** Those are pretty good points, Tawana.
** My objection to Mickey Rooney's character in "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
(not the actor, who I also adored, all of his films with Judy Garland, his
nutty turn in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" and his real life exploits,
whereby he had the ability to bed some of the most fantastic starlets
including Ava Gardner in Hollywood history) -- my objection is in my view,
Rooney's characterization as a horny Asian in that Hepburn film is not
consistently funny as a caricature that is neither wise nor set in 1940s
America. It is the early 1960s. I might give him a pass if I thought his
role was a parody, but no, this film comes 20 years after Pearl Harbor and
his role adds nothing to the film; it subtracts.
** In fairness, think films produced before 1960 have an element of
offensiveness that comes from the benefit of hindsight. They were NOT, for
the most part, offensive to the overwhelming body of movie goers in America,
which were and remain Caucasian. Hattie McDaniel played the same character
all the time and we didn't mind it in the same way that Cary Grant played
the same character all the time. And films showing black and Asian
servants, or films made during the 1930s and 1940s or 1950s whereby Chinese
men were called "Chinamen," black people were called "colored" or worse, and
Japanese people were called "Japs" -- I tend to give those films a pass
because they did indeed, represent a "snapshot" in time that I'm not
suggesting should be re-written, cut/edited/corrected to please today's
audiences to be politically correct.
----------
** For example, I love WWII cartoons even though they were blatantly racist
-- and can only be seen on video or DVD as treatments of history. They
rarely air on television in their original form. Warner Brothers' cartoons
like "Tokio Jokio" or "Bugs Nips the Nips" remain hilarious. But you won't
see them on TV. Many MGM cartoons directed by Tex Avery are heavily edited,
even on Turner Classic Movies, with scenes where characters were in
blackface or ethnic references to Germans, Jews or Asians have been
completely cut.
** The Charlie Chan "controversy" is also, in my view, a "faux" controversy
by 21st century militants of political correctness who stand on a bedrock of
righteousness without taking into consideration eras whereby such
"entertainments" were made. I give all Charlie Chan films a pass in the
same way I give Myrna Loy a pass when she played all those Asian vixens
during the early portion of her career. Times have changed and for the most
part, we're the better for it; but it's dangerous to go too far with such
discussions because we risk straying into debating what's old that's worth
condemning vs. what's old which reflects a "snapshot" of culturally historic
attitudes which creep into "entertainment." The most vexing examples have
to do with attitudes about slavery, the internment of Japanese-Americans
during WWII and the persecution of Jews by Nazi Germany in the context of
their use in as treatments or "entertainments" considered propaganda for
mainstream or military audiences.
----------
** Finally, while Hattie McDaniel is beloved; it must be noted that there's
an interesting footnote about her most storied role as Mammy in "Gone with
the Wind." There's a good reason she lived handsomely in California and not
in Kansas or the South. When "Gone With the Wind" was released, in many
portions of the U.S., thousands of souvenir program books depicting Hattie
McDaniel on the back cover with other cast members were pulled, destroyed
and replaced with actress Alicia Rhett. Is this an acceptable snapshot in
time? Maybe, but this has nothing to do with the dignity or positive wisdom
her characters imparted in her films. This was blatant racism. I guess
context is everything, regardless of what period we're talking about when it
comes to Hollywood.
----------
** One of the funniest parodies of the 1940s noir is "Murder by Death"
(1976). In that film, which is mostly hilarious, Peter Sellers plays a
Charlie Chan character with a son who speaks perfect English, just like in
the Charlie Chan films of the 30s. The racist jokes that go back and forth
between the characters in that film, especially delivered by Peter Falk who
plays the Bogart type role, are fall down funny. Again, parodies get a pass
from me. "Blazing Saddles" is another fine example. It's still funny to
me. I hate political correctness taken to the extreme. I guess such stuff
only matters to me if a stereotype is played negatively without statistical
basis in fact and without humor, the latter always subjective.
-koose.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Tawana Gormley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Kusumoto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Breakfast at Tiffany's enigmas
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 04:40:10 -0400
An interesting assessment of Breakfast At Tiffany's. I love the film. Like
many older films, it is a "snapshot" of times past. The Five and Dime
store. The cars on the street. The clothes. The hats. The parties. The
cigarette holders. Later, seeing what the "real" Fred Flintstone looked
like. Having been born in 1955, I can remember a time when women looked
like that. Being a minority, I think we also tend to look for ourselves in
the movies. While we are often disappointed in the images we see, we can
also occasionally find something endearing in the performer and the
unexpected joy the actor brings to a less than favorable character. Hattie
McDaniel comes to mind for me. She could do no wrong in my eyes. She
worked. Her brother worked. Her sister worked. While playing the
"stereotypical Black woman" she also imparted a strength and wisdom far
superior to those who either employed or "owned" her. That being said, (and
back to Breakfast At Tiffany's) I can appreciate the fact the Mickey Rooney
characterization of an Asian man was offensive to many...as was his
characterization of Blacks in some of his other films. These, too, were
unfortunately snapshots of their times. Afterall, what is a snapshot but a
moment in time, a picture, like-it-or-not of someone's reality (not
necessarily ours)? Yet, I am a Mickey Rooney fan. I love him and
appreciate his talent.
But, this subject has brought up something about which I have been curious
for some time. A few years ago, I saw a show where several young Asian men
and women were discussing the Charlie Chan series. They took great offense
at the character of Charlie Chan. One point of contention was the fact that
the character was not Asian. But, (and here is where I would like some
insight) they also disliked the demeaning stereotype portrayed by the
character. Not being Asian, I do not pretend to have any superior
understanding here. But I always saw the Charlie Chan character as being so
very more intelligent, wise and composed than anyone else. What am I
missing?
Oh, by the way...let's not forget the fact that the George Peppard character
was a little bit of a prostitute himself. Like Holly, he worked steadily
(although he had less variety). Both were lost souls for reasons which
seemed to bring them together.
TGormley
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kusumoto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:00 AM
Subject: [MOPO] Breakfast at Tiffany's enigmas
** I love Audrey Hepburn and own paper to what I think are her five best
films (Tiffany's, Funny Face, Roman Holiday, Sabrina and her overlooked
masterpiece, Two for the Road). But I also have a love-hate feeling for
that Blake Edwards' film which people go ga-ga about.
** I can look at the one-sheet and the lobby cards to "Tiffany's" and feel
satisfied -- (but like Freeman, the up and down price swings for paper on
this title defy explanation; it seems to me that demand is constant -- and
so is supply. Hence I don't consider Tiffany's paper rare. It's just
something everyone wants and will sometimes pay through the nose to get,
vs. paper to, let's say, "Rear Window."
** But when I put "Tiffany's" in the DVD player and crank up my speakers --
what bothers me is its uneven quality. Audrey saves the picture, IS the
picture, and without "Moon River," you wonder if it'd be considered classic
at all. The film is a patchwork of great and mediocre and awful set
pieces. Mickey Rooney's performance as a loud, obnoxious and horny Asian is
outrageously racist, even 20 years after Pearl Harbor. It's not funny and
ruins it for me. I speed through his scenes or in the same way I now hate
the restaurant orgasm scene in "When Harry Met Sally." It just feels out
of place to the rest of the so called "reality" created in this picture.
** However, I think the film captures the type of adorable "Audrey" we
remember and like best -- hence its posters are iconic and so is the film,
that is, regarded warmly overall despite its bad manners. I think what
gets to us, what makes us overlook the film's flaws, is the fact that it's
book-ended with a spectacular beginning and a spectacular ending that
captures the romance beneath Audrey's character, who, on the surface, is a
flighty, I-don't-want-any-emotional-attachments promiscuous brat and
show-off clothes horse. "Moon River" on the guitar is the bridge in the
middle that works the same way the theme music to "Summer Place" by Percy
Faith helps move that other film along. I don't think Audrey is a
call-girl in the film, as is suggested by the book. She's just a loony
poser who calls her cat, "Cat" just to be hip.
** To me, "Tiffany's" falls under the list of films that aren't necessarily
great but in some way, like its posters, will forever considered
"essential." So many film noirs and monster movies have good posters even
though the films themselves are considered unwatchable. I have to love a
film on some level before I'll buy paper for it, no matter how lifeless the
art, e.g., my known love for all things from "The Graduate." This is why I
own a one-sheet to "Tiffany's" even though some think the art is just "OK."
** My only collecting exceptions are cheesecake one-sheets of Raquel Welch
(and at one time, Jane Fonda). My favorite Raquel one-sheet of all time is
NOT "One Million Years B.C." or even "Bedazzled." (Even though I own
both.) It's the underpriced and boffo one-sheet to "The Biggest Bundle of
them All." It was drawn is by pin-up artist Robert McGinnis -- and as I
circle back to keep this post relevant to movie posters -- I will add that
McGinnis not only did the art to "Barbarella," but also the art for
"Breakfast at Tiffany's."
Please visit his super web site at: http://www.mcginnispaintings.com/ This
guy has been flying under the shadow of Frazetta, Petty, Varga(s) and Moran
for years, and deserves greater attention. James Bond poster fans already
know him...
-koose.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Roger Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Roger Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hello Again and WTB Goldfinger Insert
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:14:38 -0700
Speaking of Breakfast at Tiffany's, I watched that film a few weeks ago for
the first time. It has some charm, but I don't understand what all the fuss
is about. The movie goes downhill quickly whenever Mickey Rooney appears.
He gives the worst portrayal of Asian man that I've ever seen. Boris
Karloff could have done much better.
Would a Breakfast at Tifany's poster lose value if it has Mickey Rooney's
autograph?
-rk
----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Hello Again and WTB Goldfinger Insert
...Regarding your inquiry of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S all semblance or
reason and logic has ceased to exist for that title.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
