OP-ED “Truth Is…”
Post by Jennifer Kiley
Post Monday 8th December 2014
RANT of the Week
“The most important kind of freedom is to be what you really are. You trade in your reality for a role. You trade in your sense for an act. You give up your ability to feel, and in exchange, put on a mask. There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.”
― Jim Morrison
Truth is…speaking honestly about what we perceive.
Truth is…knowing an idea to be real.
Truth is…real in the sense it is believed and may be able to be proven.
Truth is…I want to Imagine John Lennon alive.
Truth is…what it is.
Truth is…open to knowing.
Truth is…often buried.
Truth is…an awakening beyond knowledge.
Truth is…not always welcomed.
Truth is…destructive but destructive is neither bad nor good.
Truth is…neither bad nor good.
Truth is…a means and way to find one’s self.
Truth is…a process to seek.
THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES FOR TRUTH. I WILL KEEP THIS TRAIL ALIVE. WHAT IS TRUTH TO ANYONE? <3 jkm/tsk
QUOTE of the Week
“Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behaviour and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong.” ― Terence McKenna
VIDEO of the Week
Tycho – See
POSTER of the Week
EYE OPENER of the Week
Cause & Effect / How World War One Started
Fav Top Ten Films #3: Marnie
Post Create by Jk the secret keeper
Film Review Written by Jennifer Kiley
Illustrated by j. kiley
Post Created On Tuesday 17th September 2013
Posted on Friday 20th September 2013
Marnie (1964) A+
Director Alfred Hitchcock
Written by Jennifer Kiley
“Marnie” is released to the public following “The Birds,” which was preceded by “Psycho.” At the time “Marnie” was not a financial success at the box office but has become a cult film, which this writer has seen in the triple digits since I was a kid, and felt a strong connection to the film. I may have been too young to grasp all the subtleties but it enthralled me.
It is like watching a car accident for some people, I have never been able to look away. Whenever I find it is on television these days, I pull out my own DVD, unless it is on an ad free channel, and settle in to watch it again. There just is something about “Marnie.” It is addicting and compelling. To watch a young woman go through so much turmoil and the people she meets all seem to be out to try and take something away from her.
In the first scene, Margaret Edgar, alias Marnie is introduced as she’s walking on the platform of a train station. The film’s protagonist, played by Tippi Hedren of “The Birds” fame, is constantly changing her appearance away from her natural blonde, to a disguise of varying hair colours, in order for her to take on new identities.
She moves from job to job, always as someone different. Now, there is a reason she does all these makeovers. Simply put, she is a kleptomaniac. She gets hired into job where the bosses are thrown by her beauty and hire, more times than not, without any references. The dirty old men that they are, get what they deserve. She rips them off of lots of money from there supposedly secure safes.
One of these times, Mark Rutland happens to be visiting her employer and cannot help but notice her beauty and her strange tick. She pulls down her skirt just a shade, to give the appearance of being modest, when in actuality it is to lure in her victims or to unconsciously exhibit her dislike of any man looking at her in a sexual manner.We learn that she’s a thief, an unstable woman who moves from job to job, changing names, physical appearance, and wardrobe.
She is hired as a secretary by Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), He, of course immediately after he observes her pulling down the hem of her skirt. Unfazed, she steals money from his company’s safe and then disappears.
Mark, however, is smarter than she thinks he is, and upon discovery of the theft, he searches for her and finds her. At this point, Mark announces his intent to marry her, instead of reporting her to the police. Marnie has no alternative but to comply.
Mark slowly becomes aware of Marnie’s problems, including her kleptomania and her being emotionally fragile. Eventually, he realizes she had a troubled childhood and this is the cause of her problems.
Mark is sincere in wanting to help Marnie. Trying to give her a sense of hope but instead, in the beginning he causes her more pain than comfort. There is an element of a Freudian psychological condition growing within her, which needs examining and exposure, in order for her to regain any sense of balance in her life.
Mark wants to play the psychiatrist who helps her. In one scene when Marnie is having a nightmare, Lil gets to her first, but Mark quickly dismisses Lil away. He attempts to question Marnie. They end up playing free association, at Marnie’s suggestion. She says to Mark, “I bet you can’t wait to play psychiatrist.”
That’s how the game begins, as a challenge. Marnie felt she would push Mark away if she played along with his attempts to help. If she succeeded, she thought he would just leave her alone. It backfires on Marnie. It starts out simple, but the words Mark starts slowly to trick Marnie. He gradually builds up the speed of firing the words at her until he gets to “red.”
Throughout the film, the colour “red” is significant, and Mark is trying to figure out what is its significance. He does want to help her but he has his own nature with which to contend. Mark keeps trying until he eventually gets a lead in which he feels could resolve Marnie’s nightmares.
Mark is gentle with Marnie, once he establishes with her, he is in control. Not to destroy her, but to help her regain a sense of well-being. He realizes she has many sensitivities, one of which is her loathing the touch of a man, any man, including him. He is patient and tries to be loving, tender and understanding. But >he is motivated by intense feeling of desire. Marnie is beautiful and desirable.
Near the end of the film, a mutual expression of love grows into a feeling of hope. He takes Marnie to see her mother. But before he does this he explains to her, they will work out somehow the thefts she committed. With some understanding and explaining and offering up the amount of money she stole, Mark feels people will be understanding when they discover just what Marnie went through when she was young.
Eventually, his lust and patience collide. The gentleman loses the battle with sensitivity. He is no longer, in a moment of temptation, able to hold back his urges. His need to have his wife, Marnie, overcomes his control to be reserved and understanding. He is overcome by a powerful urge to possess what he desires. In the following obvious statement, “I’ve really trapped a wild thing this time,” demonstrates some of his need to dominate and to control her completely.
Mark and Marnie show up at her mother’s place. After they literally push their way into the house, past Marnie’s mom, a lightning storm explodes. Marnie begins to react with fear. Her mom, Bernice wants them to leave. When Marnie tries to seek comfort from her mother at any time, Bernice cannot handle the closeness and rejects her daughter repeatedly, always saying the same phrase: “Marnie, honey, you’re achin’ my leg.” It’s when Marnie rests her head in her lap, she is always rejected. A relationship so tenuous and confusing. Marnie never understands why her mother always pushes her away.
In the final moments of the film, a great deal is explained by the scenes which show exactly why Marnie developed into the person she has become. Now you know I am not going to tell what happens in this review. It is a must see film and the ending is a real killer.The last frames of the film show Mark and Marnie driving away, heading toward the docks, there appears a ship in the harbour. There are sea gulls flying about and children are playing jump rope while singing a song.The dock is obviously a mat but the film was made a long time ago and it does give the odd impression you are on a stage. As though the reality is all a dream. As the effect of the revealing sequence appears to be a dream.To explain the colour “red,” it is left to the observer to put the pieces together. What does “red” symbolize to most people? Is it a fusion of sex, violence, and death? Is this the overriding emotional struggle throughout the film? These questions can only be answered by watching this visually enhancing film, with tension continually building until its conclusion, where all is revealed in a most dramatic and disturbing finale.
Marnie Edgar (Tippi Hedren)
Mark Ruthland (Sean Connery)
Lil Mainwaring (Diane Baker)
Sidney Strutt (Martin Gabel)
Bernice Edgar (Louise Latham)
Cousin Bob (Bob Sweeney)
Man at the Track (Milton Selzer)
Mr. Ruthland (Alan Napier)
First Detective (Henry Beckman)
Rita (Edith Evanson)
Produced and directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Screenplay: Jay Presson Allen
Based on the novel by Winston Graham
Camera: Robert Burks
Editor: George Tomasini
Music: Bernard Herrmann
Production design: Robert Boyle
Costumes: Edith Head
Kittens On the Way via LSD
Written by Jennifer Kiley
Illustrated by j. kiley
Poster from Butterflies Oftime
Post Created Monday 9th September 2013
Posted On Monday 9th September 2012
Dedicated to our new kittens on the way from Lorca [LSD] Suzuki Darwin.
She is our newest refuge mum kitty to wander to our doorstep looking for sustenance. Did she ask for a home? She wasn’t that pushy but she needed one. She was starving and later to be discovered to be just petite. The vet, after ultra-sound, heard at least two kitten heartbeats. She was assuredly quite pregnant.
Does this mean a new mother kitty at our door next year?
Gatsby showed up last year in early April 2012. She was thrown over a chain-linked fence. Same results, petite and definitely pregnant. She gave us Carter, Poe and Parker. Unfortunately, she died suddenly of FIP. We had her for just over a year and a few months. She gave us her darlings to care for the rest of their lives. I love all three, but don’t let the other two know, I am addicted to Carter. He is the one in this photograph.
Still deciding how many if more than one will Shawn & I keep. I have a promise of one if she/he is a longed haired Black & White kitten. She/he has a name already. It is “Beane Sprout” after a kitten we found and who died from Leukemia a year later. A very sad and long moment in time. We even tried blood transfusions, which gave us two more weeks with her. I was so not in reality thinking that would help her survive. She was our baby. We would have tried anything, as long as it didn’t hurt her. Sprout was a prize baby.
Someone actually threw her into a dumpster in our ally when we lived in an apartment. It was winter and cold. Friends were over. I kept hearing strange sounds coming from outside. Couldn’t figure it out. Someone braved the weather and went on a search. In they came with a soaking wet small kitten. I turn into mother immediately. Gave orders as kindly as I could for dry towels, an opened can of cat food.
After drying her up, I bundled her up and put the open can of yummy cat food in front of her face. She was starving. She inhaled as much as she could and eventually fell asleep in my arms.
She slipped away from this world the same way she entered it, being rocked in my arms and snuggled. Shawn and I talked quietly to her. We tried the vet. All he could say is that he could do nothing, that we should just let her die. He made me so furious. I didn’t want to lose her. I loved her so much. She loved us so much.
She was my shadow. I still miss her so much it makes me cry to think of her. It is why I pray and it is so important that Lorca bring her back to me in this new family she is going to bring into our lives. Written by Jennifer Kiley
I’d make this deal with any kitten, any day.
[See poster below for the deal]
Favorite Top Ten Films of All Time [#5]
Breakfast at Tiffany’s: When Audrey Hepburn won Marilyn Monroe’s role
List Created by Jennifer Kiley
Illustrated by j. kiley
Movie Trailers by Jk the secret keeper
Post Created on 21st August 2013
Posted On Friday 23rd August 2013
Favorite Top Ten Films of All Time [#5]
List Created by Jennifer Kiley
#5th — Breakfast at Tiffany’s
Breakfast at Tiffany’s: When Audrey Hepburn won Marilyn Monroe’s role
How Truman Capote’s novella became a great Hollywood film by Sarah Churchwell
Breakfast at Tiffany’s
Audrey Hepburn the perfect Holly Golightly in the film of Breakfast at Tiffany’s
This is a fascinating review. I do not agree Audrey was miscast but I do agree that she was perfect for the role of Holly Golightly. It is a moving, complicated, sad, romantic, thought provoking, amusing film, I feel one of Blake Edwards’ and Audrey Hepburn’s masterpieces. The review coming up by Sarah Churchwell was brilliantly thought out. And tells the tale well of Breakfast At Tiffany’s and the rebirth of two people who have had it rough in their lives. A worthy film to watch for enjoyment but also to find compassion for two lost souls and the learning to love and to feel like you can belong to something and someone. Not in a way that smothers but in a way that sets you free so you are able to love.
I must mention my two favorite scenes in the entire film, not that I didn’t love every scene. But there is a scene out on the fire escape when Holly is playing the guitar and singing Henry Mancini’s “Moon River,” it is so vulnerable a moment. If you are familiar with this song and have seen the film you understand why. The other scene is during a rainstorm, and Holly and Paul aka Fred are searching for something very precious. It makes you frantic and sad and angry all in one moment, through an entire scene. If you see the film for the first time, remember to look for these two scenes. There are plenty of other scenes that move you but not the same as these two.
All Marilyn Monroe fans will be interested in reading this review, also. It seems Truman Capote wrote the novella with her in mind to eventually play the role of Holly Golightly. I love Marilyn but somehow after seeing Audrey Hepburn imprint herself on this role. I cannot imagine Marilyn doing it at all. It doesn’t seem to fit in my mind. It would have been interesting to see her do it on the stage. That would have been a treat if I had been old enough back at the time Marilyn was alive. A note I found out after writing this is that Marilyn rejected doing the part because her coach felt the character was of ill repute and it wasn’t a good impression to make playing someone who people would see as a “whore.” Of course, the way Audrey Hepburn plays the role, one only sees Audrey being her admirable self in a character who is carefree on the outside and heartbroken and terrified of too close a relationship and commitment with anyone, man nor beast.
So enjoy reading a unique approach to Breakfast At Tiffany’s. I will leave you the words, it deserves to be on my Favorite Top Ten List of Films. I feel if you take the time to see Breakfast At Tiffany’s, you will feel the same. It is a delight to watch Audrey develop into a butterfly during the course of the film. Enjoy reading the rest of the review, the photographs, posters, movie trailer(s), interviews, and film clips, and a documentary on the making of Breakfast at Tuffany’s and in the documentary, the joy for Blake Edward fans, being able to see and him talk about a film he was extremely proud to be part of and his delightful in being the director. From my impression, Audrey and Blake had quite the interesting relationship.
I know that Blake’s wife Julie Andrews became friends with Audrey and the ordeal over Jack Warner choosing Audrey to play Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady was never really a problem between the two of them. In fact, Audrey told Julie she wouldn’t take the role if Julie didn’t want her to. But then she discovered that Jack Warner was never going to give the role to Julie ever. In fact, he went on to give the role of Guinevere in Camelot to Vanessa Redgrave. For those who don’t know Julie played both the roles on Broadway. So Audrey decided that if Julie was never to get the role then why not her play the role. She really wanted to do it.
Of course, once Audrey began the part, they decided not to let her sing. To me that is so bizarre to cast someone who can’t sing at the level the part called for seems rather ridiculous. If it is a a singing part, you hire an actor who can really sing. [I only say that now. I am grateful that Natalie Wood played the role of Maria in West Side Story but didn’t get to sing either. It was usually Marni Nixon who dubbed for most of those females who couldn’t do it.]
Now, I use to be so upset with Audrey until I discovered this information and that Julie was truly alright with Audrey playing Eliza. Now I am over it but I really would have liked to see Julie playing Eliza. If she had then what would have happened with Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music? I’m sure she would have done those roles but the timing would have been so off. Instead she gets an Oscar & Golden Globe for Mary Poppins and a nomination for Maria in The Sound of Music and best picture also. And she became the number one star for the 70s. Take that Jack Warner.
And now onto the intriguing review of Breakfast at Tiffany’s written in 2009 by the British Journalist for The Guardian, Sarah Churchwell. Introduction by Jennifer Kiley
Production year: 1961
Cert (UK): PG
Runtime: 115 mins
Director: Blake Edwards
Adapted from Novella Written by Truman Capote
Cast: Audrey Hepburn: Holly Golightly (money for the powder room)
George Peppard: Paul Varjak (kept man-writer-based on Truman Capote except that Truman was gay & Paul is not)Holly calls him Fred
Patricia Neal: (Paul’s designer/keeper)
Buddy Ebsen: Doc (Holly’s Husband-robbed the cradle-Holly ran away from that life)
Friday 4th September 2009
It doesn’t take much these days for a tale to be described as a “Cinderella story”: anything resembling a makeover, however superficial, will usually suffice. But Breakfast at Tiffany’s really is a variation on the Cinderella theme, the tale of a young girl who escapes a dangerous adolescence and transforms herself through aspiration – a sheer act of will – but who may not live happily ever after. Like Cinderella, it is a story about struggling to escape. And it is a story about self-fashioning. Breakfast at Tiffany’s suggests to every woman – and many of the men – in the audience that they could reinvent themselves, liberate the golden girl hidden beneath ordinary, even debased, trappings.
Much of the writing about the film of Breakfast at Tiffany’s acknowledges that when Hollywood bought the rights to the story, Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe to play Holly Golightly. Most accounts treat this as yet another of Capote’s many idiosyncracies, if they consider it at all – who could imagine Monroe instead of Audrey Hepburn in one of her most iconic roles? But for anyone familiar with either Monroe or the novella, it’s not really that much of a stretch.
In fact, as many of the film’s first critics observed, Hepburn is entirely wrong for Holly, a character who turns out to be a vagrant from west Texas whose real name is Lulamae Barnes. It is difficult to conceive of a woman less likely ever to have been called Lulamae, let alone “a hillbilly or an Okie or what” (as Holly’s agent OJ Berman refers to Lulamae) than Audrey Hepburn. She could be an ingénue, a naif, anything French you like. But a redneck? A hick from a Texas dirt-farm? That’s even more implausible than Cary Grant as an Oregon lumberjack in To Catch a Thief some five years earlier. Every inch of Audrey Hepburn exudes aristocratic chic.
Monroe, by contrast, whom Capote knew well, though raised in California rather than Texas, was originally named Norma Jeane (with an E, like Lulamae), and her parallels with Capote’s Holly do not end there. She was a depression-era orphan who was both exploited and saved by older men. As an adult she would allude to childhood molestations (when reckoning how many lovers she’s had, Capote’s Holly dismisses “anything that happened before I was 13, because, after all, that just doesn’t count”). She has an upturned nose, tousled, “somewhat self-induced” short, blonde hair (“strands of albino-blonde and yellow”) and “large eyes, a little blue, a little green”.
She is befriended by an extremely short, powerful Hollywood agent who recognises her potential and helps her reinvent herself, renaming her and providing her with access to education and a more sophisticated veneer. She runs away to New York just as success in Hollywood seems assured – although Holly, unlike Monroe, knows she doesn’t have it in her to be a star, because she lacks the drive that precisely characterised Monroe (as Capote understood). Like Monroe, Holly is in it for the “self-improvement”, as she tells the narrator. She’s been around the block, for which she never apologises, and she ends as an icon, a fertility symbol (the narrator sees a picture of Holly carved as an African fetish). Most of all, Monroe, like Capote’s Holly, “is a phony. But on the other hand . . . she isn’t a phony because she’s a real phony”. The novella’s Holly, her agent knows, is “strictly a girl you’ll read where she ends up at the bottom of a bottle of Seconals”. Mind you, the novella was published in 1958: four years before Monroe ended up at the bottom of a bottle of Nembutals. It’s a fable about a Monroe manqué, who lacks her ambition – and may thus escape her fate.
[I do not agree with the statement Marilyn ended up at the bottom of a bottle of Nembutals. There are many theories which do not support that conclusion. It is possible some found Marilyn asleep after taking something to help her drop off. But I believe the Nembutals were introduced into her system in a manner where they would dissolve long enough to disappear from her system before an autopsy could be done. There were no Nembutal found in her system. Yet, she supposedly died from an overdose. Nothing she took herself. The amount which would have killed her she couldn’t have taken without passing out before all the pills were swallowed. A curious dilemma, and also, her body had been moved from the location where she died and she was placed into her bed. She was found lying in the wrong position for the way the evidence was recorded. So, I object to the making of a comment about Marilyn “ending up at the bottom of a bottle of Nembutal.” She didn’t and I still believe someone took her life. There were too many reasons for others to have done it than for Marilyn to have been able to succeed at taking the lethal dose. My opinion by Jennifer Kiley]
Blake Edwards’s film adaptation was released in 1961, a little less than a year before Monroe died. And much to her disappointment, she didn’t win the part that had been written for, and about, her. Holly could have been the performance of a lifetime – as it would have been the performance of her lifetime. Moreover Holly, despite being blonde, is decidedly not dumb, and Monroe was desperate to escape being typecast.
But Hepburn won the part, and in retrospect it is easy to see why. Hepburn, far more than Monroe, had become indelibly associated with the transformative Cinderella makeover. Although Holly, like Monroe – and like Capote, in fact – all sprang from a Platonic conception of themselves (in F Scott Fitzgerald’s famous phrase), for them the fissures between the earlier self and the public persona always showed, and threatened to split them apart. Hepburn was the only one whose stardom seemed to reflect her authentic self – as if she were not an actor but a true princess, an authentic queen.
In one way, Capote was certainly an authentic queen. But he was never able to shed his sense of belonging on the margins. The neglected child from Louisiana, the prodigy who transformed himself into a celebrity, never believed that he belonged in the castle. As he wrote of his own alter ego, the unnamed narrator of Tiffany’s, he lived perpetually with “his nose pressed on the glass”, wanting “awfully to be on the inside staring out”. Capote, who was born Truman Parsons, was himself an aspiring Cinderella; like Holly he was renamed, reinvented, and left eternally waiting for the right fairy godmother.
Cinderella was not, originally, a poor child raised to the rank of princess. In the stories of Charles Perrault and the Brothers Grimm, Cinderella begins life in privilege and wealth – in earlier versions she’s even a princess – who is wrongly deprived of her rightful status by those who envy her power and beauty. It is less a story of metamorphosis than of revelation: the transformation only reveals the original self. On screen, we never saw Norma Jeane become Monroe: we knew her only after the fall. But for Hepburn, every definitive role leading up to Breakfast at Tiffany’s – and continuing to My Fair Lady – featured her being transformed, the butterfly emerging from the chrysalis. And unlike Monroe, who was always seen as having transformed into something artificial, Hepburn was only ever transformed back into her own luminous, immanent self.
The story of our culture’s subsequent love affair with the film of Breakfast at Tiffany’s – and not with the novella, which may be admired, and certainly has the cachet of its author, but is hardly well-beloved, much less well-read – is really about our love affair with Audrey Hepburn, the movie star. The persona she consistently projected was of authentic, intrinsic refinement, of chic sophistication that was never brittle or cold, of an instinctive stylishness that reached its epitome in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The moment when Hepburn first emerges in the film still ranks as one of the great screen makeovers of all time.
The title credits roll over a scene of condensed, symbolic wishing: Hollywood as dream factory. Hepburn is standing, very slim, in a long, black column dress with a glittering, enormous collar necklace and the trademark black sunglasses that Jackie O would adopt a few years later. (Jackie O’s supposedly iconic looks markedly resemble Hepburn’s from a few years earlier.) The camera encourages us to gaze longingly with her through the Tiffany’s window at diamonds and other jewels; and then she strolls up the street, munching the doughnut that we know is probably the only doughnut Hepburn ever ate in her life. But it is precisely these little touches of normality, of the ordinary, that humanised Hepburn’s image.
The next time we see her, she is asleep, wearing an absurd eye-mask and dangling ear-plugs with little blue tassels. She groggily awakes and pulls on a man’s tuxedo shirt – one of the film’s few insinuations that she may entertain “gentlemen callers” overnight – and, hair awry, opens the door to George Peppard, playing Capote’s alter ego: straightened, masculinised and elongated (Capote was just 5ft 3in). Paul Varjak – as the film arbitrarily names the writer who will be cast as Holly’s obligatory love interest – is locked out; Holly lets him in and realises that she has an appointment. A frantic rush to get dressed ensues, as Holly hunts for alligator pumps, brushes her teeth, puts on an enormous hat, and emerges from the bedroom as – voilà! – Audrey Hepburn. The camera lingers lovingly on a close-up of her dazzling smile as she asks, half-coyly, half-sweetly: “Surprised?” “Amazed,” responds Varjak – and so are we, the transformation is so quick, so easy, so absolute. Or we would be amazed, if it weren’t for the fact that we were always waiting for it.
One of the things that makes this transformation so effective is its apparent effortlessness. All she needs are the right hat and a little black dress (it was Hepburn who turned the Little Black Dress into the wardrobe staple it remains today) and there she is, like magic, with the wave of a fairy godmother’s wand. From Now, Voyager to Pretty Woman, Hollywood has sold stories that centre on metamorphosis, when ugly ducklings become beautiful swans or streetwalkers become homemakers. The appeal of transformation is the appeal of self-improvement: some women are born beautiful, some have beauty thrust upon them – but Hollywood promises that beauty can be achieved. The romance of Breakfast at Tiffany’s is not really with Peppard (in the only leading role he’ll be remembered for) but with Hepburn herself, with the fantasy of artless sophistication she embodies. Hepburn (again, unlike Monroe) never appeared to try too hard.
Hepburn’s iconic transfigurations extend back to her first, Oscar-winning, starring role in Roman Holiday in 1953 (the same year, incidentally, of Monroe’s breakthrough role in Niagara). In a kind of inside-out Cinderella story, Hepburn, as Princess Ann, has one perfect day in Rome, riding around on the back of Gregory Peck’s moped, before the clock strikes midnight and she returns to her duties, without Prince Charming, but secure in the knowledge of his love. And part of her metamorphosis comes when she crops her hair, trades a few accessories, including her shoes, rolls up her sleeves, unbuttons her collar, and instantly achieves the insouciant gamine look that would become her trademark.
Hepburn’s next film, Sabrina, featured a more prolonged transformation, again from pony-tailed adolescent into pixie-cropped personification of soignée style. Sabrina added a fairy godfather in the form of a French baron so old that his intentions – and hence her morals – are never in question. Soon after came Funny Face, and another makeover, the first that the story represents as requiring an army of fashionistas and photographers (but only because it takes that many to overcome her character’s resistance to being objectified). Eventually, with My Fair Lady, Hepburn would play the ultimate transformed object in Eliza Doolittle, a woman who is initially not at all the author of her own transformation. When Hepburn started playing the Princess, she stopped being Cinderella – for good. It was almost as if she didn’t have to, because her definitive persona had been fixed. The princess had emerged.
The film of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, like Capote’s novella, sees Holly as half-Cinderella, half-Pygmalion – Doc, who saves her, and begins to educate her, however primitively; like a female Huck Finn, lights out for the territories, escaping the confinements of “civilization”.
But Hollywood would never release Hepburn into the wild – not least because she so patently doesn’t belong there. The film also has a romance with New York, which it doesn’t want her to leave. So along comes the final Pygmalion, the writer Paul Varjak, who finishes domesticating Holly. Capote’s Holly is too mobile and erratic for a Hollywood just emerging from the 1950s. She is a vagrant playgirl; her only permanent state, as she prints on her calling cards, is that she is “Miss Holiday Golightly, Travelling”. And it means something very different for a woman to be a tramp than for a man.
This is why, for the story to work as a romance, Holly’s indiscretions need to be cancelled out, as it were, by those of a lover who has also fallen prey to the lure of sexual economics, who has also sold himself. It is not just that Hollywood has to inject a love story wherever it finds a beautiful woman (although that is certainly the case) but that the man must ultimately redeem her, and himself, from a life of sexual opportunism that she describes in euphemistic terms as receiving money “for trips to the powder room”, and he describes as “having a decorator”.
Like Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, Breakfast at Tiffany’s is fundamentally a story of the American dream. Capote’s novella, if not about nightmares, is certainly about the costs of the dream. The film – like most Hollywood movies – is determined to view dreams as wish-fulfilment. And by no coincidence it took a European movie star with aristocratic heritage to bring the American dream to life in all its sentimental romance, because the American dream is, in part, a dream about being the real thing, about belonging. Like Holly Golightly and Monroe, Jay Gatsby is a real phony. But Hepburn was a dream of authenticity rather than imitation, of success rather than failure, of security rather than escape.
You can call it sentimental, even cheap and manipulative. Capote certainly did, and many critics followed suit: an early review declared that Hepburn was “viciously, pathologically miscast” as Holly. This is undeniable – but it is also why the film works on its own terms, and has become so culturally distinct from the novella. Despite how much of the story and even of Capote’s dialogue it keeps, it is a fundamentally different tale because its tone and mood is so at odds with Capote’s. The film is, in a word, sunny; it is full of hope. The novella is full of shadows and terrors.
In the end, though, shadows are no truer than sunlight. Edwards’s film is unquestionably escapist, and it eagerly encourages us not to think about how sordid and sad its characters and story actually are. That’s what romance is. And in fact Capote’s novella is rife with its own sentimentalities, in love with a romantic notion of loss and escape. Capote’s Holly is essentially a variation on the hooker with a heart of gold, and the novella is dominated by a kind of willed cynicism, a veneer of sophisticated experience belied by the ending, in which the narrator sighs over his unconvincing hope that this “wild thing” has at last found a home. The film Breakfast at Tiffany’s is dominated by a willed innocence, a romance with romance itself. But in fact the innocence of Capote’s Holly is willed, too – which is what Hollywood gets right. As she tells the narrator in the novella: “I haven’t anything against whores. Except this: some of them may have an honest tongue but they all have dishonest hearts. I mean, you can’t bang the guy and cash his checks and at least not try to love him.” The morality lies in the effort to have an honest heart, genuinely to feel the emotion: and the film shares this moral code. Hollywood has always pandered to us, selling a vast, vulgar and alluring but false beauty. The makers of the film are, metaphorically speaking, banging Holly; they’re exploiting her story, selling her out, maybe even corrupting her – but they are also trying very hard to love her, and they want us to love her, too.
Inky Cherie — Moon River — Composed by Henri Mancini for Breakfast at Tiffany’sA very delicate rendition of Moon River. A Beautiful voice with very little accompaniment.
Happy Birthday My Friend on Sunday 11th August 2013
Created For My Friend On Her Birthday
Jk ‘the secret keeper’
Posted On Sunday 11th August 2013
A Writer’s Word
Words Streaming With Hidden Meaning
By Jennifer Kiley
Words Stringing Together
Needing-Wanting-Any Order Will Do
The Eternal Definition:
[place your order] One With Everything [think about it]
Find Peace In Breathing Deeply
Writing-Star Light-Infinite Space
Love-Give-Give To You
Be One-Love One-Love All-In Peace
Night-Time-Space Travel-All Is One
Be Here Now
© jennifer kiley 2013
by Jennifer Kiley
Long ago in times past we met
You were known to me as another
And I found in you a stranger
Who I let into my life
You needed my help
It was offered and accepted
Slowly your newness wore off
Revealed was a gentle spirit
With the talent to move creation
You were a pagan, loving nature
We lived in hidden places
Being searched out by danger
We ended protecting the other
Finding closeness in our plight
Guarded by protective spirits
We found solace in one another
Your eyes watched over me
As mine watched over you
Our closeness grew with time
Our journeys had merged
Out of safety and from love
Our souls were joining
In mutual compassion
We became one
© jennifer kiley 2013
Love walks a tightrope barefoot over a bottomless pit
engulfed in flames and never looks back.
Love conjures a smile through tears.
Love believes impossible things are possible.
Love is truth, and as such, is sometimes painful.
Love is necessary.
Love is the beauty that shines through cracks
in imperfectly broken things.
Love is hanging your arm out of an open car window
on a hot summer’s day road trip
and pretending to fly.
Love whispers “it gets better”.
Love makes you cry at weddings
and laugh at funerals.
Love pushes you, challenges you,
refuses to let you compromise.
Love never backs down no matter
how hard you fight.
Love is that one song you play over and over
a hundred times and never get tired of.
Love takes charge when you’ve lost all hope,
and makes sure you keep going.
Love thinks you’re amazing
and doesn’t give a fuck
how depressed, angry, ugly,
or stupid you feel.
Love is lightning bugs.
Love is spinning ‘round and ‘round
in circles until you fall down.
Love is the wave that knocks you off
your feet when your back is turned.
Love is stubborn,
and won’t take “no” for an answer.
Love is fearless.
Love is also blind, deaf, and dumb —
and that’s a good thing.
Written by Jennifer Kiley
23rd July 2012
Love is…something that can take your breath away.
Love is…expected to be given to a baby when s/he is born.
Love is…spiritually powerful.
Love is…a feeling.
Love is…falling into a pleasant state of ecstasy.
Love is…spoken in poetic words that have no limit in the ways they are expressed.
Love is…what you feel for a friend one cares about in a gentle way.
Love is…written about by all poets and writers.
Love is…the best part of most plays written by Shakespeare.
Love is…the most misunderstood communication between people.
Love is…an incredibly powerful word.
Love is…a feeling of intense devotion and heartfelt emotion for someone.
Love is…an intense word used when there are emotional feelings for someone special.
Love is…not something that can be easily explained. and you don’t truly know what it is until it happens to you.
Love is…a strong feeling of affection towards another.
Love is…talking on Skype and not wanting to end chat.
Love is…the happiest feeling in the world…it is better to have loved then to never loved at all.
Love is…a force of nature which, like any other natural phenomenon, cannot be civilized, contained or contended…a force which cannot be controlled, avoided, destroyed or escaped.
Love is…an emotion usually described as ‘indescribable’ because you cannot find the right word to match your feeling of being completely and utterly captivated by someone.
Love is…something too complicated to define according to The Encyclopedia Britannica.
Love is…an amazing feeling that almost makes your heart burst with this overwhelming passion for someone.
Love is…passion, romance. a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person.
Love is…a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person.
Love is…a zero score in tennis.
Love is…what drives you.
Love is…a great victory of human imagination over intelligence.
Love is…a rare psychological malfunction caused by an undetermined amount of interaction with another person.
Love is…someone making your heart smile, and making it sing with such exuberance that it will skip a beat from time to time.
Love is…something that has made people insanely, foolishly, abnormally euphoric.
Love is…the ability to send one on an indescribable high, and make everything and anything so much better.
Love is…something that makes the world around you much more colourful, the people, much nicer, the conversations more insightful.
Love is…something with a shocking contrast, brought out by the darker side in us all, where people have murdered for love, stolen, hurt, and abused but I am not sure this really speaks for love but is a distortion and delusional interpretation of what love is and I felt it needed to be mentioned.
Love is…something that has sparked wars, and ended feuds, love has hurt, and love has healed, love has driven humankind to dizzying extremes, only to abruptly bring one back around.
Love is…an incredibly powerful word and emotion.
Love is…losing someone you love to the hands of death.
Love is…holding a warm, fluffy, purring kitty in your arms and they look up into your eyes, reflecting back the love you feel for them.
Love is…when you can feel comfortable being around that person you are with, no matter how you look, what you are wearing or if you are naked.
Love is…unconditional affection with no limits or conditions: completely loving someone.
Love is…an unconditional feeling that is felt, simply by being around her.
Love is…the absolute devotion you feel towards someone.
Love is…when you realize you want to be with someone forever.
Love is…when you find something that you cannot live without or ever wish to be without.
Love is…something we think about, sing about, dream about, lose sleep worrying about it.
Love is…something when we don’t have it; we search for it; when we discover it; we don’t know what to do with it; when we have it; we fear losing it.
Love is…a constant source of pleasure and pain, but we can’t predict which it will be from one moment to the next.
Love is…a short word, easy to spell, difficult to define, impossible to live without.
Love is…to give all of yourself to a person-s-cause and to expect nothing back.
Love is…a mental-physical-spiritual thing beyond human comprehension.
Love is…something that surpasses all understanding.
Love is…kind and envies no one.
Love is…never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; never selfish, nor quick to take offense.
Love is…a feeling that delights in the truth.
Love is…something that can face anything.
Love is…limitless in its faith, its hope, and its endurance.
Love is…something that lasts forever.
Love is…saying that you care deeply about another person.
Love is…giving someone the power to destroy you, and trusting them not to.
Love is…the desire to blend with their soul.
Love is…something that will make you do anything.
Love is…intense and passionate.
Love is…something that makes everything seem brighter, happier and more wonderful.
Love is…caring deeply about another person.
Love is…when every time you see this person you get butterflies in your stomach.
[this one is extra special for your birthday]
Love is…like being in wonderland without the red queen. Sometimes everything makes sense, other times no one cares.
© jennifer kiley 2013
Seasons of Our Dreams
By Jennifer Kiley
Delicate will we prance on softness of grass;
leaves that trees must shed and piles
for the child within to crash upon;
angels in white falling into drops
of flaked, crystallized rain;
return of green from smallest sprout
one moment and blooming shades of gleaming greens
and flowers multiplying colours across the fields;
we travel round the seasons of our dreams
and moments found where love is felt
from tender shades of changes in our heart and soul;
we flow and go along in joy and bliss.
© jennifer kiley 2013
Post Created by Jk the secret keeper
Illustrated by j. kiley
Film Review by Roger Ebert with Jk’s Interpretations in CAPS
Post Created On 1st August 2013
Posted On Friday 2nd August 2013
October 12, 2001
“Bandits” is a movie so determined to be clever and whimsical that it neglects to be anything else. That decision wouldn’t be fatal if the movie had caved in and admitted it was a comedy, but, no, it also wants to contain moments of pathos, suspense and insight, and it’s too flimsy to support them. [I DON’T AGREE WITH ROGER HERE. IT DOES TAKE ON THE COMEDY QUALITY. HIS REVIEW WAS IN 2001. A SENSE OF HUMOUR CHANGES. ONCE CATE BLANCHETT JOINS THE FILM IT BUBBLES ALL OVER THE PLACE] It’s an anthology of unrelated tones; individual scenes may play well, but seem unaware of the movie they’re in. And the love triangle never decides if it’s romance or romantic comedy. If the movie won’t commit, why should we? [BECAUSE IT IS A WORTHY FILM TO COMMIT TOO.] It’s rare for a movie to have three such likable characters and be so unlikeable itself. Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton star, as “America’s most famous bank robbers,” and Cate Blanchett is Kate,
She makes a spectacular feast for her husband as she sings along with the song I Need A Hero. She’s having a grand time. And then her husband arrives. What a disappointment he is. No wonder she turns to such gentle men played by Billy Bob Thorton and Bruce Willis. How they come about to meet is one of the funniest scenes in the films. Jk
Bonnie Tyler — I Need a Hero
the executive’s wife who starts as their hostage and becomes their lover. Yes, both of them (or neither of them; the PG-13 movie is cagey about what happens in between those knocks on the motel room doors). She can’t choose. She likes Joe (Willis) because he’s brave, strong and handsome, and Terry (Thornton) because he’s sensitive and cute. [THE LOVE BETWEEN THE THREE OF THEM DOESN’T GO THE LURID ROUTE. IT STAYS SENSITIVE AND APPEALING. YOU UNDERSTAND THEIR RELUCTANCE TO CHOOSE AS THEIR LOVE TOGETHER GROWS]
Thornton’s character is the jewel–a neurotic, fearful hypochondriac who is lactose intolerant, hears a ringing in his ears, suffers from psychosomatic paralysis, and has a phobia about antique furniture. (You never know what’s real and what they’re making up in the movies; Thornton has a real-life phobia about antique furniture, in fact, and almost had a meltdown once during a visit to Johnny Cash’s antiques-filled home.) [BILLY BOB PLAYS UP THE HYPOCHONDRIAC VERY SUBTLY. YET AT THE SAME TIMR DIRECT.]
The plot: The partners break out of prison after Joe steals a cement truck, and there’s a nice shot of it plowing its way through suburban back yards. Terry comes up with the idea of taking bank managers hostage in their homes the night before a job, so they can get into the bank before business hours in the morning. [THIS SCENE IS RIP ROARING HYSTERICAL. YOU CAN’T HELP BUT CHEER.]
They steal a lot of loot, become celebrities, and stay on the loose for an amazing length of time, considering their driver, lookout and “outside man” is Joe’s moronic cousin Harvey (Troy Garity), who dreams of being a stunt man. [TROY GARITY (JANE FONDA’S SON) IS A BIT OF A SCREW UP BUT IT IS WHAT MAKES HIM LOVEABLE.]
The movie, directed by Barry Levinson and written by Harley Peyton (“Twin Peaks”), is told in a flashback and actually begins with the news that the two men have been shot dead after a failed hostage situation. Cut to a tabloid TV show whose host got an exclusive interview shortly before the final shootout. [THE NEWS MAN IS NOT TOO INTRUSIVE. HE PLAYS HIS ROLE RATHER WELL.]
Joe and Terry narrate their career, try to justify themselves, and say Kate was an innocent hostage and not a fellow criminal. [THEY OF COURSE DO THIS TO NOT INCRIMINATE CATE IN THEIR SCHEMES. SHE JUST WANTS TO BE WITH THEM. YOU CANNOT HOLD THAT AGAINST HER AFTER YOU MEET HER CARELESS HUSBAND IN THE FIRST PART OF THE FILM. HE’S A JERK. ALSO, THE WAY THE THREE HAPPEN TO COME TOGETHER IS WHAT MAKES THIS FILM TURN THE ROAD TO THE DEEPER COMEDIC SIDE AND PULLS IT OFF RATHER WELL.]
Eventually the film works its way back to the fatal robbery it began with, and to the classic line, “The suspects are in a shootout with themselves.” The film has laughs sprinkled here and there. I liked the way the confused Terry asks Joe, “What’s on our mind?”
And the way Kate’s preoccupied husband, [HE IS SO INSIGNIFICANT YOU BARELY REMEMBER HIS SCENES, EXCEPT YOU’D LIKE TO KICK HIM IN THE “JUNK” LIKE MEN CALL IN AND FEAR IT BEING HURT.] a self-involved hotshot, goes on TV to tell the kidnapped woman: “I’m going to Spain next week. If the kidnappers want to reach me, they can get in touch with my people.” And I liked the jolly little fireplug of a bank manager who is delighted to meet the “Sleepover Bandits” in person, but cannot take them seriously.
Problem is, the movie doesn’t commit to any of the several directions in which it meanders. Is the romantic triangle poignant, or a gimmick? [FIGURE THIS ONE OUT YOUR SELF. I WAS SATISFIED/PLEASED.] Do the guys joke and make small talk during robberies because this is a comedy, or because they are pathological narcissists? [NO, IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NICE GUYS IN THE SENSE OF BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID. IT WORKS FOR ME.] The flashback structure is an annoyance, [NOT REALLY. I LOVE ROGER BUT I THINK IT WAS AT THE TIME WHEN HE FIRST REVIEWS BANDITS THAT PUTS HIM IN A GRUMPY MOOD WHEN HE REVIEWS THIS FILM. IT WAS IN OCTOBER 2001]
and by the time it is justified, it’s too late: We’ve already been annoyed. One of the joys of Barry Levinson’s “Wag The Dog” (1997) [VERY FUNNY FILM ‘WAG THE DOG’ — A MUST SEE, ALSO] was the way he juggled tones, moving from satire to suspense to politics. This time it’s the audience who feels juggled.[I FELT OVERJOYED WHEN CATE JOINED THE TWO AND MADE IT INTO THE COMEDY IT WAS INTENDING TO BE. HOLD OUT FOR A HERO. SHE GETS TWO. YES, THEY ARE BANK ROBBERS BUT RATHER POLITE ONES AT THAT. SEE THE FILM. YOU WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN. Jk the secret keeper]
[I LOVE THIS FILM AND HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT FOR ALL THE PERFORMANCES BUT ESPECIALLY CATE BLANCHETT WHO MAKES THIS FILM AND BILLY BOB THORNTON. BRUCE WILLIS IS RATHER SUBTLE AND LAID BACK BUT HE IS SMOOTH. AND TONY GARITY, HE IS JUST PLAIN SILLY BUT WHEN HE NEEDS TO DO WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO HE COMES THROUGH IN SPADES. IF YOU WANT A LIGHT AND HUMOUROUS ROMP THIS IS THE FILM TO SEE. SORRY ROGER, YOU ARE ONE OF THE BEST BUT I DISAGREE WITH YOU IN A GREAT MANY POINTS. BUT IT IS FUN TO JOUST WITH YOU WHEN I DISAGREE.] Jk the secret keeper honouring but not playing agree b/c Roger Ebert is the champ. I just like to feel his presence when I think about a film and still like to know his opinion, agree or disagree. I vote thumbs up with a 5 star rating for fun and humour. Jk