BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S

In this post, I felt like discussing – in my own way – a movie that I absolutely love: “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”.

I have no particular affinity with Tiffany & Co but my love for Bulgari is limitless and well-documented, therefore this photoshoot became Breakfast at Bulgari’s, with the help of a coffee and a croissant.

(Take two seconds to picture it: crossing the Champs-Elysées at 1p.m. on a Saturday clad nothing other than a long, fancy dress, clutching a croissant as the crowd stares at you with eyes full of questions. Big success).

ANYWAY. Back to Tiffany’s. The movie but also the book.

Until now, I’ve held back from writing about literature and cinema, two subjects that interest me much more than clothes do. The reason for this is simply that I don’t have time to buy the latest thriller at the library or see the weekly novelties at the cinema. I am always slightly behind when it comes to contemporary literature and I only watch movies when I can rent them on the VOD.

The aforementioned activities are always nocturnal and generally take place between 11 p.m. and 2 a.m., when the constant and simultaneous stream of “Mum?”s finally stop.

When Internet arrived, I felt the intense satisfaction of knowing that I could have access (to the worst obviously but more importantly) to an encyclopaedic amount of knowledge.

(I know I’m digressing because I am absolutely not talking about “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”).

My day usually starts with an overview of the press that strives to cover diverse material: Les Echos, Le Monde, L’Obs, Le Figaro, Slate, the New York Times, Twog et the Daily Mail. There is a mix of the worst and the best in this curious pick but that’s exactly what allows me to flick through all areas of news, from economics to pop culture.

By the way, I’ve never understood why pop culture isn’t considered as a legitimate culture, given that it seems perfectly in phase with great contemporary socio-cultural movements.

(Nothing to do with “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” but that doesn’t matter. Or does it?)

To be honest, apart from mathematics, nearly every subject interests me and I can easily get lost amongst articles that range from neuro-plasticity, to the Brangelina divorce, to Jesus’s life or even the veracity of the 1969 moon landing and AI.

When it comes to literature, I have to admit that I don’t really appreciate contemporary novels. I have infinite love for essays and biographies but the novelists who manage to move me and earn my admiration, such as Pennac and Mondiano, are extremely rare. I often read older authors, once or twice or more because I like re-reading books, which I treat with the utmost respect (I can hear my 7-year-old telling his little sister to be more careful with her books because “Mummy said some people died for books!”)

When it comes to cinema, I like drawer movies that can be interpreted in several ways. This obviously makes me particularly sensitive to directors like Fincher, Nolan, Villeneuve or Ford, fashion’s beloved child.

ANYWAY.

I have a special soft spot for this movie (the one I’ve been meaning to tell you about aka “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”) for lots of reasons (but two main ones).

Because in this movie, Audrey Hepburn’s humour is only equaled by her grace. This is also true outside of the movie, though.

Because Truman Capote, obviously. The abused child’s clairvoyant analysis of the human comedy gave his last swan song with “In Cold Blood”, which I find deeply moving.

All of it comes together in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”, even if the end of the short-story is different from the end of the movie (which doesn’t prevent me from liking both). Everything is there: the bittersweetness, the irony, the toughness of life for two young people who are caught in the swirl of the great city and strive to forget a childhood full of sorrow and a present that pushes them to sell their charms.

A faithful depiction of life, where grace walks hand in hand with tragedy.

I always find it amusing to listen to some women talking about the film, reducing it to Hepburn-Golightly’s perfect silhouette, her flawless dressing, how lucky she is to meet a handsome young man who loves her. They often forget that Holly Golightly works for a mafioso, that she lives off her charms, that her lover does the same and that the movie is less of a light-hearted romance and more of a difficult account of two young people’s path to realisation, be it material as well as emotional.

Because of the famous black Givenchy dress in the movie’s opening scene.

Because Blake Edwards directed the movie.

Because Henri Mancini composed the music, including the famous “Moon River” song that was nearly edited from the final cut.

Finally, because New-York. New-York is always a good idea, just like Paris 😉

June 22, 2017