BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S to Open on Broadway 2/2013 Starring GAME OF THRONE'S Emilia Clarke- Page 2

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 11:30am

Kad, the story is great. And the movie, in spite of it being almost unrecognizable, and Yunioshi is horrid, holds up. Peppard is excellent. Hepburn is so wrong and yet so very right. I'd love to see the novella filmed, but am not quite convinced it is made for the stage. Clarke is what makes this exciting.

Updated On: 10/11/12 at 11:30 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 11:33am

Were there no American actresses who could have been cast in the role? Sorry to get kind of xenophobic here, but...

[mallardo]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 11:36am

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the nudity which was pretty much the raison d'etre for the Anna Friel London production. Since Emelia Clarke did some notable nude scenes on Game of Thrones (first season) there would seem to be a connection here.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 11:36am

I think it would be very theatrical if it was treated as a mood/memory play like The Glass Menagerie with Fred acting as a Tom type narrator/character with the Holly scenes treated almost as vignettes. There's no hard plot to the novella so one shouldn't be forced.

I always felt the movie's heterosexual happy ending was a tacked on reshoot, even though I know it wasn't. Despite him being definitely straight (or at least was straight enough to get paid to sleep with Patricia ONeal), Paul and Holly are platonic and not at all flirtatious right up until that random kiss in the rain moment.

[darion]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 11:38am

Truman hated audrey for the role, wanted Marilyn Monroe... in any event, its a timeless story, looking forward to it.

[followspot]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 12:24pm

>Then I remembered that Holly is a fictionalized Tru himself

nope. fred = tru

>this is the same version that played in the West End to poor reviews

nope. this is an entirely different adaptation by an entirely different playwright

next?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 1:51pm

"Contrary to what you think, Eric, I wasn't going to the movies in 1961. The truth is I like the novella so much, I've never been in a rush to see Hollywood turn it into a heterosexual love story. Isn't that what the film does?"

:P Actually it's more the fact that it does come up on TV a lot, and I know you watch TCM, etc... I just expected at some point you would have stumbled upon it.

I largely love the movie (Rooney aside), but it actually has very little to do with the novella at all, IMHO. I can happily think of them as completely different creatures (or largely different--it's not brilliant like Cabaret the movie, but it is similar to how I think of Cabaret on stage and screen--or even Cabaret as based on Berlin Stories which is fitting since Capote was obviously inspired by Isherwood).

If Greenberg's play genuinely is faithful to the novella (and I like the idea suggested of a memory play), I wonder if there could be some issue with people expecting the movie--something the marketing team surely will play up.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 3:44pm

The only thing that interests me in this project is Greenberg's involvement.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 5:39pm

I agree, though I'm also intrigued by Clarke. Greenberg's voice should suit the material well, and at least gives it some level of interest.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 6:11pm

Who wouldn't have wanted Monroe for Holly? Reading the book it's very clear that this was a role she was meant to play.

One thing I love about Clarke for the role is that she like Monroe is zaftig. She's beautiful on Game of Thrones but hats off to her for being a sex symbol who is not starving herself. A fleshy, adult, woman. And a great actress!