Authors: Sam Wasson
Tags: #History, #General, #Performing Arts, #History & Criticism, #Film & Video, #Films; cinema, #Film & Video - General, #Cinema, #Pop Culture, #Film: Book, #Pop Arts, #1929-1993, #Social History, #Film; TV & Radio, #Film & Video - History & Criticism, #Breakfast at Tiffany's (Motion picture), #Hepburn; Audrey, #Film And Society, #Motion Pictures (Specific Aspects), #Women's Studies - History, #History - General History, #Hepburn; Audrey;
THE SERIOUS WRITER
They went with Sumner Locke Elliott. He was what they meant by a serious writer. The producers contracted him to fly out to L.A. for a week's worth of story conferences, from which he would produce a sixty-page dramatic outline. If they deemed the outline satisfactory, Elliott would proceed into the screenplay; if not, the contract stipulated the deal would be finished without any future commitments. In Hollywood parlance, it was called a cutoff. Elliott signed.
THE GAG MAN GAGGED
Axelrod called Capote. They had only met a couple of times.
“Truman,” George said, “they won't use me. They don't think I'm serious enough.”
“Well, bullshit,” Truman said. “They don't know how to do it,
you
know how to do it.”
But Capote's hands were tied. He told Axelrod that he was not at all involved in the film's adaptation or productionâthat he had sold the option on the novel and that was that. And in any case, he was trying to write a book about the massacre of
a Kansas wheat farming family. It was very unlike him, yes, but he couldn't resist the appeal of inventing a whole new type of literature, and he had reason to believe it would be his masterpiece.
George was right back where he started.
THE SERIOUS WRITER GAGGED
Until now, Sumner Locke Elliott had been a novelist, playwright, and a prolific TV writer with almost three dozen credits to his name. But in ten steady years of working in the business, he had never seen one of his feature scripts produced. That may have been tough on the writer, but it was all right by Shepherd and Jurow, who lowered their payment accordingly. From their perspective, the fact that Elliott was a gay, New Yorkâbased writer only sweetened the deal and hinted at the possibility of cultivating that certain Capote something. At least in theory.
Upon receiving Elliott's treatment in April 1959, a distressed Richard Shepherd wrote a memo to Paramount studio chief, Y. Frank Freeman, including the following:
Suffice to say we are all immensely disappointed in Elliott's efforts. Disregarding its length and its peculiar physical format, we are most disturbed by its episodic, disjointed, fluffy and even ephemeral tone. Elliott, to our way of thinking, has seriously failed to capture the warmth, the zest, the humor, the beauty and, more important, the basic heart and honesty that is Holly Golightly. The young man he has written is petty and unattractive in character, borders on the effeminate, which we
all detest, and as is the case with Holly and the whole piece, is almost totally devoid of the humor and contemporary flavor that is absolutely vital for this picture.
Most important, however, a dramatically
sound story line
and point of view is either non-existent or certainly not clear. Capote's book provides a marvelously wonderful character study of a fascinating girl, surrounded by almost equally interesting people and locale.
Our task has been and continues to be one of converting this character study into a
clear-cut
dramatic
story
line
with an even clearer audience
point of view
.
We spent considerable time and effort in story conferences with Elliott with the primary objective of making certain that the dramatic line and point of view in his treatment would be clear. Somehow, as is so unfortunately often the case, the result did not equal the expectations.
All of us are convinced that we are correct in assuming that the boy and girl get together at the end of our story, that Holly's problem, which is the principal one, is in some way resolved through the understanding, love and strength of the boy. This requires a completely different kind of male character than has been given to us by Elliott and a far more solid construction of the dramatic elements of the piece.
We therefore are of the singular opinion that a different man should be put on the job. One with infinitely more experience in dramatic construction, with a contemporary understanding of these people to say nothing of an appreciation for comedy that is not so perfumed. Our gamble on Elliott in the hopes of getting a proper script on the more economical basis
did not pay off. There is some consolation, however, in the fact that we protected ourselves with a proper cut-off period.
Elliott was off the movie, leaving Jurow and Shepherd with no script and one hell of a tough adaptation.
THE PITCH
Only days later, George got a call from his agent, Swifty Lazar. Elliott was out, he said. They thought his script lacked pizzazz, not to mention a clear story line, and Jurow-Shepherd was looking for a replacement. The production company was anxious to move forward, he said, and fast. Was George still interested?
Was George still interested?
Yes, he was still interested.
Hold on, Swifty said. It wasn't that easy. It wasn't in the bag. Jurow and Shepherd, the agent explained, were now looking at some very experienced, very “respectable” writers. Their new list included some of the most accomplished in the business: Betty Comden and Adolph Green (
Singin' in the Rain
), Charles Lederer (
His Girl Friday
,
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
), Samuel Taylor (
Sabrina
,
Vertigo
), Julius Epstein (
Casablanca
), Ernest Lehman (
Sabrina
,
Sweet Smell of Success
), the redoubtable Kanins (
Adam's Rib
), and of course, George Axelrod (Boobs and boobs). The writer they hired would bypass treatment and go directly to screenplay, meaning if he or she could pitch Jurow and Shepherd an idea they likedâa romantic comedyâwith a clear-cut dramatic story line and less effeminate male
lead, then, for the right price, the gig was theirs. All George had to do was figure out the right angle, go in for a meeting, and knock 'em dead. Swifty hung up.
Axelrod was almost ready. He had been thinking about
Tiffany's
for so long, and knew the trick was to make the picture more of a traditional romance, structurally speaking. To do it, he'd have to invent a stronger conflict, some impediment to the love story, which the lovers had to overcome to be together. Otherwise, the movie would be over in one scene; they'd meet, get coupled, and that would be it. So what would keep these two mutually attracted people apart? If Axelrod couldn't answer that, his story would go the way of Elliott's, and it would be back to boobs for him.
If Axelrod were writing for Doris Day and Rock Hudson the problem of finding the conflict would come ready-made. The guy wants to get the girl into bed and she wants to stay out of itâuntil they get married. And when they finally do, the movie ends. But in Holly Golightly, who isn't guarding her virginity like it's Fort Knox, Axelrod had to grapple with a heroine who was anathema to the genre. If only he could lick the conflict, he could easily be at the forefront of a new kind of romantic comedy. Not one about 1950s people who shrink from sex before marriage, but one about modern people who embrace it.
Axelrod would have to flip the paradigm. Where Doris Day struggled with abstinence, Holly would struggle with promiscuity. Thus commitment, not desire, would be at the heart of Holly's conflictâthat much Axelrod could bring over from the novelâbut what then would prevent the newly heterosexual male from running away with her? If she slept with every
one, why wouldn't she sleep with him? The most obvious answer was the one right in front of George: the same thing that prevents
her
from running away with
him
. He's a gigolo, too.
That's
it. And he can't afford to pay for a night with her, and she can't afford to pay for a night with him, and when they do finally get into bed together after he's just slept with his sugar mama, he's just too tired to make a move. Ergo they just lie there. So their conflict? Leaving a steady life of fiscal security for one of love. Going from being “owned” to being free. Making the late fifties into the early sixties.
It was three o'clock in the morning when George Axelrod turned to Joan in bed and said, “I've got it! I know how to do
Breakfast at Tiffany's
as a movie!”
At last, Axelrod would pitch a sex comedy
with
sex. It probably wasn't something that Paramount would be immediately comfortable with, but if Jurow wanted uptown, this was it: a contemporary romantic comedy for the modern generation.
AUDREY'S RETREAT
On May 20, 1959, just weeks after Audrey's thirtieth birthday, the Ferrers announced they were expecting once again. But tragically, while shooting
The Unforgiven
in Mexico that June, Audrey miscarried a second time. The emotional burden, she said, was unbearable, the worst of her life. “I blamed God,” she said. “I blamed [director] John Huston. I was a bundle of anger and recrimination. I couldn't understand why I couldn't have children. Mel and I were so much in love.”
She retreated to her home in Lucerne, and with the encouragement of her physicians, began to consider returning to
work. Most scripts, however, didn't appeal to her. Despite protestations from her agent, former boxer Kurt Frings, Audrey turned down the (quite prestigious) leading parts in both
West Side Story
and
Cleopatra
. Only
No Bail for the Judge,
the film Alfred Hitchcock announced would be his next, piqued her interest. But she had reservations about the material. The role of Elizabethâa British barrister who sets out alone to acquit her father of murdering a prostituteâwas quite blatantly at odds with her traditional persona, which, in the years since
Sabrina,
had maintained its conservative stance.
Audrey was still very much the party-less party-line girl. In 1956, aiming to take on a “serious” part as a dramatic actress, she played Natasha in the woefully stilted
War and Peace,
which earned her good reviews, but did nothing to her status quo.
Funny Face,
released in 1957, pointed her in the right direction, as did Billy Wilder's
Love in the Afternoon,
released the same year. But both films paired Audrey with considerably older men (Fred Astaire and Gary Cooper, respectively), which kept her star securely hitched to the idea of adolescent love-worship and romantic fantasy, and the boat went unrocked. As Sister Luke in
The Nun's Story,
Audrey did battle once again with the opposing forces of duty and desire, and for a time, it looked like rebellion. But she can't have her church and eat it too. “How can I be a good nun,” she asks, “if I can't get the Congo out of my blood?” Like Princess Ann of
Roman Holiday,
Sister Luke must divest herself of one in order to have the other. “I think I've been struggling all these years, Reverend Mother,” she says, nobly. “In the beginning, each struggle seemed different than the one before it. Then they began to repeat, and I saw they all had the same core: obedience without question,
without inner murmuring. Perfect obedience as Christ practiced it, as I no longer can.” The urge to resist ethical mandates is there, and is indeed compelling, but Audrey's conviction to reverse them is not.
Green Mansions
followed in 1959, and a year later, she played the denim-skirted Rachel Zachary in John Huston's western
The Unforgiven
. The spirit of her individuality remained problematic in each.
All the more reason, Frings advised Audrey, to expand her repertoire. Taking
No Bail for the Judge,
he said, would allow her to grow in new, darker, more challenging directions; and with the added benefit of working for Mr. Hitchcock, she wouldn't have to worry as much about public approval. They understood his name meant quality, no matter how perverse his films.
Audrey saw Frings's point and agreed to the picture. But after signing the contract, she learned that Hitchcock and writer Samuel Taylor had added a new scene, what looked alarmingly like a rape scene, and Audrey wanted out of the picture. In a cleverly timed announcement, she made publicâonly seven months after her miscarriageâthe news of yet another pregnancy. This time, Audrey said to the press, nothing, not even Alfred Hitchcock, would endanger her baby. Children were “indispensable for a woman's life and happiness.” Films were far from her mind.
“I'm told the pregnancy transported her,” her son Sean said, looking back. “All she wanted was to be a mother and have a family. Here it was and she wasn't going to let anything stop it.” Robert Wolders agreed. “She loved family more than her career,” he said. “That was far more important to her than movies.”
ROMANTIC COMEDY
After hearing George Axelrod's pitch, Marty Jurow made it clear to Paramount that he was not interested in vetting other writers. George was it.
Hours later, Shepherd cabled Swifty in Europe for the price on Axelrod (Joan Axelrod said, “They offered him Rhode Island and a piece of the gross”), and in a weekâthis was vintage Swiftyâthe papers were signed. George would write a first draft screenplay in fifteen weeks, followed by two weeks of consultations with Jurow and Shepherd, four weeks of revisions, and then two additional weeks of consultations on the rewrites followed finally by three weeks for second revisions. For all thisâa combined total of twenty-six weeks of workâhe would receive $100,000.
Now all George had to do was write the damn thing. Plied with long cigars and a few vodkas (neat and chilled), he put some kind of an outline down on paper, and in the loosest possible form. Too many details at this stage could kill the energy he needed to save for the screenplay itself. In the meantime, he'd turn those scene ideas into scenes, scribble them down on notepad paper, cut away the slack, and then, when he got the feeling he had something good, something that couldn't be said better, he'd transfer them to his Olivetti, which stood proudly on his desk beside his favorite photographâa shot of him and Marilyn on the set of
Bus Stop
squeezing the hell out of each other.