Posts Tagged ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s

30
Oct
11

Does anyone care that Ariane Chavasse is a cellist?

Billy Wilder’s 1957 frothy May-December romance Love in the Afternoon was meant to serve as a throwback to Ernst Lubitsch’s elegant comedies of manners. Its Parisian setting and the casting of Maurice Chevalier (Merry Widow) and Gary Cooper (Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife and Design for Living) sought to further associate it with Lubitsch’s body of work. Though unpopular with members of the Catholic church, undersold by American distributor Allied Artists, and regarded by Wilder as a flop, many remain charmed by Love decades later. Some of that might have to do with composer Franz Waxman’s arrangements of “C’est si bon” and “Fascination,” along with Matty Malneck’s three original compositions for the film. The merit of these contributions certainly suggest why Love was the first picture screened in the course I’m taking this semester on Hollywood film scores.

However, I don’t think Audrey Hepburn’s presence can be overlooked. In email correspondence, my film score professor noted that Wilder optioned Claude Anet’s novel Ariane with Hepburn in mind. Indeed, Hepburn was the first actor cast for Love. He also speculates that Wilder cast Hepburn because of narrative parallels he saw between Ariane and Sabrina, which was released in 1954 and also focused on a romance between a young girl and an older American man.

I also think Hepburn’s continentalism is embedded in her screen persona, and informs how her paramour, American business magnate and playboy Frank Flannagan (Cooper), fetishizes the French music conservatory student to whom he’s attracted. Hepburn was Belgian by birth, maintained British citizenship, and survived an adolescence in Nazi-occupied Arnhem. Almie Rose speculates that these childhood traumas resulted in the actress’ life-long struggle with disordered eating and low self-esteem.

But such possible connections and lived experiences with war-time tragedy don’t seem to register for people like Frank Flannagan. He doesn’t know her name for much of the film, learning only her first initial and resorting to calling her “thin girl.” He also projects his stereotypical assumptions about French femininity onto his conquest. According to him, French girls never cry and treat life as little more than a series of erotic (or, during the Hayes Code, “romantic”) misadventures. In his mind, they probably also form cigarette smoke into perfect circles with their lovely mouths and subsist on a diet of champagne and baguettes. And what use would it be to counter that stereotype when Flannagan’s just between planes and hotel suites anyway? Just send him the bill and be done with it.

Flannagan and Chavasse in the afternoon; image courtesy of nytimes.com

Thus, when they rendezvous in his hotel suite one afternoon, he has a traveling quartet play French jazz standard “C’est si bon.” Written in 1947 and originally recorded by German-Belgian artist Angèle Durand, the pop song grew in popularity before 1957 with cover versions from Eartha Kitt and Johnny Desmond. Indeed, the film itself seems to be framing French national identity through the use of “C’est si bon.” Chevalier narrates over a montage about romance in Paris. Waxman’s arrangement of “C’est si bon” is present throughout. Though modifications to tempo and instrumental color are applied as Chevalier considers different tableaux and social groups, the song is clearly identifiable and reaffirms that all French people are obsessed with love. These applications of “C’est si bon” seem to speak directly toward Theodor Adorno and Hans Eisler’s assertions about score’s relationship to geography and history in “Prejudices and Bad Habits,” an essay which outlines and seeks to rectify some of film music’s deplorable qualities. Citing the use of Dutch folk song as an example, Adorno and Eisler argue that when surrendered to the whims of an arranger, the use of music to suggest place is dubious. “Here music is used in much the same way as costumes or sets, but without as strong a characterizing effect” often resulting in compositional sameness.

Chavasse abides Flannagan’s stereotypical reduction of her culture’s attitudes toward femininity by pretending to be a femme fatale, despite her age and romantic inexperience. This seems to link the role of Chavasse to Hepburn’s characterization of Holly Golightly as a bucolic rube play-acting at being a New York party girl Breakfast at Tiffany’s. We seem to buy her cosmopolitanism because it’s delivered with a British accent, even if the whole production is a contrivance that appeals to men’s libidinous assumptions about elfin women of European lineage.

Holly Golightly; image courtesy of nytimes.com

Chavasse learns of Flannagan’s reputation while her detective father Claude (Chevalier) is investigating him for a client who is convinced his wife is having an affair with him. Buying into cultural stereotypes about American males’ rugged individualist spirit, she takes to Flannagan and helps him out of a sticky situation with her father’s client. They meet cute and embark on a brief fling that blooms into something more upon his return to Paris a bit later. Chavasse is quick to discover and file her feelings away with clippings of his international romantic conquests. Flannagan only truly begins to reciprocate when he feels threatened by all of the experience she claims to have with a string of entirely fictional foreign conquests. Again, Hepburn’s precocious performance of Chavasse playing a sexpot must have informed the decision to cast her as Golightly.

When applying “Prejudices and Bad Habits” to Love, I find myself siding with Adorno and Eisler more than I’d expect. While I don’t take as given their belief that moving away from tonality and popular song form necessarily indicates a shift away from mass indoctrination and false consciousness, I think the application of these arrangements can be a bit oppressive. Apart from the gross cultural signification going on with “C’est si bon,” I find the use of the waltz “Fascination” to be extremely obtrusive and overused as a leitmotif signifying Chavasse and Flannagan’s romance. What’s more, I don’t buy it. Perhaps this has to do with my inability to perceive Hepburn and Cooper as having any romantic chemistry. Perhaps it’s because I think these are two people with whom I’d rather not spend 130 minutes in their company. More than that, I don’t buy that their hasty marriage (reported by Chevalier in voice-over at the film’s end, no doubt to appease those agitated Catholics) is a good match or a happy ending for the film. This old dude probably cheats on Ariane as soon as they move into their New York penthouse, if not on the plane ride across the pond.

Yet I think the film offers a few points to critique Hollywood cinema’s reliance on romantic classical music. Chavasse continuously rebuffs the advances of fellow conservatory student Michel, a clumsy and age-appropriate square with too much of a fondness for Richard Wagner for her daring yet refined tastes. Wagner’s music and its emphasis on endless music yet compositional unity was of course hugely influential on Hollywood film composers of this period. After a performance of Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde where Chavasse reunites with Flannagan, she comes home and hums “Fascination.” Her father takes note and inquires about the tune’s origin. Chavasse lies and says it’s from the opera. Her father knows her daughter is lying, as he remembers her humming the tune after a previous interlude with the man he later learns is Flannagan. Yet he smiles knowingly at his daughter and says he must have been mistaken, noting that composers steal from each other all the time. It could be argued that embedded within those moments is a metacommentary on Hollywood film score’s lack of originality.

There may even be a moment within the film’s score that abides by Adorno and Eisler’s preference toward dissonance. Flannagan and Chavasse’s first goodbye is scored by what is believed to be an original composition of Malneck’s ”Ariane,” a melancholic musical figures which lacks any real melody or resolution. This seems to be the moment where Chavasse asserts her unrequited desire, or at least acknowledges it to herself. “Ariane” plays into the next scene, which shows her sulking in her bedroom following Flannagan’s departure. However, once her father returns home from work and discovers the boutonnière Chavasse took from Flannagan in the refrigerator, the score reiterates “Fascination” and thus potentially resolves Chavasse’s existential crisis.

It's one or the other, Ariane; image courtesy of fanpop.com

Film music scholar Claudia Gorbman argues that one of classic Hollywood film music’s organizing principles is invisibility. This means that the technical apparatus of non-diegetic music must not be visible. One simple solution film productions employed to adhere to this principle was to show musicians playing music on-screen, and thus existing within the film’s diegesis. Love adheres to this in a number of ways, including having Flannagan’s hired musical ensemble play for him in his suite, as well as accompany him to a few humorous locales. It also accomplishes musical invisibility with Chavasse, but seems to have an ambivalent relationship with her identification as a cellist. Often, she forgets she’s a cello player, particularly as she gets swept up in her affair with Flannagan. The film ends with her leaving Paris with Flannagan without her cello. The last shot is of her father holding the cello at the train station as he watches his daughter ride off with her rakish paramour. While this is supposed to be a happy ending, I’d be a lot happier if she didn’t have to choose between having a boyfriend and nurturing her own artistic endeavors.

02
Feb
11

Somewhere? Somewhat.

Sofia Coppola with cinematographer Harris Savides; image courtesy of guardian.co.uk

Sofia Coppola makes movies I almost love. I’m not sure if Coppola has one in her I’ll love outright. Yet I still think she has vision and am always excited when one of her features makes its theatrical rounds. Dutifully, I went with my friend Cassandra to see Somewhere the weekend it was finally released in Austin. The Virgin Suicides comes the closest to being a movie I love, though at least one friend argues that her adaptation of Jeffrey Eugenides’ novel is misogynistic. Lost In Translation would be even closer to my favorite. I think Bill Murray is astounding and really appreciate the tenderness between the semi-platonic leads. However, while I recognize that language barriers are frustrating to all parties in that movie, I still think its baseless racial politics are going to age like Mickey Rooney’s performance as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s in 50 years. I think the first half of Marie Antoinette is her best work and has a fascinating soundtrack, but is hamstrung by Kirsten Dunst’s failure to convey emotional maturation.

Also, we simply don’t have a lot of accomplished female American filmmakers. Do I wish this were different? Of course I do. Do I think it’s my duty to seek out and comment on their work? Why do you think I put together the Bechdel Test Canon? Do I revere the work of Sofia Coppola? Reread the first two sentences of this post. Would she have an Oscar if she weren’t a Coppola? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean I begrudge her success. Because until I don’t have to outline the entire filmography of a female director who directed episodes for shows like The L Word, Sex and the City, Gilmore Girls, or Mad Men to stay in the game when someone asks “who’s Jamie Babbit?,” Coppola’s film career shouldn’t be disregarded out of hand. Regrettably or not, it’s exceptional.

I stress that Coppola’s vision doesn’t belong to her brother Roman or papa Francis. Like Stephanie Zacharek, I reject people’s assertions that she’s Veruca Salt or that men are responsible for her film career. If we want to mount the argument that Coppola is stealing from her father or Italian neorealism with Somewhere and has nothing original to offer, I’ll point out that cinematographer Harris Savides shot it. He also filmed Noah Baumbach’s Greenberg. Both pictures were shot in Los Angeles by the same person and exist in the present yet look very different from one another.

I also think Coppola has something to say about growing up female. Yes, she’s addressing a particular kind of femininity. She is concerned with white, heterosexual women and girls gilded with privilege–except maybe the Lisbon girls, who are part of a single-income family supported by a school teacher’s salary. Sure, we have every reason to critique the construction of such limited representations. But I don’t necessarily have a problem with people writing and directing what they know. If Coppola adapted Winter’s Bone, completed a version of Tipping the Velvet that the rumor mill attached her a few years ago, or wrote a script about a girl who goes to a Los Angeles private school on scholarship, the same detractors would hate all of these hypothetical efforts. Also, her taciturn characters still possess contours, layers, and ambiguity. Her movies aren’t filled with great people. They don’t or can’t always say what they’re thinking or react in a heroic fashion. Sometimes they can’t react at all.

This might be really frustrating to some audience members and all the gilding might make it harder to relate. I recognize many of the criticisms Dan Kois, June Thomas, and Dana Stevens mounted against Somewhere in a recent installment of The Culture Gabfest. However, Thomas believes Somewhere will destroy American cinema. I think Wes Anderson’s twee influence ruined it first. Kois quotes from Richard Rushfield’s Daily Beast piece on the movie, stating that in films, a $500 silk shirt was once “evident shorthand for the participation of evil” but is now worn by the protagonist. I’d argue that this criticism obscures some of the shallow, regressive identity politics evident in the canonical texts of the French New Wave and the American Movie Renaissance.

Coppola with Stephen Dorff and Elle Fanning; image courtesy of movieline.com

I’m also unconvinced that protagonist Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff), an A-list action star whose daughter visits him while hiding out in the Chateau Marmont, is supposed to be  sympathetic. Though the movie doesn’t make this case, I read him to be a terrible person. My understanding of him is informed by a recent slog through Anthony Kiedis’ Scar Tissue, a numbing rock biography that overuses the word “soulful” and reads as a long list of beaches, clinics, drugs, and interchangeable women. Coppola appears in exactly one paragraph. She was involved with the Red Hot Chili Peppers front man long enough to watch them on Saturday Night Live. I’m not sure what to make of Coppola’s depiction of Marco’s bevy of unnamed women who constantly perform and wear embarrassing accessories like sailor hats to excite Marco’s libido. I’d chalk it up to misogyny, but Kiedis’ book suggests that some men–famous or otherwise–really are this shallow.

Coppola’s smart not to write Dorff as an obvious jerk. We can read his bad boy Gen X persona and the vase-throwing cameo in a Britney Spears video into his performance, but Dorff’s Marco is a nice guy. He’s affable and obedient with the press, his handlers, and the strange girls who are always in his room. He got the job simply because he’s a handsome guy who can fill out a tank top. This is subtextual in a brief exchange with a young actor looking for career advice–a scenario I could see Taylor Lautner in at the end of this decade. Yet the unintended moral of Scar Tissue is that the worst kind of bad boy celebrity feigns sensitivity but ultimately lacks the mental or emotional strength to keep good women in their families. To charm is not necessarily to beguile, but to beguile is ultimately to betray. Marco’s ex Layla learns that off-screen. I imagine their daughter Cleo (the remarkable Elle Fanning) did as well.

Yet, for all the bluster and contrarianism that set up this post, I still wasn’t enthralled with Somewhere. I’m fine with the space and silence and boredom of it. I love how editor Sarah Flack lets some scenes play out too long and bluntly abbreviates others. For a quiet movie from a director who uses music (and music supervisor Brian Reitzell) to convey meaning and demonstrate coolness, I appreciate their decision to play out pop songs through stationary cameras instead of employ music video editing. Marco is entertained by twin pole dancers (Kristina and Karissa Shannon) on two occasions. One routine involves candy striper uniforms and the Foo Fighters’ “My Hero.” The other is to Amerie’s “1 Thing” and employs tennis outfits to comic effect. The empty glamor and tedium of fame is best captured in the aural and visual components of these scenes. Yet this is a tired point, and I don’t know what Coppola has to say about celebrity.

Also, for a movie indebted to Italian neorealism, can I just point out that Cleo has entirely too many clothes to fit into her tiny suitcase? I think she wears one sweater twice. Doesn’t scan. Just sayin’, wardrobe department.

The ending to this movie vexes me as well. If I’m right to dislike Marco, the final scene confirms my feelings that he can’t grow as a person. If I’m meant to believe he’s capable of redemption, then Coppola made a mistake. She should have stranded him at the hotel after dropping Cleo off at summer camp. The movie “resolves” with Marco abandoning his luxury car on the side of the road. Sure, he’s walking away from the trappings of fame. But he’s also walking away from his responsibilities as a parent, failing to absorb the meaning of the time he shared with his daughter. Cleo, like Frances Bean, is largely left to raise herself. I bet both of them whip up a mean Eggs Benedict.

As a fan of Postcards From the Edge, I know I'd see a movie about Courtney and Frances; image courtesy of eonline.com

But I do think the movie offers up something interesting about the tenuous nature of father-daughter relationships. My favorite scene in the movie underlines it, and Zacharek interprets beautifully in her review. Marco watches Cleo rehearse a figure skating routine set to Gwen Stefani’s “Cool.” I conceptualize the selection as an oldie to Cleo. Perhaps it’s akin to Alannah Myles’ “Black Velvet,” which was a staple at drill team recitals growing up. Though it’s another female performance Marco watches, the intended benefit is probably for the performer instead of the spectator. On the car ride back to the hotel, his daughter will inform him that she’s been taking lessons for three years. But in this moment, he witnesses her talent and realizes they don’t know one another very well. This scene killed me. I wish I could find it, but here’s the music video.

I cried in part because this year I approach my ten-year high school reunion and, with it, the anniversary of my estrangement from my father. As this scene played out on-screen, I thought about how, as a previous version of himself, he’d fly to Houston to see all my silly school musicals. For the most part, he was a good dad between marriages and was concerned to a fault over me becoming the best version of myself. Of my parents, dad was the movie-goer and made his living as a writer. At an early age, he got me excited about cinema and encouraged me to articulate my opinions about what I experienced, so he definitely would have accompanied me to Somewhere. As an only child to parents who tried really hard to create me, I take a perverse comfort in knowing that if things turned out differently between us he would have championed my writing as ardently as my mother does.

But more than that, I cried because this is ultimately a moment of acceptance between two people. Despite genetics and an easy way with one another crafted by the actors spending quality time together during rehearsal, they aren’t quite family. It’s a point made clear in song selection and masterfully executed by cast and crew. I think Coppola empathizes with all sides. Because Marco might have less to do with her father or brother or boyfriend and may be a manifestation of the director’s concerns about herself and the world her daughters will inherit. Somewhere is a meditation on the awkwardness in forging a parent-child relationship. Coppola doesn’t quite make something transcendent out of it, but she makes yet another beautiful picture that by turns floors and frustrates me.

23
Sep
09

Scene It: Audrey Hepburn and Breakfast at Tiffany’s

Audrey Hepburn sings Moon River; image courtesy of victoriaegs.blogspot.com

Audrey Hepburn sings "Moon River"; image courtesy of victoriaegs.blogspot.com

I started Jeff Smith’s The Sounds of Commerce: Marketing Popular Film Music, which is one of the first and best regarded books on the use of popular music in contemporary film. It also has a pretty sweet cover.

Thinking about Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Audrey Hepburn’s performance of the movie’s theme, Henry Mancini’s “Moon River,” I felt like I had to post the scene and see if it would generate any discussion (keeping in mind, of course, that I’ve only read as far as the intro and haven’t gotten to Smith’s chapter on the movie yet).  

I for one think it’s particularly important to note that Hepburn is singing and strumming the guitar, creating a sense of authenticity (however tenuous) that many argued was missing from her performance as Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady three years later. It was widely reported that Marni Nixon filled in for Hepburn’s musical numbers in the film adaptation of the blockbuster musical. Many speculated that the use of dubbing cost Hepburn the Oscar, while perhaps also quick to remind that Julie Andrews didn’t need a vocal stand-in when she performed the role on Broadway.

But here, Hepburn is clearly singing and playing her acoustic guitar, perhaps further blurring the line between where she stops and the iconic Holly Golightly begins.





 

May 2012
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers