I never were one for romantic "comedies". They usually portray a very bourgeois,stereotypical relation between men and women and are mostly there to please women and their unrealistic conceptions of what "love" is about. But I stumbled upon a mint second hand DVD of "Breakfast.." and thought I might give a go. It is considered a kind of a classic in its genre. Romantic movies are as old as the medium itself I suppose, but from a modern angle the first real modern romantic comedy, I believe is "Breakfast at Tiffany´s". It sits right on the shift from the polished 50´s to the hip 60´s.
There are clearly old-school, traditional "Cary Grant´ísh" hunk-elements in the male part, while the female part is portrayed as a more modern, independant, single but still frail and in need of masculine protection - type of woman. This ambivalence is likely what has made this a classic among fans of this genre, combined with the undeniable magnetic beauty of the female lead, Audrey Hepburn.
It has the archetypical high society elements, the classy cocktail style of the lavish 50´s, to make sure that, that generation would be served, but under the surface, we get glimpses of a promiscuity or prostitution, both from the male and the female (to ensure that the female does not stand out as the only immoral individual).
Blake Edwards has a recognizable touch that would later become a trademark of his Pink panther series. The light-hearted gags, specifically during the party in her apartment, makes sure that we know this is not to be taken too serious, but as usual, love and humor must be mixed to get away with the stereotypes.
The male lead is basically there as the classical beta-male orbiter, her emotional tampon, and backup romantic object, if she is not succesful in hooking up with a rich alpha-male provider. The beta male is always there to help her, to comfort her, to fall in love with her, without her having to do anything else than being present. The ultimate female fantasy of having all bases covered. She is willing to throw her vagina at anyone with a decent amount of money and even manipulate and bring "information" into a jail for money.
But this does not seem to affect the otherwise well mannered and correct male lead, who apparently is not affected by her behavior in any way. We cannot have a potential romantic relation, being critical of the choices and actions, or the lack there of, of the female lead. More deeply psychological, this is a platform for the female to bounce around and behave as irrationally as she possibly can. The amount of irrational behavior a man is willing to accept, is the extend to which, he can be manipulated by the woman. This is an aspect that is seen again and again in romantic comedies through the ages.
There are situations where the new feminist emerges, like when she whistles for a cap in a very masculine manner .. and he, the beta male that he is, says "I could never do that" ... which is like saying "I Am Not A Man". Small hints like that appear again and again, and generally the male is manipulated or dragged around town at her wim, gently yes, but still manipulated be the female. He is just a walking, talking service station for her needs.
The sexual aspects are off course, very downplayed. We see her in her nighties and him with a naked upper body. There are a few female legs, when he crawls on the floor during the party, and some kissing revealed behind a bathroom curtain. Otherwise, the sex is what your imagination can muster from looking at the setting and the handsome characters on the screen.
In the end she is supposed to be engaged with a wealthy south american millionaire, but she is ditched in the eleventh hour. Off course he is around to serve her needs because, he just is, and when she seems to have lost her dream of hooking a millionaire, the only thing she can basically think of, is her cat, that has gone missing. He stands there like a dork, having told her he loves her, and she cries her eyes out for a cat. Go figure ! You are disposable bro !
I am having a really hard time with movies like this one. I see the superficial charm of the setting and the situations and so on .. but it does nothing for me really. It is still formulaic to such an extend, that there are no interesting twists or surprises. Or any real emotional depth anywhere. It is what it is ... superficial entertainment for the segment that does not want to go anywhere with any depth. It gets its points for its sticking to the formula and a certain smooth style held up by the charming personality of Hepburn. She really was a striking beauty and she fit the role well i think. I have heard that Capote (the writer) wanted to have Marilyn Monroe in the roll. That would only have made it vulgar. Not so much with Hepburn
Rating: 5/10
