So I finally read Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s just so I could feel superior to George Costanza. In that Seinfeld episode where George muscles in on a family’s home viewing of the movie just so he can cheat on a book club meeting, George gets his inevitable comeuppance when he talks about the love match between the book narrator and Holly Golightly, and the club members tell him, “He’s gay.”
I’ve heard this from elsewhere, that the book implies that the unnamed narrator is gay. But, to be honest, I don’t see where the book implies this at all. If anything, the book implies another character, Rusty Trawler is gay, but not the narrator.
Is the implication only if you assume that Truman Capote is the narrator? Or is the implication there because the narrator never tries to make a move on Holly, even though they slept in a bed together upon meeting?
The book narrator does mention being a little in love with Holly at some point.
Where does the narrator twang the readers’ old fashioned gaydar?
Say it with me now, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”
I haven’t read the book in a long time, but I remember it being pretty obvious that the narrator was gay. Since it’s been a while, I can’t remember any specific details that convinced me. The book was waaaaaay better than the movie at any rate. Audrey Hepburn seemed like a nice person, but she was a mannered, annoying, fairly untalented actress. And miscast as Holly Golightly.
I agree the book was much better. I found the movie painfully dull except for the cat. The book clips right along, and keeps the reader’s interest throughout.
But how was the narrator obviously gay? The only way I get that is by assuming he’s Truman Capote, which it is not clear if that’s Capote’s intent here.
Okay, I know he was something of an egomaniac, and probably not above Mary Sueing, but still.
And a big THANK YOU for posting that about Audrey Hepburn. I never saw what the big deal was about her except for her prettiness. And I don’t give a shit about prettiness.
Well, to be fair, I did like her in Wait until Dark.
I was a little nervous about posting that, because her fans love her, but I’m not a fan. I did like her in Wait Until Dark too, except for that final scene where she’s telling Richard Crenna about being “the world’s champion blind lady,” and she does it in a form of baby talk that’s nails on a chalkboard for me. And Alan Arkin steals the movie anyway.
George Peppard is the ‘man’ in the movie, and is ‘kept’ by Patricia Neal as a boy toy. What a laugh! IRL he would have been gay, gay, gay (or gay for pay) and ‘kept’ by a MAN. …They had to stick the cougar woman in because at the time, there would have been such a huge explosion of scandal if such a thing was portrayed. The movie would have been banned all over the world, or not released at all… (Just like in 'The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone…man-hungry ‘women’ renting boy toys through a Roman matron… right…)
But the book doesn’t say anything about his being kept…by a man or a woman. You don’t know what he’s living on. He gets a job, then quickly loses it. And thats all that’s said about his upkeep. He could be living off his folks, or have a trust fund. The book doesn’t say. Eventually, he becomes a writer. That’s it.
I’m going with the belief that Capote was so egotistical that all the characters are him, or parts of him. Even the narrator. That man was messed up.
I love Audrey Hepburn. For what she is. Maybe not the best actress but ‘okay’ and a very beautiful woman.
See; ‘Sabrina’ and ‘The Nuns Story’.
She does a fine job, but still, she’s overrated in my opinion. Maybe I wouldn’t think that if her fans didn’t go into rhapsodies about her in this and her other pictures.
