Mainstream Capote

As you may have noticed, I. Love. Capote. So last night, in need of respite from Franzen's terrible Corrections, in which the sense of impending doom is just about brain-exploding, I decided to give Breakfast at Tiffany's a try.

I've seen it, long ago, but I can't remember much about it. I don't know what it is about the writers of that time making heroes nothing but narrators, like walking megaphones (look at Fitzgerald's Nick Carraway in Gatsby), but I'm not at all for it. I want a narrator with something more than a keen eye. Like a motive or some impetus.

Anyway, that's point one. Point two is that the characters are so unlikeable. Anyone who thinks Holly Golightly is, as she would say, darling, is simply unable to see past Audrey Hepburn in the film adaptation. This character is a nightmare. There is nothing soft or lovely or even very interesting about her as far as I can see. But then maybe I'm put off by the way the men seem to idolise her for no reason other than her glamour. She objectifies herself as much as those around her do, and it's wearing thin already.

Anyway, these are my first impressions. Really, when you compare it with the glorious decline of Other Voices, Other Rooms or the sweet, simple sorrow-joy of The Grass Harp, Breakfast at Tiffany's is all a bit mainstream and boring and, dare I say it, dated, don't you think?

Yeah, maybe it's just me.

UPDATE: Yeah, no sale on B at T's. Early on, Holly tells the narrator that his stories will never sell because they're all description and nothing happens. I couldn't help but wonder if this was something someone had told Capote, and which he'd acted on in the case of Tiffany's, in order to get a book made into a movie. Sceptical, yes. But if you ask me, Capote (from In Cold Blood) makes an infintely more compelling movie that Tiffany's did. Sorry, Audrey.