Breakfast at the Jane Austen Book Club
As promised, I read Breakfast at Tiffany's.
I'm sorry, Capote. I loved In Cold Blood so much, but I hated Breakfast at Tiffany's. I'm sure plenty of people will disagree as it's technically an American classic made even more famous by the film adaptation starring Audrey Hepburn and George Pepard, but in terms of story I just really didn't like it. Not a 'burn it in protest' hatred like I felt for the Handmaid's Tale or even an 'I expected better' hatred like Jane Eyre or Kraken, just a general dislike for pretty much the whole story and all the characters. Holly Golightly, raw before immortalised by the lovely Miss Hepburn, was according to Capote intended to be played by Marilyn Monroe as a sultry woman of the night, loving both too little and too much. And I could sort of see it - Marilyn's tragic real life story in some ways was mirrored by the tragedy of Holly Golighty's tale, down even to the change in her name to become a starlet and her origins as a child bride. Which by the way, is always creepy.The passage in the story that bothered me the most - and as a product of the modern world it's hard for me to relate, and I accept that - was where Holly attempts to justify her 'loose' ways to the narrator. "I'm not a whore," she tells him earnestly, "I've only had eleven lovers (Holly is nineteen for the bulk of the story), but anything before I was thirteen doesn't count". It was all I could do to keep reading after that. It just screams of tragedy, abuse and rape. And the drama of that isn't addressed. Feminism screamed a little at both the 1930's and Truman Capote.
I watched the movie right after, although the disappointment and disregard for the book meant I really didn't want to, and I actually didn't like that much better. The film is changed so much from the original text that I read Capote had felt betrayed. And I can sort of see why - the overall tragedy of the story is vastly undermined by the failure of the film to express the truth of what Holly really is, the trauma of her childhood and the unsatisfying way in which the novella actually ends. The film highly twists the tale of the attractive and glamorous Hollywood starlet into a romance amidst the glitz of 1960's New York, and even the famous scene with Audrey Hepburn in her black dress in from of Tiffany's has no real place. It looks great, of course, and I wish I looked that sleek stepping out of a cab after an all-nighter somewhere glamorous, but Capote says no.
Ironically, I think that the romantic ending of the film is what bothered me the most; It wasn't right. The book ends with Holly disappearing off into the wilds of Brazil and later Africa never to be seen again by the narrator who, despite how much of a cow she is, is desperately in love with her. Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard make a tentative approach at reconciling and share a terribly romantic kiss in the rain. It was beautiful, but it didn't make sense to me. I think what I'm really trying to get across is don't mess with the originals. Breakfast at Tiffany's isn't a love story, there was no need to make it one.And I think that bothered Capote like it bothered me.
Fun fact: The song Breakfast at Tiffany's by Deep Blue Something, in which the singer suggests that as long as he and his girlfriend had their like of the movie in common they could try to work out their problems, was actually based off of the film Roman Holiday also starring Audrey Hepburn. It's a much happier film than Breakfast at Tiffany's, I recommend it.
The Jane Austen Book Club, like all of Jane Austen's books, is supposed to fill you with hope that if you are a good person, you persevere (and atone for wrongs you have done) then love and happiness will come to you. Even if it is in ways you aren't expecting, like Emma's Mr Knightley, when you thought you'd lost your chance, like in Persuasion, or when you have to just needed to let go of first impressions and give love a try, like in Pride and Prejudice. The novel starts by stating that everyone, not every woman, everyone has their own Austen. The stories change like the reasoning behind them, but everyone has a little aspect of Jane Austen's writing within them.
I won't go into too much detail, but suffice it to say that the Book Club revolves around six people in modern day California who need to change something. Bernadette needs to let go, Sylvia needs to move on, Jocelyn needs to take a chance at love, Allegra needs to open up, Prudie needs to be happy, and Grigg needs to branch out. Supposedly, Grigg is the least of all the novel's characters that needs to change, but for branching out to make more friends. He is also treated most unfairly by women of the group at first, until they start to warm up to him. Women, trust me I know, can be so passive aggressive sometimes.
I enjoyed the book - the character's pasts, the way they learnt something about themselves and the world through the medium of Jane Austen's books. The way that they all underwent some kind of change, not too dramatically, and moved forward to recapture a little of the happiness that they'd lost somewhere along the way. I enjoyed the book, but I think I liked the movie better. It added an extra layer to most of the women's present that gets lost a little in the book. Whilst the novel focuses a lot on the past by way of exposition, the film focuses on the now; what is happening to these women (and Grigg) now, not twenty to thirty years ago. Why are they all coming together now, what was wrong with their lives, and how do they fix it. I liked the additions - and the actors - that the book just didn't have. Prudie, for example, was perhaps my favourite character. In the novel she is treated almost as unfairly as Grigg; the other women barely tolerate her, or even attempt to get to know her too much. She is passionate about Jane Austen and is very much there to talk about it, learn, and meet new people, which is actually not why the club was formed. Extra layers are added to her in the film as we explore Prudie's, played by Emily Blunt (I love Emily Blunt), relationship with her mother and husband a bit more thoroughly and get to know more about why she is unhappy. She is likeable and relatable in both, but you get so much more from her with the added extras.
In a clumsy, roundabout sort of way what I'm trying to say is the distinction between films and books can be blurred. When a film follows the themes and plots of its original text, usually this is better and it works as an addition and compliment to the book. This is evident definitely in the Jane Austen Book Club, and whilst both book and film can be viewed as standalone texts, they enrich one another. Just like, when done right, so do many of Jane Austen's stories. We won't get into which film and television adaptations best represent and compliment the books because that could take a century.Don't let my opinions of either book deter you from giving them a try; you may love Breakfast at Tiffany's or hate the Jane Austen Book Club - It doesn't bother me if you disagree, but I'd be more than interested in talking about them, differences of opinion are after all how you learn sometimes. As always, happy reading.
Sam xox
Comments
Post a Comment