Hope everyone’s doing ok. Thanks again to everyone who humoured me by doing the quiz, I really appreciate it. Quizzes have always been one of my favourite things, which is possibly because my parents met at a pub quiz, meaning that I pretty much owe my existence to quizzes, which maybe makes them feel more important to me than they should, but anyway.
For this next post, we’re going back five years or so to when I saw a stage production of ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’. I saw this particular production with my parents and paternal Grandma at the Grand Theatre in Leeds when visiting family a week before my sixteenth birthday in April 2016. I’d certainly never heard of a stage version of it before but was excited to see it as I had always been a fan of Audrey Hepburn and elements of the 1961 film, especially ‘Moon River’, which is so beautiful, classic and iconic (and is sung by Hepburn in the film, though other options had been explored and the song was nearly cut). I’d even dressed as Audrey’s Holly Golightly for Halloween when I was 15 (see below). Singer Pixie Lott was playing Holly in this touring production and in London (see photo on right at top of post) and she had been in Strictly Come Dancing the year before so I was quite keen to see her too.
The play was adapted by American playwright Richard Greenberg in 2013 and was advertised with Pixie Lott very much recreating the iconic Hepburn look from the movie and so I think I did expect the show to be something more like the film. Also, as Pixie is best known for being a singer, maybe we did all expect it to be more of a musical (when in fact this production was really more like a play with just a few songs.) Judging from the feedback from some audience members during the first act and at the interval, it seems like there were others who were anticipating something quite different to the play that was offered to us that night as well. In fact, some people did leave the theatre before the second act – there were definitely more empty seats in the row in front of us after the interval. To be honest, the show wasn’t much like the movie at all and was instead much more reminiscent of the 1958 Truman Capote novella of the same name. This meant it had an arguably less romantic ending, where Holly doesn’t end up with the male protagonist (who she often affectionately calls ‘Fred’ after her beloved brother), and instead did have the plotline about her getting pregnant from the book. In fact, while Capote’s novella does include the signature black dress from the movie, Holly is also described as having blonde hair like Pixie in the novella, which is pretty different to the image of a brunette Holly that many people have from Audrey’s portrayal. In fact, when I dressed up as Holly as a teenager, I even dyed my naturally red hair brown to look more like Audrey. Pixie gave a good performance but it was a shame that only three songs were actually used in the stage show because she has a very nice voice. For the show, the music was partly comprised of older songs to reflect the era, including the song, ‘People will say we’re in love’ from the musical, ‘Oklahoma!’, as Holly loves ‘Oklahoma!’ in the novella. Grant Olding wrote the music for the other song, ‘Hold up my dying day’.
Pixie Lott singing 'Moon River'
When Greenberg originally adapted this play, it had its first showings in the U.S.A, which isn’t that surprising because Capote was American and it’s such a New York City story. When I saw it in Leeds in 2016, even if the show wasn’t what we expected, there was still lots that was good about it and the sets were used quite cleverly and a real cat was even used to portray Holly’s cat (who is usually known simply as ‘cat’). This choice of name (or lack of name) for the cat is part of all versions of the story and helps demonstrate that Holly doesn’t want to form close bonds or attachments as she doesn’t want anyone to feel that they belong to anyone else. In the movie, she realises that it’s ok to care about others and that there are people who genuinely care about her and like her for who she is and won’t hurt her, and we see this as she goes to get her cat back and enters into a romantic relationship. However, although the movie version of Holly appears to be mostly the same as the Holly in the novella and the play, the fact that she only gets the romantic ending in the movie leaves you feeling differently about her life depending on which version you see. This alternative ending might also change how you see the overall meaning of the story or how your impression of Holly’s initial hopes and desires has changed. The character of Holly is an interesting one as, on the one hand, she has a fiercely independent nature but is also looking to get married for financial reasons, which puts her in a rather unusual position. I’ve always been fascinated by analysing the character development, back story, depth and motivation of fictional women in films and TV.
It's also interesting to relate this idea of the portrayal of women with the kinds of roles that Audrey Hepburn was generally cast in. For instance, the fact that ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’, which was not a particularly romantic novella, became a more traditional love story when it was adapted into the 1961 movie, echoes the way that Audrey’s signature, distinctive, almost delicate features found her being typecast in either ingenue or princess/fairy tale type stories. For instance, in the 1964 film ‘My Fair Lady’ (dir. George Cukor), based on George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Pygmalion’, Hepburn’s character, Eliza, follows a kind of Cinderella tale of getting a new wardrobe and going to the ball etc. Julie Andrews was known for playing Eliza in the stage musical but at this stage Andrews wasn’t known as a movie star (that soon changed!) so it was dainty Audrey Hepburn who was chosen to be Eliza (even though it wasn’t her voice on the songs). Andrews fans were surprised and disappointed that she wasn’t cast in the film version of ‘My Fair Lady’. Interestingly, it was Julie’s second husband, Blake Edwards, (they married in 1969) who directed Audrey in ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
In fact, Audrey even won an Oscar for her portrayal of an actual princess in the 1953 film, ‘Roman Holiday’, which could illustrate how she was typically cast in romantic, princess type tales. To an extent, there is still a kind of fascination with royalty and princesses for some people and the idea of royals being ‘just like everyone else’, with ‘The Crown’ series, many recent romantic comedies about young, always beautiful princesses and/or handsome princes of fictional countries finding love with ‘ordinary’ people and ‘The Princess Diaries’ series. At the time that ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ was released, in the early 1960s, it was also perhaps the beginning of the limiting, often sexist Marilyn-Jackie dichotomy that tried to pit blonde and brunette women against each other and perpetuated harmful stereotypes about blondes being attractive but not intelligent and brunettes being smart and serious (of course this dichotomy, like many issues in Western culture, was pretty limited and, on the whole, was just looking at two groups within one – white women). This era of the early 1960s is portrayed in an effective, interesting way in the TV series ‘Mad Men’, which began in 2007, and the brilliant 2003 battle of the sexes comedy ‘Down with love’ explores the Marilyn-Jackie dichotomy and supposed ‘rivalry’ between blondes and brunettes and stereotypes surrounding the hair colours, which is also explored in another early 2000s film, ‘Legally Blonde’ (2001). Who knew that hair colour was such a big deal? Well, maybe most redheads maybe feel this, as I've certainly had comments about it and felt like I've stood out because of my red hair.
Next time - Footloose hits Aberdeen!
No comments:
Post a Comment