Okay, so I guess I’m the first poster, eh? Well, let’s get some ice broken, shall we?
I’d seen the movie a very long time ago, and truthfully never thought much of it. Except for loving Audrey Hepburn. And hating Mickey Rooney. Thankfully, the novella is much more captivating than the film.
I got a very distinct picture of the time and setting of the story. Capote has an amazing way with words and really takes you right where he wants you without coming right out and giving the details. We have to infer that Holly is an upscale callgirl – never specifically mentioned, but definitely hinted at. We get only a sense that the narrator is gay, but in a way that helps. He can give us a clear picture of Holly that isn’t clouded by lust, like so many of her followers. I read somewhere that Holly’s character was loosely based on 3 or 4 of the most visible socialites and starlets of the day, with a dash of Capote’s mother thrown in. But what I find interesting, is that in a time period of buttoned-up femininity (it was set in the 40s), Holly is the lone bohemian soul, floating through life, doing as she pleases. It speaks of the time because she is so widely loved and despised at the same time. Likely, those detractors were jealous of her fly-by-night attitude and freedom. It was a world where that sort of lifestyle wasn’t very accepted – so unlike today’s society where people are almost expected at be selfish and go ‘find themselves’.
Please, feel free to add your thoughts and/or contest my ideas. Such a difficult, multi-layered story to discuss in such a short post. I hope you all took something away from the sad but buoyant tragedy that is Holly Golightly.
