Review of Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) by Peter C — 29 Dec 2017

I do not understand what has enthralled people about this film for so many years? Breakfast at Tiffany's is self-indulgent junk masquerading as a romantic comedy. Why is this film considered a classic? Director Blake Edwards follows the usual formula to try and paint a sympathetic picture of our protagonists, but Holly Golightly and Paul 'Fred' Varjak are nothing more than two prostitutes out to screw other people and better their own circumstances.

What about Holly Golightly is endearing and comical? Her inability to keep keys or save money, her lack of facility with names, her total insensitivity to others, or her commitment to regularly and guilelessly act as courier between a convicted drug smuggler and his attorney? More surprising then is that we are supposed to beleive that Paul finds Holly endearing and worth attention.

That Paul can't stand up for himself and goes on to take incredible abuse constitutes this film's dramatic failure. Quite predictably, Paul attempts to get Holly to realize what a wonderful guy he is and admit how shallow her life has been.

But when Paul is rebuffed he finally curses Holly for what we've known all along. Holly is a self obsessed harlot. Still, when Holly bats her eyes and sheds those tears Paul comes running back we realize that it is not just Paul who has engaged in self-deception, but director Blake Edwards as well.

Are we expected to believe that Paul and Holly will now live happily ever after? Paul would have been better off with his mistress. At least she paid the rent on time and didn't lock herself out of her apartment.