Tales from Tinseltown…recording them now…I'll let you know when it's story time.
Anderson Cooper’s Mama…at the spa…Gloria Vanderbilt on whom Capote is said to have modeled a certain character in his novella…
Egghead weds hourglass… Variety 1956… on the marriage of…
CategoriesArchitecture Art Books Culture Design Entertainment fashion Fiction Film History Hollywood Los Angeles Movies New York Photography Theater Travel Truth & Rumors Uncategorized
Tags#Audrey #itsinhiskissbyvickielester Audrey Hepburn Blake Edwards on location in new york for breakfast at tiffany's Paramount Patricia Neal Truman Capote Truman Capote on casting "Paramount double-crossed me in every way and cast Audrey"
Irony all around. Marilyn was his choice and sooo different from the saintly-looking Audrey Hepburn and yet, can you imagine anyone else playing Miss Holly Golightly?
I really can’t—but in the novella it was pretty clearly written that Holly was a prostitute—and in the movie they play her as a party girl.
Back in the days when smoking was cool.
My aunt (who was very glam) smoked, I think partially to maintain a fashionable silhouette, but the result was emphysema later in life.
Who is the lady on the far right? Looks a bit like Marian Collier
I think it might be Beverly Powers…
Or, more likely, Dorothy Whitney…
Lovely photograph! Just adore the style of dress, so lady like, so pretty, so beguiling!
I think I might be a wee bit (okay, a lot!) older than you, but I remember very brief time when I was oh-so young when dressing up involved white gloves. It is a very polished look.
No, think we’re in the same ageless grace range! White gloves do add polish to a lady’s suit or coat; can only imagine how that might go over at the local Starbucks, though!
Breakfast at Tiffany’s is one of those stories that would benefit from another adaptation, one that is true to the story instead of hindered by the Hays Code. Of course, the world would be up in arms about “remaking Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and I would be up in arms about pop culture writers’ continued inability to distinguish between a remake and an adaptation.
I disagree. I think that some movies (this one, and “The Shining”, “It’s a Wonderful Life”, among others) differ from the original book but accidentally stumble onto a magical combination that makes something special – something un-toppable. When this happens, it should be left alone. You can never create a magical accident on purpose – it has to happen organically. An odd casting decision here, a cut scene there, a line that wasn’t in the script… but once it happens, you have to put it up on a pedestal and admire it for all time. There are SO many fabulous stories out there that have never been made into movies – if someone thinks they have the chops to make something great, why not put their stamp on something unique? Rehashing already perfect movie miracles is just sad, costs a lot of money, and doesn’t make anyone happy in the end. If people are that in love with the book…. just read the book.
What a fantastic photo.
Comments are closed.