“I'll tell you something, Fred, honey. I'd marry you for your money in a minute. Would you marry me for my money?" Holly Golightly (played by the delightful Audrey Hepburn) drawls to Paul Varjack (George Peppard) as they banter in the tiny kitchen of her tiny brownstone in downtown New York City. Given Varjack's affirmative response , she jokes, "I guess it's lucky neither of us are rich, huh?" From this and a multitude of other exchanges throughout the film, it's easy to see that one activity consumes and controls both of their lives these lower-class main characters: the pursuit of wealth each earn their money through similar means: Golightly is a call girl who specifically caters to wealthy, upper-class men and Varjack is "kept" by a wealthy woman from upper class By creating charming and likable characters forced to literally turn their bodies into commodities to obtain capital, the film highlights the negative effects of capitalism on the lower classes. Furthermore, the women featured in the film arguably have much more power than most of their peers. Therefore, although disguised as a harmless and playful romantic comedy, Breakfast at Tiffany's is actually a rather revolutionary film from both a Marxist and feminist point of view. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The film, originally released in 1961, might seem dated today, especially considering the extremely misleading and racist portrayal of Golightly and Varjack's landlord, Mr. IY Yunioshi, by none other than Mickey Rooney. However, it is essential to understand how subversive the content was at the time of the film's initial release. In Sam Wasson's novel Fifth Avenue, 5 AM: Audrey Hepburn, Breakfast at Tiffany's, and the Dawn of the Modern Woman, he notes that, during pre-production, "the censors... rail[ed] against the script" ( Wasson xvii). The screenwriter, George Axelrod, managed to evade the censors by only subtly suggesting that Golightly is a prostitute. For example, after confronting Varjack about his "patron" leaving $300 on his desk, Golightly empathetically states that he "completely understands" his situation. However, many viewers perceived the film in a negative light. In a letter to the Hollywood Citizen-News, concerned citizen Irving A. Mandell declared that Breakfast at Tiffany's was "the worst [film] of the year morally" for showing "a prostitute throwing herself at a kept,” including other objections (Wasson 185). In addition to chronicling the lives of sex workers in New York City, the film presents many other potentially controversial scenarios. The mix of social classes represented in Breakfast at Tiffany's is in some ways unprecedented. Golightly and Varjack interact not only with individuals far above them on the social ladder on a purely transactional basis, but also on an interpersonal level. The party scene that takes place relatively early in the film is an excellent example of this. Golightly invites Varjack out for a drink, but when he knocks on his door, he is greeted by the charismatic OJ Berman, a Hollywood agent who takes credit for Golightly's transformation from a "hillbilly" into an extremely elegant young woman. Berman is definitely upper class; he is depicted later in the film in his Los Angeles home with his new "executive phone" and remote-controlled bed. “Can you believe this place?” he casually points out Golightly's apartment to Varjack."How disgusting." However, he is still one of Golightly's numerous wealthy friends and acquaintances. Other notable upper class figures at the party include Jose de Silva Pereira, a Brazilian millionaire, and Rutherford "Rusty" Trawler, who is the "ninth richest man in America under 50," according to Golightly.his hosts they are increasingly drunk, it is more difficult to distinguish who belongs to which class. The guests become loud and uncouth, immediately disproving the stereotype that only members of the lower class behave so uncivilized. A well-dressed couple argues loudly, an elderly woman laughs and then cries hysterically as she sees her reflection in the mirror, a drunk woman jumps on men's backs shouting "Yippee!", and men in expensive suits shout in the kitchen to slurp hard alcohol straight from the bottle . The liquor delivery man, who is clearly a member of the working class, is also invited to join in the festivities and dances freely with several women whose elaborate jewel-toned silk dresses supposedly cost much more than his monthly earnings. Later, when the police arrive due to Mr. Yunioshi's inevitable noise complaint, Varjack and the worried de Silva Pereira manage to escape together through the bathroom window: one millionaire man and presidential aspirant, the other a writer at green, now united by mutual union. the friendship with Golightly and the sudden need to escape the party. One might simply consider this scene a fantasy; the film is a work of fiction, after all. Or you could cite Queen Victoria's famous quote: “Beware of artists, they mix with all social classes and are therefore the most dangerous.” But while Varjack is indeed an artist and seems to fraternize with those both above and below him in social class, he's not the only one in this scene to do so. Therefore, a more analytical eye sees this segment of the film as a subversion of commonly held social values ​​that effectively separate people of different classes and reinforce the idea that wealthy people are somehow better than those with lower incomes. The message contained in this lively and fun party scene is this: people with very different levels of wealth can, in fact, relate to each other and very often do. Another key element in a Marxist interpretation of Breakfast at Tiffany's is the alienation experienced by both main characters, Golightly and Varjack. Marx's complex theory of alienation can be simply understood as the alienation of people from their “species essence” (in other words, from human nature and the world around them) as a result of their wage labor and the separations caused from class distinctions. While class differences are somewhat nuanced in the film, as depicted in the example above, there is no doubt that they still exist. And while Golightly and Varjack's form of employment may not be explicitly classified as wage labor, it is quite similar, if not worse, because it involves the commodification of their own bodies, rather than simply their labor power. Perhaps some sort of fixed salary is also involved; according to Golightly, "any gentleman with a modicum of elegance will give a girl $50 for the powder room." In any case, the sense of alienation surrounding each character can be seen as a direct result of their working practice. Golightly's alienation is extremely evident: towards the end of the film, she openly admits this feeling, exclaiming: "I'm not Holly. I'm not Lula Mae either. I don't know who I am! I'm like a cat here, a couple of nameless slobs We don't belong to anyone and we don't belong to anyonenot even to each other.” Here, his sense of isolation from humanity is so great that he must relate to an animal rather than Varjack, or any other human. The alienation Varjack experiences is a little less obvious. While Golightly appears to lack the capacity to feel love for another individual, Varjack bravely admits his love for her on more than one occasion throughout the film. One might assume that she simply doesn't feel the same levels of alienation as Golightly due to the fact that she has been in the "business" longer than him, but the film itself provides no evidence to support that claim. Instead, Varjack's alienation manifests itself in other, perhaps less distinguishable ways, such as through his disconnection from writing, which was once his passion. The first time Golightly visits his apartment, she notices his typewriter and asks him if he writes every day. He replies that yes, it does, but Golightly astutely points out that although "it's a beautiful typewriter... there's no ribbon in it." part or all of their alienation. The only way to do that, of course, is to step away from paid work, which Varjack essentially does when he tells his Mrs. Failenson – his wealthy lover, played by Patricia Neal – to “find a new writer to help.” He then begins to earn a living by selling the stories he writes. This means of acquiring wealth is obviously much less dehumanizing than the previous method. It's also crucial to note that it's only after quitting his (for all intents and purposes) salaried job that Varjack tells Golightly that he loves her. This chronology suggests that he is able to connect with his true emotions only after the once enveloping sense of alienation has finally dissolved. From this point of view, it is logical why Golightly is initially so insensitive to his declaration of love for her: she is unable to reciprocate these feelings because she is still caught up in the hellish nightmare of capitalism from which he has already escaped. Unfortunately for Golightly, taking a step out of the workforce isn't as easy for her as it is for Varjack. Her brother, Fred, who she describes as "sweet, vague, and terribly slow" is in the US Army, and she is always trying to save enough money so he can come live with her. Even after Fred's death makes this struggle obsolete, Golightly still lacks the skills and education to successfully establish herself in any field other than the one she is already involved in. Only in the film's grand finale does it appear that she is finally leaving wage work, or at least sex work, behind, as she chooses Varjack's love over the wealth of all her previous suitors. Some feminist analyzes argue that this final pairing somehow makes the film antithetical to feminist ideals. In an essay titled “We Belong to No One: Representations of the Feminine in Breakfast at Tiffany's,” Margaret Fox argues that, although throughout the film Golightly “appears to be a proto-feminist character in her [progressive] lifestyle,” the ending it makes her less because she “submitted herself to Paul's property” (Fox 13). However, this argument seems more like a fallacy than a fact. By choosing to enter into a romantic relationship with Varjack, who is not money and therefore cannot provide for her financially, Golightly renounces the nature of her past relationships with callous, wealthy men such as de Silva Pereira and Trawler. Because she relied on them for financial support, they owned her more than Varjack ever could. If anything, her elopement with Varjack further contributes to Golightly's status as a feminist icon by portraying her as a woman.