menukjau that’s so true a lot of people watched Breakfast at Tiffany’s at a very young age I myself first watched it when I was 10 and only realised that Audrey was meant to be playing a call girl when I read Capote’s novella. Audrey made the character much more likeable

If you read the book, Truman clearly got inspiration from Marilyn (who was his real life friend). Marilyn only seemed “too obvious” because she was typecast all the time....which you also made the mistake of doing to her. Anyone who’s done an ounce of research into Marilyn knows how much that hurt her and how complex she was. Holly was never meant to be innocent. She openly curses in the book. Holly from the movie doesn’t seem to come from a poor country background at all.

People can still be "sexy" even without being over the top. We shouldn't say Audrey was not though that is up to the men to decide.

Holly literally curses in the book. An innocent lamb she was NOT. You don’t become a call girl in NYC being innocent

I read, and listen, Audrey a Duch girl who escaped Holland, at the 2nd world war, and as a driver the Duch people ar great, Holly was indeed a, high class hooker, .

Audrey was a treat, but Breakfast at Tiffany's, specifically Holly Golightly, really wasn't the film for her. Most she's done is revolutionize fashion trends, especially for slimmer and leaner women. I understand the image is what contributed to the complexity of the character, but it would have been more interesting if Audrey would be at least more shocking here. She was still looked at as someone elegant, and (god forbid) emulated...which wasn't exactly the point of her character. There's a reason why Marilyn Monroe would have been the perfect casting. It's perfect for Audrey because the story in the movie is completely different from the book.

Get a life. There is no god.

Bollocks. If you read the novella it's very obvious Holly Golightly​ is a man-eater. She gets what she wants and gives them what they need, then leaves for the next opportunity. The scenarios of both the film and the book make sense in this context. Audrey Hepburn does a wonderful job, but Marilyn Monroe would have won an Oscar for this role.

Alex Daniel. I disagree. Marilyn always played over the top and was unable to play down the overt sexuality. Audrey pulled off exactly wht we wanted.

Women 65 and Over, I think that is unfair. Marilyn did have a natural sex appeal but she was more than that. She could tap into a well of sensitivity and vulnerability. I love Audrey and what she brought to the role and every role she did but Capote wrote the book and he didn't feel Audrey was right for the part. He wanted Marilyn and knew her. They were friends.

@@peteradaniel the thing is, if Marilyn had played it, as wonderful as she could have been, the censors would have been all over the film and it would have been more difficult to get shit past the radar, resulting in a possibly even more sanitized version, or, worse, Marilyn's Holly being punished in the end for being a sexually-liberated woman like Elizabeth Taylor's prostitute character in Butterfield 8 is killed off in the year before this movie. Audrey playing it, though, could get away with more due to being coded as a "nice girl" and proprietous. Audrey was the only one who could play this type of character without being killed, punished, or humiliated in the end. Her performance here is important for this reason in that it progressed the image of women in film. "Look! It's okay to be a single woman with an active sex life and agency because Audrey, a 'nice girl,' is doing it!"

@@ccgrey8731 you said it "THEY WERE FRIENDS" T.C. should consider very lucky. Since Audrey gave the role class and style. 2 things that M.M. lacked.

I'm not sure how the subject of "having sex in movies" came up? Did someone say something about it???

Hell no! Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon and Tequila Sunrise! HOT!!! Have to back to watch that 😀 And I'm 49 btw.

I know right!!! Making love is something that should be secluded and be given value.

Very true..the act doesn't need to be showed imo

I know exactly what you mean.!!!!

She is loved and admired. Period.

me too

Lol me too

@@jajaarchieves9873 Here in 2019. :)

2019 yo

2019

Marilyn would have been more convincing as an escort girl.

@@harrodsfan what else is new???? M.M. is obvious as a call girl. Audrey gave the part class and style. 2 qualities that M.M. lacks.

Totally agree. Monroe had a range she could do anything

Isnt it interesting they gad chemistry because he was Gay.

@@women65andover He was not from what I have researched. He had children with a few different husbands.

@@underated17 had a couple of husbands but wasn’t gay? lol

George Peppard was not the right choice for this film in my opinion

@@lisainger6751 He was perfectly naturalistic in his acting in this film, and in his genteelly handsome looks plausible as a financially struggling young author behooved to rent his romantic services to a rich lady client to pay his rent; and as a romantic lead for Audrey's Holly, compelling enough to turn them both to monogamy.

Ilma Hussain Why give up smoking when she smoked herself, aha.

@@BrooklynArch its a line from the movie, they're referencing it

PopeFlores, what an interesting observation! Couldn't agree with you more!

He was "comic relief" added to an otherwise deep, profoundly disturbing and sad character.

MICKEY ROONEY WAS NOT TOO BAD.

@@debbieking5171 yes, he was

Ajde ne kenjaj više sa tim glupostima, japanci su prvi u podsmevanju nas belaca i veliki rasisti. ĆUTI BOLjE JE PO TEBE!

Especially in this Generation. It makes me tear to death

It's more about the Film inside the camera and light they used to get this result

Fancylooks Sorry, but Marilyn was too over the top for this role.

Women 65 and Over only a fool would say that. Marilyn was CAST as over the top sexual women. She never had the chance to prove otherwise because men refused to cast her in sensitive thoughtful roles

@@headphonic8 The role was, in fact, written by the author, Truman Capote, for Marilyn but she couldn't do it because of some problems with the Film companies contracts. Don't forget that Holly Golightly has that name for a reason, so I guess Marilyn could have given it more sensitivity and more realism, I still love to see Audrey in this role.

Not a better actress than Audrey. She could do it all and with grace and ease. Marilyn needed lessons and all the directions she could handle. If Marilyn hadn’t been sexy and just a plain Jane we probably would never have heard of her. My heart will always ache for her untimely death and with time she had grown in the know how of acting but never could compete with Audrey. RIP BEAUTIFUL LADIES. May your souls be in eternal peace.

@@marthadwyer2856 "If Marilyn hadn’t been sexy and just a plain Jane we probably would never have heard of her" is like saying "If Audrey hadn’t been elegant and just a plain Jane we probably would never have heard of her", both phrases make no sense to me.... there were very many sexy actresses in that era and, since then, we have had so many more sexy woman in film, even prettier, but she is the top one, you can't deny it even though you may prefer other actresses. To be the top one there has to be more to her than just being sexy and beautiful. When I traveled to Hollywood 19 years ago as a tourist, I was convinced that the shops there would have souvenirs of Julia Roberts, Scarlet Johansen and and Angelina Jolie but, to my surprise Marilyn was the absolute mega star in Hollywood, I guess she still is... you don't conquer that just being sexy, that something more that she had that nobody can explain is what made her a star, maybe not the best actress, but, undeniably, the biggest star in history... and that was not just by being sexy.

Truman Capote should consider himself very lucky that they used Audrey instead. Since M.M. would have cheapened the role. And not given that classic air that Holly displayed.!!

but better

Not at all

I didn’t think of Pretty Woman at all.

Not at all. “Pretty Woman” is about a hooker who emotionally rescues a rich man as much as he rescues her. The George Peppard character didn’t need rescuing like the Richard Gere character did. Moreover, the Julia Roberts character didn’t struggle with the psychological defenses that the Audrey Hepburn character did. The latter was avoidant of an intimate relationship whereas the former wanted one. Last, the Julia Roberts character had to be transformed from a trashily-dressed hooker into one of style, whereas the Audrey Hepburn character was already elegant and chic from the very first scene.

Nada q ver

See Billy Run u betcha u shd rent it and watch over and over

How right you are.!!! Putting M.M. in that role would have made it way too obvious.!!!

I read somewhere that "SHE WOULD NEVER BE KNOWN AS MISS DIAMONDS". When Tiffany's asked her if she would consider being a representative of their company.

I believe she was Rohal Dahls wife ☺️

@@gentlemangaz3651 You are right! Patricia Neal married writer Roald Dahl, in 1953, and they would have five children in 30 years of marriage.

@@Fancylooks great knowledge 🙂 i seen this movie for the first time last night. I am 35 and being going through a classic movie phase and i really enjoyed it. Dirty Harry is the next classic movie to watch lol

@@gentlemangaz3651 Good, ones, the Dirty Harry films. I also recommend you "Gone with the wind" if you haven't seen it, it is an absolute masterpiece, a must see for any classic movie phase!

@@Fancylooks no i havent seen that yet. I will definitely give it a go and let you know my thoughts. I watched the original Miracle on 34th Street the other day and it was brilliant, far better than the 90s version. Although i do love that version also haha

Moon River

one of my favorite opening scenes!

You are the first I have encountered with this opinion. Although I disagree, I am excited to know more about your point of view, I am not looking for a debate, just to see from a different angle. Would you mind sharing with me please?

@@willow-sagetarot2884 What I liked about the opening scene: It's dawn. The camera angle on the deserted 5th avenue directs all your attention towards the lone, approaching taxi. The beautiful score by Henry Mancini music swells as, what appears to be, an elegant (and perhaps wealthy) socialite emerges from the vehicle and begins eating a truck driver's breakfast. Somethings night right here. Who is she? She looks a little goofy. Why is she wearing sunglasses? She window shops at Tiffany with no intention of buying anything. "Hey, baby, what's going on here?"

@@willow-sagetarot2884 What I didn't like about this movie: The plot was thin and scattered. The Buddy Ebsen character, Doc Golightly, came and went like the plot convenience that it was. The audience didn't need a lecture about trying to capture "wild things". I also didn't buy the premise that a young, level-headed writer could fall so desperately in love with a callous, disorganized, self-centered woman who constantly lives above her means. I don't believe that opposites attract when it comes to serious relationships. And then there was all that nonsense about the cat. The scene in the taxi with the cat in the rain was about as subtle as being lectured to by a rapper with a megaphone. I confess that I did not read the Truman Capote novella but it is the Blake Edwards movie that we are talking about. Blake Edwards has done much better work.

Here is the link to the video I think you might find interesting. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Zq2jYM9n3q6veI0.html

Not hard to decipher, that M.M. would'hv fooled anyone.!!!

I don' think Marilyn had a better on screen look. I think Audrey and Marilyn both did. You can't compare them. Let Audrey be.

That would be interesting, who do you think would be the ideal cast?

I remember watching this commentary on the directors cut dvd thinking the same thing when Blake Edwards says this! I think George was perfect! He has that “could care less… just here bc im here” air about him but at the same time gives off that subtle good guy innocence and curiousity that says “actually I do care quite a bit and iʻll stay till the end in case you need me” which is exactly what I got from his portrayal and exactly how I think the character was meant to be. So, in my book George was the perfect fit.

Nicky Rooney wasn't in this one, his brother Mikey was though :)

mayonaiseizationable how lucky that people don't turn your race into an absurd stupid caricature at the height of your discrimination

You're right mayomustard It was all fun and games until Mel Gibson spoke...

It was "comic relief", much needed like the party scene. This was a very deep movie and tht balanced it beautuful. Blake Edwards at his finest.

rockyraaacoon The film was perfect and a classic and withstands the test if times. Blake Edwards outdid himself w ea role cast. We needed the roke mickey rooney played for comic relief.