Breakfast At Tiffany's On Broadway: Not A Full Meal

Categories: Theater

logo.jpg
Richard Greenberg's adaptation of Truman Capote's classic novella Breakfast at Tiffany's turns out to be earnest, talky, and rather lifeless despite its good intentions.

Telling the story of a chirpy socialite/hooker in 1943 New York and her interaction with a writer who isn't exactly straight, this production stays faithful to the book without turning it into a persuasive piece of theater.

Cory Michael Smith (Cock) plays the writer character, Fred, and has to narrate, an awkward device which is used seemingly at random moments throughout the play.

Emilia Clarke (Game of Thrones) is Holly Golightly--perhaps too lightly. Spewing "dyke" remarks and French phrases, Clarke comes off like a perfectly sensible woman who's simply playing at having airs, rather than a damaged gal desperately hiding her insecurities with pretensions and veneer.

She doesn't seem enchanting or vulnerable enough, and the effort (like the accent) is way too visible. In fact, rather than Audrey Hepburn (the movie's Holly) or Marilyn Monroe (who almost was Holly), Emilia comes off a little like Norah Jones.

She does better in a fantasy scene, a musical interlude, and in Act Two, when some dark happenings bring out emotion and even plot. But those plot moments happen so quickly they seem strange in comparison to the lengthy scenes of atmospheric gab that preceded them.

Flanked by sliding scrims with projections flashed on them, the actors work at making the book seem like a play, but the result is largely as uncomfortable as the cat looks before Holly lets go of him and he runs off into the wings.

The production wears its faithfulness to the book as a badge of honor, but it's hard to forget that the movie--though it seriously watered down elements of the original text--managed to be both chic and riveting in ways that are largely absent here.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
9 comments
ricsmith.116
ricsmith.116

You mean that Patricia Neal Actually was supposed to be a man right? I always thought she should have been. Much more in keeping with Truman's style.

bwaybill
bwaybill

Because the movie is a classic that may have flaws but has charm, style, and drama, The play has none of those.

jackson30
jackson30

"Lively"???? Musto and virtually every other writer have said it's dull and lifeless and inert.

anonTWO
anonTWO

tickets start at 32 bucks on rush days.

a steal.

anonTWO
anonTWO

Golightly in the short story is a contemptible character who uses the N word far too frequently for my comfort. The n word is hardly a term of endearment when the character uses it. Hepburn elevated the character into the sophisticated eccentric Golightly we know of today. I think Capote even said the girl was trashy and rough around the edges and that Hepburn was not his choice for the role.

the film has it flaws too ( the "jap" character played by Mickey Freakin Rooney!)


From your description this play sounds more lively and worthwhile than the film.

jackson30
jackson30

Sounds positively ghastly, darling!

sfmike
sfmike

Sounds like it should have been a bad musical arc in "Smash." 

anonTWO
anonTWO

@bwaybill  

I can not agree with you having seen the film many times and later having read the ss by Capote, more than once.

I have not seen this production and I am interested in making that judgement for myself.


anonTWO
anonTWO

@jackson30  

compared to the movie.

IMO, the movie is overrated and has flaws of it's own.

So why bother making the comparison at all?

Loading...