I am a big fan of Audrey Hepburn and her work and I went to see Breakfast At Tiffany's live on Broadway with the apprehension that no one could play Holly Golightly the way Audrey portrayed her in the 1961 film. But Emilia Clarke was not Audrey's Holly Golightly; in fact, she recreates the character in a way that 1961 Hollywood could not portray Holly.
Holly is a young woman who tries to escape love and the stigmas that are associated with it like marriage and patriarchy by using them to her financial benefit. In other words, she's a hooker. She uses men of course to climb the social ladder but men are disposable and she uses them as she sees fit; yet, they cannot help falling in love with her. We all understand what Holly's profession is in the movie but the rawness of her speech and actions is missing from the film,perhaps because it just wasn't acceptable to portray women with sex and vulgarity in 1961? We can even argue that she was a pioneer for gay rights as well!
The film will always be special to me but I do not think I fully understood Holly's complexity until I saw the play nor did I appreciate the effect that Holly has on Fred's sexuality or his climb up the social ladder. Holly, in the play teaches Fred what society is all about and how the game is played. Holly might be, dare I say, a more feminist character than I had originally thought. We see a gender role reversal with Holly and Fred because the woman in this era is not trying to mimic the male work ethic and infringe on his sphere. Instead, Fred is doing what we might originally expect Holly to do and this is to copy male behavior to fit into corporate America. However, Fred is so disappointed with the white collar industry that he begins to copy Holly's tactics to gain higher positions and more money.
In the end, Holly becomes almost like a legend who has touched each man's heart (and wallet, of course) but continues to disappear and reappear like a mirage. Holly does not end up happily ever after at the end with her male love interest. She foregoes love, marriage, and motherhood altogether even though she was so close to obtaining the American dream lifestyle for Friedan era women. She not only loses her chance to make that lifestyle a reality but I think she was more content and relieved to give it up and continue her pursuit for freedom. The play ends with Holly running off alone, to freedom perhaps.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Not Your Grandmother's Breakfast At Tiffany's
I am a big fan of Audrey Hepburn and her work and I went to see Breakfast At Tiffany's live on Broadway with the apprehension that no one could play Holly Golightly the way Audrey portrayed her in the 1961 film. But Emilia Clarke was not Audrey's Holly Golightly; in fact, she recreates the character in a way that 1961 Hollywood could not portray Holly.
Holly is a young woman who tries to escape love and the stigmas that are associated with it like marriage and patriarchy by using them to her financial benefit. In other words, she's a hooker. She uses men of course to climb the social ladder but men are disposable and she uses them as she sees fit; yet, they cannot help falling in love with her. We all understand what Holly's profession is in the movie but the rawness of her speech and actions is missing from the film,perhaps because it just wasn't acceptable to portray women with sex and vulgarity in 1961? We can even argue that she was a pioneer for gay rights as well!
The film will always be special to me but I do not think I fully understood Holly's complexity until I saw the play nor did I appreciate the effect that Holly has on Fred's sexuality or his climb up the social ladder. Holly, in the play teaches Fred what society is all about and how the game is played. Holly might be, dare I say, a more feminist character than I had originally thought. We see a gender role reversal with Holly and Fred because the woman in this era is not trying to mimic the male work ethic and infringe on his sphere. Instead, Fred is doing what we might originally expect Holly to do and this is to copy male behavior to fit into corporate America. However, Fred is so disappointed with the white collar industry that he begins to copy Holly's tactics to gain higher positions and more money.
In the end, Holly becomes almost like a legend who has touched each man's heart (and wallet, of course) but continues to disappear and reappear like a mirage. Holly does not end up happily ever after at the end with her male love interest. She foregoes love, marriage, and motherhood altogether even though she was so close to obtaining the American dream lifestyle for Friedan era women. She not only loses her chance to make that lifestyle a reality but I think she was more content and relieved to give it up and continue her pursuit for freedom. The play ends with Holly running off alone, to freedom perhaps.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Women Through Time
How well does history know women? We have been occupying this Earth for hundreds of years, we are 1/2 the population and yet century after century society enforces new social norms for women, completely neglecting their actual needs and desires.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)