Breakfast atTiffany's VS Butterfield 8
Discuss
--
Butterfield 8 is better.
share
MovieChat Forums > Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) Discussion > Breakfast atTiffany's VS Butterfield 8
I like Butterfield 8 more.
shareIsn't that interesting, how time changes perspective (although BREAKFAST still maintains the higher IMDb rating).
But here we have two early-'60s movies about gorgeous "high class" prostitutes who aren't really prostitutes and yet kinda are.
BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY's has, quite obviously, the most poignant opening (pardon the expression) and "Moon River" and those wonderful Kennedy era shots of the NYC side streets, the brownstones, etc. It's a kind of period urban fantasy of a kind, one that was gone by the end of that decade... But the film's attempts at sophistication date far worse as the Hollywood contrivances they were -- although Audrey's always good value. (I wont even address Mickey Rooney's role).
BUTTERFIELD 8, on the other hand, though not intended as the prestige picture that TIFFANY'S was (but more of a cynical MGM attempt to exploit Elizabeth Taylor's increasingly "bad girl" image) is more compelling, though BUTTERFIELD can be awfuly kitschy in spots... And despite the soapy flaws (the film manages to be both tawdry and, in keeping with the times, sanitized -- always an unfortunate combination) Taylor is terrific in this film! She totally earned that Oscar even if she, and the critics, didn't think so then... She really lifts it to the level of near-art.
If TIFFANY'S had maintained the flavor of its first scene, I'd likely feel differently.
--
The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.
I don't know if time changes perspective on a given film, but rather the age of the viewers. You know what I mean.
shareNo, I don't. Tell me.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
Breakfast at Tiffany's.
(Mickey Rooney is the only blotch on this otherwise delightful film. What were they thinking!?)
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Rooney later claimed asian people "loved" it.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
Two totally different characters in a shared profession for completely different reasons:
Holly Golightly is a "free-spirited" girl on quest for a rich husband and fun. She abandons her husband and family and sells herself almost unwittingly. It isn't until she meets and falls in love with the similarly fated Paul that she realizes how much of herself she has given away, and how much she has yet to give.
Gloria Wandrous is a hard-as-nails, calculating character who sells herself with abandon. She toys with a married man who wants only to possess her. She imagines herself on equal footing with him until he reminds her of her place through degradation. Her disastrous fate seems clear from the get-go.
Gloria Steinem picked Breakfast to be shown on TMC, so it must have something going for it
It's one of those apples to oranges kinds of comparisons.
Two totally different kinds of movies with two completely different points of view.
Kinda like asking: Is a John Wayne Western better than a Clint Eastwood Western?[
Both are good in their own ways.
Some days you might prefer one and some days you might prefer the other.
But that's oranges and tangelos. Not oranges and apples.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
It's worth noting how the leading ladies remembered their respective films. Audrey Hepburn had generally good feelings about "Breakfast at Tiffany's," because she felt the character represented an interesting challenge for her and she loved how the director captured the party culture and ambiance of early 1960s Manhattan.
However, when asked about "Butterfield 8," Elizabeth Taylor didn't mince words: "I still say it stinks."