Perverting the Platonic: Depictions of Love Across the Book and Film Adaptations of Breakfast at Tiffany's

Love is a vital component of Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Both the film directed by Blake Edwards and the novella by Truman Capote are centered around the theme of love. However, in the movie, the portrayals of love in the original story are distorted by the addition of romance and subtraction of complexity. The diverging presentations of love between the book and film, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, is the most fundamental change between the film and book and inherently alters the story by misrepresenting Capote’s message surrounding the many complex forms of love.

The novella Breakfast at Tiffany’s discusses love from the very first chapter, and Truman Capote makes a point to showcase non-romantic love before any other form. Joe Bell, the bartender introduced in the first chapter, loves Holly, but it is entirely non-sexual. When the narrator assumes Joe is attracted to Holly, Joe explains to him, “And I swear, it never crossed my mind about Holly. You can love somebody without it being like that. You keep them a stranger, a stranger who’s a friend” (Capote 9). Through this early depiction of non-sexual love, Capote tells the reader that he isn’t limiting himself to only media-typical portrayals of romantic love, and this extends throughout the entire book.

In the novella, Breakfast at Tiffany’s the relationship between Holly and the narrator is purely platonic. The narrator writes about Holly, “For I was a little in love with her. Just as I’d once been in love with my mother’s colored cook and a postman who let me follow him on his rounds and a whole family named McKendrick. That category of love generates jealousy, too” (Capote 60). Though he does love her intensely, his love for her is not sexual or romantic. Conversely, when Paul – the movie version of the narrator – proclaims that he is in love with Holly, it is within the context of their romantic relationship.

The nature of their relationship, as a whole, is intrinsically different between the two adaptations due to the change in the character’s ages. There is a distinct difference between the relationship between two adult heterosexual individuals and the relationship between a queer-coded adult man and a teenage girl. The casting of thirty-one-year-old Audrey Hepburn (IMDb) and the establishment of the male lead as heterosexual, through his lover, completely alters the relationship between the two. It creates the space for a romantic or sexual encounter that is not present in the novella, allowing for this fundamental change to the depictions of love and the narrative arc. 

Even outside of the labels of platonic, romantic, and sexual love, there is a clear difference in how the love of the narrator/Paul is portrayed in the film and the book. In the movie, during the taxi scene, Paul proclaims, “I love you. You belong to me” (Breakfast at Tiffany’s 1:49:05-9). Paul understands love in the context of ownership. Holly is something that belongs to him. In contrast, the novel ends with the narrator reflecting that he hopes Holly has arrived somewhere that she belongs. The narrator understands that he has no claim to Holly, and he loves her enough to want the best for her – even if that isn’t him. As the narrator says, in his own words, “I loved her enough to forget myself, my self-pitying despairs, and be content that something she thought happy was going to happen” (Capote 69). 

  Holly’s own understanding of love throughout the story is extraordinarily different in the book and film adaptations. In the film, Holly’s perspective on love evolves throughout the narrative. The implication of the ending scene is that, through her love for Paul, she learns how to love – romantically and sexually – in a healthy way, and it is a major part of her character development. She grows and changes, and therefore, is able to love Paul. Conversely, in the book, her perspective on love – as well as the rest of her character – remains stagnant. She never seems to disagree with her conviction that “You can make yourself love anyone” (Capote 32). She doesn’t understand love the way most people do — as something transcendental to material needs. When she and the narrator part ways, she still believes, as she did at the start of the story, that love is something that can be forced so as to provide for oneself. The change in Holly’s character and understanding of love inherently changes the meaning of the story.

The change from a platonic relationship between Holly and the narrator to a romantic relationship between Holly and Paul also alters the story fundamentally. The book is a tragedy, but the movie presents the story as a romance. In the movie, Holly gets her happy ending; she finds love and finds the cat. This change from a tragic ending to a hopeful one is intrinsically tied to the portrayals of love in the two adaptations. The overall change in focus from non-romantic to romantic love is the most significant example of how the portrayals of love in the two adaptations of Breakfast at Tiffany’s perverts the original narrative of the novella.

Another example of the pronounced difference in the portrayals of love in the book and film is the complete lack of explicit reference to homosexual relationships in the film. This could be attributed to the time period in which it was created, but the book, written only a few years earlier, includes a large number of references to LGBTQ relationships and love. For example, Holly tells the narrator, “If you came to me and said you wanted to hitch up with a Man O’ War, I’d respect your feelings. No, I’m serious. Love should be allowed. I’m all for it” (Capote 66). This is a very progressive and positive view of homosexual love between men. In contrast, though there may be hints of these perspectives, the film completely lacks this explicit commentary on love between same-sex couples. This deficit of queerness changes the story in an essential way – not only because it opens the door to a romance between Holly and the narrator. The LGBTQ themes are a vital part of Capote’s work. The theme of homosexuality and queerness is lost in the film adaptation, and the absence of definite queer discussion in the movie detracts from the complexity created by Capote. 

The simplification of love, as simply being romantic and heterosexual, in the film means that it is intrinsically unable to fully convey Capote’s story. The book is, in part, about the many forms love can take. From the twisted love Holly feels for the men who provide for her, to the intense platonic love the narrator has for Holly, love exists in many different forms in the novel. The book itself is concerned with how someone the narrator loved – Holly Golightly – changed him as a person; the film, however, is about how Paul fell in love with Holly. It unravels the beautifully complex narrative about how one person’s life can intertwine with another's – though sometimes only for a season – and perverts it into a romance created for mass appeal. 

Of course, there are a few similarities between the portrayals of love in the book and the movie. Examples of this include the “love” between Doc and Holly and Holly’s eventual fondness for the cat – even if the outcome of that fondness is different. However, this is largely due to the fact that the interactions between Doc and Holly are nearly identical in both adaptations, and though in the final scenes of the film adaptation the cat’s fate is changed from the book, the other interactions – and the realization that she does belong to the cat – are analogous to each other. Despite these minor examples, the major depictions of love in both versions are so alien to one another that, even with these similarities, the narrative arcs diverge completely into two separate stories.

The complex depictions of – and commentary on – non-conventional forms of love in the book, are completely lost in the romance that was crudely constructed using Capote’s characters. The divergent perspectives on love across the two adaptations mean that, though they share characters, dialogue, and a few vague plot points, they present as two completely separate narratives in two completely separate genres. The simplification of love in the film Breakfast at Tiffany’s perverts Truman Capote’s original tragic story into a romance generated to maximize popularity. These differing uses of love and its nature inherently alter the meaning and story of Breakfast at Tiffany’s across the media of film and the written word. Indeed, the changes are so significant that the film and novella can be sorted into different genres – romance and tragedy.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Directed by Blake Edwards. Performances by Audrey Hepburn and 

George Peppard. Paramount Pictures, 1961.

“Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0054698/.

Capote, Truman. Breakfast at Tiffany's: A Short Novel and Three Stories. Random House, 1958.