie should have the "undisambiguated" page, for reasons I state both above and at the disambiguation page I created, namely that the movie has largely overtaken the novella in the public consciousnness as far as what the term "Breakfast at Tiffany's" means. In addition, the page about the movie is far more complete than the one about the novella, which barely has any information. --Sp3lly 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Breakfast at Tiffany's was not a "comeback" movie[edit]

I removed the phrase

"and the film marked a major comeback for the actress after several years of unsuccessful films"

because it is entirely inaccurate and misleading.

Audrey Hepburn was at the peak of her career when she made Breakfast at Tiffany's. It was very easy for the studio to enforce its will upon Truman Capote and have Ms Hepburn play the role of Holly Golighlty instead of Marilyn Monroe.

Before Breakfast at Tiffany's, Audrey had a string of sucessful movies, including The Nun's Story (1959, Best Actress nominee); Love in the afternoon (1957), Funny Face (1957), War and Peace (1956), Sabrina (1954, Best Actess Nominee), and Roman Holiday (1953, Best Actress Award), her first major picture. She also starred in the critically acclaimed The Children's Hour in the same year she made Breakfast at Tiffany's, although it was released the following year. Only Green Mansions (1959, directed by her husband, Mel Ferrer) and Unforgiven (1960) were sub-par movies. After Breakfast, Audrey continud her string of successes with Charade (1963), My fair lady (1964), How to steal a million (1966), Two for the road (1967), and Wait until dark (1967). --Sp3lly 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you're contradicting the Barry Paris biography among others. Hepburn's career hit a slump with Green Mansions and Unforgiven, and her professional work was also impacted by her broken back, and the fact she took time off to have Sean. I'm reverting the change because it is an accurate statement. There's nothing in there about Sabrina or War & Peace or Funny Face or Nun's Story. But BAT was considered a comeback for her.

Children's Hour was also, IIRC made after BAT. 23skidoo 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

it is not an accurate statement and neither are some of your "proofs". Let's check the facts once again:

1) Audrey was extremely successful movie star and a fashion icon from the movies up to and including 1957, which I have listed.

2) She and Mel made a largely unsuccessful movie Green Mansions in 1959.

3) The Nun's Story was released after Green Mansions and received nothing but accolades and it was Warner's biggest grossing film up to that point (Barry Paris, 153); Audrey was named Best Actress by the New York Film Critics and the film received ten Oscar nominations. (ibid). I would say that this movie pushed the husband-wife flop (if you will) of Green Mansions out of the public mind and put Audrey back into the lime light (although I do not think she ever left it, in the public's point of view); in fact, for perhaps the first time she was taken seriously as an actress. If there was a comeback movie, it was The Nun's Story.

4) The Unforgiven was a flop. However, says Paris: "The Unforgiven had not helped her career, but neither had it inflicted any great damage." (Paris, p 168).

5) Sean was born in January 1960. (Paris, p 169).

6) Audrey began filming Breakfast at Tiffany's in October 1960. (Paris, 170). This is hardly taking an unusual amount of time off and Sean's birth did nothing to (negatively) impact her work, as you state.

7) Neither did Audrey's "broken back" (negatively) impact her work, except that it kept her off the set of The Unforgiven from Jan 29 to Mar 10--six weeks!

8) Thus we have, in order of release:

Green Mansions (a flop),

The Nun's Story (a major success),

The Unforgiven (a flop),

Breakfast at Tiffany's.

I repeat the statement in question is inaccurate and misleading. Let's look at it:

"and the film marked a major comeback for the actress after several years of unsuccessful films"

1) it was not a MAJOR comeback:

The Unforgiven had not hurt her career.

there was NO "several years" of "unsuccessful films"

I have never heard of Breakfast described as a comeback or major comeback, and I reread the Barry Paris sections (as you can tell) and he does NOT say this at all; if he does, quote him. --Sp3lly 06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I still think you're wrong. Have you checked Elegant Spirit? The Walker book? Of course we won't count Mayerchuk's book as she allegedly made most of it up. You also don't count Mayerling which was not a critical success either. 23skidoo 12:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I can refence Sean's book tonight. And I agree about Mayerling. However, to keep the peace, what about this sentence:
"and the film B@T marked a major success for the actress in 1961 after the previous unsuccessful release of The Unforgiven in 1960, which incidently followed the hugely successful The Nun's Story released in 1959."
However, I don't think such a sentence is necessary, since it isn't that pertinent to Breakfast. Mainly because even after Green Mansions, Mayerling, and The Unforgiven, Audrey's career hadn't taken a nose dive, nor had her popularity or critical success plummeted (remember The Nun's Story), so I don't see the phrase major comeback as accurate or necessary. Major success I can agree with. --Sp3lly 18:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hepburn was still one of the top actresses of the time. An actress doesn't automatically become unpopular just because she doesn't make a hit in 2 years, especially if that actress is still as vibrant and attractive as ever. 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

:well said and true to fact --Sp3lly 11:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Does the title comes from her eating some pastries while looking in the window? I don't remember. --Gbleem 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that is where the title comes from, as the opening scene in the movie has her eating pastries and drinking coffee outside of Tiffany's early in the morning before Tiffany's is open. --Sp3lly 06:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, ulimately the title comes from the novella of the same name by Truman Capote. :) --Sp3lly 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*Trivia* Auction of BAT dress by Christie's[edit]

I rewrote the sentence. I changed "one of two dresses" to "one of three dresses," which is what is stated in both the BBC reference already provided and also in the official Christie's catalog for the item [3]. It should also be kept in mind that, contrary to most news reports, the dress auctioned by Christie's was not the dress worn by Audrey in the movie. This is clearly explained in the Christie's reference. The dress sold at auction has a thigh-length slit; the dress worn by Audrey in the movie did not have any slit. Movie posters such as the one shown in the article, and possibly PR photos, may show a dress with a slit. But such a dress wasn't used in the movie. --Sp3lly 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mandy Moore?[edit]

I have removed the following text from this article:

There is also a remake in talks. Mandy Moore is rumoured to be playing the role that Hepburn originated.

There is no source and there is nothing about it on IMDB. Also, it is the contributor's only edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Holly Golightly: "non-sexual" escort or hooker?[edit]

This issue has been raised again, in the summary, by someone changing the phrase "call girl" to "(non-sexual) escort" and gives the reason "call girl" makes it sound like the character is a prostitute. Well, I believe the correct interpretation to Holly's profession in the movie is call girl (sort of a high-class hooker, or more formally, "a female prostitute hired by telephone").

In an above section, there is some discussion of what Holly's role in the movie is, as compared or contrasted to that in the novella. Someone notes there is no more unambiguous evidence in the novella (which I have not read) as to her exact role than in the movie. So what are we left with? A few clues from the movie (I would rather go with the clues in the movie and not the novella, since the two are different entities):

"$50 for the powder room" => Could this mean a (non-sexual) escort only? It was my understanding that this euphemism pointed to sexual services. Now that I think about it, after Paul and Holly have sex (and they do, on the evening/night of the day that they go shoplifting), Paul the next day gives Holly (in the library) his check for $50 and asks her if she thinks of him like all other guys she has been with, and she asks what it is for, and he says "Fifty dollars for the powder room." I think this is strong evdience that Holly's role or (side-)profession in the movie is that of "call girl" who provides sexual services; as does the demand

"Doesnt that give me some rights?!" uttered by Mr Sid Arbuck at the beginning of the film, when he follows Holly home and pounds on her door and asks for his rights since he paid her "$50 for the powder room." This, again, very strongly implies that Holly provides more than just an escort service.

Therefore, I am changing the phrase back to call girl. Sp3lly 13:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have once again changed the description of Holly Golightly back to "call girl." I wish people would stop changing this phrase without at least discussing it. Refer to my remarks above to show that Holly was indeed a "call girl," who received money for sexual favours. She did not provide merely an escort service, and whoever changed the phrase 'earned money by being a call girl' to 'earned money by dating rich men' is way off the mark. She didn't earn money by dating rich men. She wanted to marry a rich man so with part of that wealth she could help her brother Fred. Sp3lly 22 February 2007
There is no explicit evidence that Holly is an escort for sex in the movie, there is only some small insinuation which can be read either way. This leaves us with the issue of translating these insinuations to what her actual "job" is. I personally believe that she goes out, finds well off men and walks away with their money. As she states "I ask for change for the powder room" a common practice to tip the attendee of the powder room requiring change. Of course $50 is far in excess of what someone would expect to tip a attendee but these boys are trying to impress Holly and obviously expect to get a lot further by giving her the $50. In your own comment above Mr Arbuck called for his "rights" for paying the $50, yet he obviously doesn't get any therefore undermining your argument that she had sex with these men for money, because if she did then Mr Arbuck would have nothing to moan about. He might have expected it but the important thing here is that he didn't get any, did he?
Secondly when Holly is discussing her visits to Sal Tomato she says "Mr O'Seanase asked me how would I like to cheer up a lonely old man and pick up a $100 a week at the same time, I told him look darling you got the wrong Holly Golightly a girl could do as well as that on trips to the powder room". If she was a call girl why would she turn down her initial assumption that it was for sex and instead say she's rather go with trips to the powder room? This insinuates that trips to the powder room are not for sex but rather some other privilege (possibly the privilege of dating Holly?) and that more importantly that this Holly Golightly is not for the sale of sex.
Thirdly let us look at the time and audience the movie was released in, the sixties to a general release. There is no way any movie studio would have released a film where the main character is a prostitute. In the book it is a lot more insinuated that she is a call girl but that's the book, not the movie. For the movie her career was changed from call girl to, well a gold-digger would be the best term. We are talking about the intent of the movie makers here and I'm afraid at that point in time they were simply not brave enough to make films about real life.--Adam (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Irma la Douce, which came out a year or two after Breakfast, features a prostitute as its main female character. Although I am in agreement that Holly is not a prostitute, at least not in the novella (see new section below about Truman capote denying Holly is a prostistute/call girl). Sp3lly (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Since call-girls and escorts operate discretely as a rule, this is probably why how she makes her living is handled as such in the film: don't ask, don't tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the filmmakers may have been operating under the common but erroneous notion that the Holly Golightly of the novella is a prostitute/call girl, it is no wonder that the film is subject to various and at-odds interpretation as to Holly's way of making a living in the movie. Sp3lly (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not objectively certain that Holly is a call girl, so inserting that POV into the article is inappropriate, even if it seems reasonable. Some women are very adept at dangling the mere possibility of sex in front of men in order to get their way. Consider how she gets the landlord off her back by saying she MIGHT let him take "those pictures" they talked about. When he asks when, she replies "sometime." Even if Holly's lifestyle involves walks a grey line of whorishness with some of her gentlemen, that doesn't necessarily make an actual prostitute/call-girl in the literal sense. "Gold-digger" maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This movie was released in 1961, with the production code still in effect. Even if a character was supposed to be a prostitute, no major studio would have emphasized it, unless it would have been vital to the story. Had they made the movie a decade later, Holly would have been portrayed definitely as a prostitute, regardless of the literary source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, along with the fact that Hepburn portraying a actual hooker would go against all 'expectations' of her audience. At a minimum, she is a tease/temptress/con-artist, as in the opening she tells landlord Yunioshi she might let him take "those pictures we mentioned ...". She is out all night, a 'party girl', and sleeps during the day. And, ANY babe taking $50 (equiv. ~$375 in 2013) for the powder room knows exactly what she is doing and/or what might be expected of her. The intelligent viewer would draw the proper conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
As Time magazine of October, 1961 (which would know all about "unspoken messages" puts it: "Holly Golightly, as Truman Capote described her in his peekaresque short story, was a sort of sophisticated migratory worker. She traveled from nightspot to nightspot, giving pleasure where she pleased, digging gold where she found it. Pleasure and pay never stood in a direct relation, but when Holly asked for powder-room money, she generally got $50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp3lly (talkcontribs) 18:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


I believe a better summary could be written for the movie.

In addition, I think several paragraphs do not belong in the summary. This especially applies to the paragraph discussing the lack of traffic when filming the opening scene: shouldnt this go in trivia or interesting tid bits or somewhere?

Likewise, does the commentary on the appropriateness of Mickey Rooney playing Mr Yunioshi belong in the movie summary?

One might also ask the same about the Audrey's original performance of "Moon River." Sp3lly 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase "and plans to leave New York for Brazil to marry one of the world's richest men." from the main plot as it is quite out of context. Where it was originally written at the start of the plot summary it seemed to say that she moved from Hollywood to New York with the intention to find a rich man from Brazil and marry him. When it is apparent that she doesn't come up with this plan until half way through the film after meeting Jose'. By the looks of it she originally moved to New York because she was running from what she saw as a new "cage" in Hollywood. Once in New York she then came to the conclusion that marrying a rich man was the way to go.--Adam (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Truman Capote and Marilyn Monroe (screenplay)[edit]

It is not a "Hollywood myth" that Truman Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe to play the role of Holly Golightly in the film. This is a fact that has been documented several times, not the least by Mr Capote himself (see Audrey Hepburn by Barry Paris, p 170, where he references a quote by Capote).

Paris (p. 170) continues that "George Axelrod was hired to tailor the screenplay for Monroe." Monroe acted out two scenes for Capote and Paris quotes Capote as saying "She wanted [the role] so badly."

Paris continues by quoting "Monroe's dramatic advisor, Paula Strasberg" as declaring "she would not have her play a role of a lady of the evening."

Paris continues with another quote by Capote (who sold the film rights): "Paramount double-crossed me in every way and cast Audrey."

Therefore I am re-writing that section, with a view toward making it more like the original content before someone changed it and said this was all a myth. Sp3lly 14:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, however, that Strasberg was apparently held the common but unfortunate perception that the Holly of the novella is a prostitute/call girl. For Capote's flat rebuttal/denial of this, see Section 31 on this page. Sp3lly (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Details about the song "Moon River"[edit]

I removed references to the song being made a hit by Andy Williams. Surely this and other such facts would better fit in the trivia section and not in the movie summary. Sp3lly -- 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yellow face[edit]

I wonder if anyone could add anything about Mickey Rooney in "yellowface" as the bucktoothed Japanese landlord who sneaks peeps at Audrey Hepburn.

I deleted the phrase that said that wearing yellow face was a common practice when the film was made, as this was not cited or supported by anything.

I can't believe how freakin' racist that role was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Trivia" to "Notes"; "Tribute" to "Cultural reference"[edit]

I have changed the title of "Trivia" to "Notes" - this seems to go better with Wikipedia's dislike for "trivia", but it could be up for debate. It is still tagged. Also I have changed “Tributes” to “Cultural Reference”. Things like references in Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Gossip Girl, and CSI:NY are not tributes as much as allusions. Aloha princess 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Aloha princess

The Breakfast at Tiffany's main site should be about the novella[edit]

The "Breakfast at Tiffany's page should be about the novella, and the BAT film should be on the disambiguation. The coined title was originally a novella, and since it's a fairly good known book throughout the world, I think that the URL should lead to the book, not the movie that was made later. I know that it's a big production movie, and maybe more people have seen the film than read the book; but so is also the case with for example The Lord of the Rings, but here the (LOTR) movie is found under disambiguation. Does anyone agree? If nobody argues against it, I'll change it sometime. NeonfruitSupermarked (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Even more, in my opinion too much from the book has been changed in the movie. Nevertheless, the movie came out after the book and used it as a scratch. I was expecting to find the books page when looking up the title in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Carol Grace[edit]

There have been a lot of points added about this story being based on the life of Carol Grace. I removed those points because there are no solid references to back them up. There is no mention of Carol in the DVD commentary or in any of the documentary feature on the DVD, or in any of Audrey's bios.

If the points about Grace should be included somewhere, it should be in the article about the novella by Capote. This is because the movie is an interpretation and is not loyal to the novella. The film changes his story and many intentions that he may have had; therefore, Carol Grace has nothing to do with this film. Aloha princess (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New plot synopsis[edit]

I've added a proper plot synopsis as the previous one wasn't a plot synopsis at all, but it needs touching up. I will also add a section about "interpretation" as to what Holly and Paul do, because that doesn't fit into the plot anywhere. I'll take it out of the old plot as it was explained well there. Is this a bad / good idea? Aloha princess (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

More criticism[edit]

I'dd add something more to the criticism. The Character Holly Golightly has been changed in a boring way. In the novella, she was way more dominating. For example, as she entered his room over the fireladder, she commanded him directly to mix her a drink. In the movie, she's offering to make him a drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism section deals exclusively with Mr. Yunioshi. I, as well as other readers, surely, am more interested in the critics' and public's reception of the film as a whole, both at the time of its release and afterwards. I suggest that a separate section under Criticism be dedicated to the Mr. Yunioshi controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Doc Golightly?[edit]

I'm pretty sure that Buddy Ebsen's character had a different last name. "Holly Golightly" was an assumed name, not her birth name.

I think you are right. Jonathunder (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No, he does actually introduce himself as "Doc Golightly" in the film. May have something to her being once married to Doc. Anyway, it is correct. - kollision (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move.Juliancolton | Talk 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast at Tiffany's (film)Breakfast at Tiffany's — to revert an undiscussed move from March 2009 with no reason given. This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the March move Breakfast at Tiffany's (about the film) was getting roughly 50,000 pageviews per month and Breakfast at Tiffany's (disambiguation) under 4,000. After moving to Breakfast at Tiffany's (film), it's getting roughly 40,000. Breakfast at Tiffany's (novella) is averaging around 15,000 and other uses less. Most viewers are looking for the film, and at around 25,000 views/mo, the dab page currently at Breakfast at Tiffany's is getting far too many unnecessary hits. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. 4000:50000 is 8%; dab page views were a huge fraction of base page views even before the move. That's a pretty good sign that the film isn't all that primary a topic. --Una Smith (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If 40000 are looking at the film, and 15000 at the novella I'd say that the film wasn't much more wanted than any other article (as per the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requirements). The song is also getting ~8000 hits per month which is also a not insignificant number. Tassedethe (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


there was a line saying that mag wildwood makes a brief appearance with her stutter in tact. this is not true. mag wildwood's character in the movie does indeed stutter. she says "b-bourban" and "m-melt in your mouth". so if there's any questions i removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "stutter in tact" means that Mag does stutter. So I am not sure what your point was. But it is moot now, since the line is no longer there. Sp3lly (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot interpretation[edit]

I've moved this here as it was out of place in the plot section and appeared to be original research.

Capote's novella is more explicit when detailing both Holly and Paul's sources of income. While the film never directly states it, it is implied that Holly is merely providing men with platonic company or, at the very most, is a courtesan. Paul's role as a kept man while a struggling writer is also never discussed in great detail, although in one scene his female companion is seen leaving money for him on his nightstand as she exits his apartment after a late-night encounter.

The Hays Code of 1930 may have also played a role in the specious interpretation of their shared occupation.[citation needed]

 Skomorokh, barbarian  06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that the movie strongly implies anything about Holly's source of income. I believe it is deliberately vague (despite comments I may have made two or three years ago). I also think it is erroneous to say that Holly's occupation in the novella is that of a call girl. To me that is a misinterpretation (no matter how commonly held) of the book. The best term, I think, for her in both the movie and the novella is "gold digger." She made her living off of the money of rich men over forty. Sure she had sex with them -- but she states in the novella that she had had sex with a limited number of men (less than 15, if I recall). --Sp3lly (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
So she's not a particularly active prostitute, but she's exchanging sex for money, and that's pretty well defined. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Truman Capote flatly denied that the Holly Golightly of the novella is a call girl/prostitute. See new section below with citation. Sp3lly (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


I changed the plot synopsis from "After feeding the pet cat she calls "Cat", Holly... to " After feeding the pet cat she refuses to name, Holly..." .I also removed a couple of other similar references to "Cat" as Holly's name for the animal. The cat's name isn't "Cat". She calls it "cat" or "the cat" because she implicitly refuses to name the animal.

He's all right! Aren't you, cat? Poor cat! Poor slob! Poor slob without a name! The way I see it I haven't got the right to give him one. We don't belong to each other. We just took up one day by the river. I don't want to own anything until I find a place where me and things go together. I'm not sure where that is but I know what it is like. It's like Tiffany's. --Holly Golightly

She makes a big deal about NOT naming the cat and, in the movie it is used as a device to show insight into Holly's personality (she doesn't want to own things and vice-versa) and during the end of the movie Holly puts the cat outside to show Paul that she won't be caged by anyones love, not even the cats. Even though she loves it, she would have little/no problem just letting it go. Its not until she realizes that Paul is right (after her tells her what "her problem" is) that she gets out of the cab to go after Paul and the cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The cat is 'credited' in the opening credits as "Cat". As such, it is an important character in the film, for reasons that are clear to the careful viewer. While she may not name the cat, as an 'actor' it's role name is 'Cat'.

Truman Capote denied that the Holly of the novella is a call girl/prostitute[edit]

Truman Capote flatly denies that Holly Golightly of his novella is a prostitute/call girl. See excerpts from a 1968 Playboy interview that speak directly to this point; the excerpts and the topic are in this New Yorker article. I reproduce the Playboy excerpts here, should the link disappear or become invalid:

Playboy: Would you elaborate on your comment that Holly was the prototype of today's liberated female and representative of a "whole breed of girls who live off men but are not prostitutes. They're our version of the geisha girl."?
Capote: Holly Golightly was not precisely a callgirl. She had no job, but accompanied expense-account men to the best restaurants and night clubs, with the understanding that her escort was obligated to give her some sort of gift, perhaps jewelry or a check ... if she felt like it, she might take her escort home for the night. So these girls are the authentic American geishas, and they're much more prevalent now than in 1943 or 1944, which was Holly's era.

Note that a genuine Geisha is not a prostitute, nor does a man hiring a Geisha do so with the expectation that she might provide sexual favors. He does so with the expectation that she will provide him with entertainment and stimulating conversation.

Now the above goes for the novella. But the filmmakers' may have been operating under the common but unfortunate misunderstanding that Holly is a prostitute. Her means of supporting herself in the film is subject to interpretation, although the newspaper headlines that call her such things as starlet, cafe society girl, glamor girl, are basically correct, once the erroneous idea that she has to be a prostitute because that is what she is in the novella is shed. Sp3lly (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Portrayal of Mr Yunioshi overempahsized in comparison to rest of film's legacy[edit]

I noticed the added update about another protest organized against the film because of its portrayal of Mr Yunioshi. Granted that this portrayal is a major eyesore of the film and one which many viewers, of all ethnic backgrounds, wish wasn't there: I think that this article is NOT about this subject (the portrayal of Mr Yunioshi) but about the movie BAT. As it is, the section on the legacy of the film has about six or seven lines about its overall legacy and at least THREE TIMES as many lines devoted to the portrayal of Yunioshi. Granted that the portrayal is offensive to many people, even to non-Asian viewers, yet it seems to me that too much length is devoted to this aspect of the film. I would suggest enlarging the section about the legacy of the film in society as a whole. However, I am not familiar enough with this matter to do it. But surely the legacy of BAT is much more than 1/4 general legacy and 3/4 protest about Mickey Rooney's depiction. As an alternative, as matters stand now, I would suggest moving the bulk of the "Protest" material to a new page, making a separate article of the material, and having a header here pointing readers to that article. As the overall article stands now, readers of the article in its entirety are getting an imbalance of information. After all this article is not supposed to be a record of every single new Yunioshi protest that comes along. However a separate article on that matter would be appropriate. Sp3lly (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing criticism to preserve "balance" is ironic and improper. You are not improving balance by removing references to criticism of the film and leaving only acclaim and awards the film has received. Quite the opposite. Like it or not, the controversial character is a significant part of the film's legacy. If there are other aspects of the film's legacy that should be included, add them. But don't remove information just because it might make a film you love look bad.

    • Cant see a problem with Mr Yunioshi. I had a Japanese landlord and he looked and acted exactly like Rooneys character. Fact. (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Creation of new article for much of Mr Yunioshi Protest material[edit]

In view of the above-mentioned imbalance, I have carried forth the above suggested alternative of creating a new article that goes into some depth and mentions the contemporary protests. Most of that article is made up of material formerly found in this article under the Portrayal of Yunioshi section. This action renders the overall present article more balanced as far as the film's legacy goes -- although MUCH MORE could be added regarding the overall legacy of the film. While those interested in in-depth coverage of the Rooney-Yunioshi portrayal, including adding more links to contemporary protests can do so at that page. Sp3lly (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The characters of Yunioshi and O.J. are mentioned in the plot section, without any explanation of who they are.[edit]

This is a problem. Vranak (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)