this post is incomplete
other than the blatant racism and subtle sexism, breakfast at tiffany’s is a film that spoke to me.
i haven’t had much experience with relationships, but I’ve often come across women who have an almost identical nature as audrey hepburn’s character did in the movie. free-spirited, wild, not normal. the moment things got regular, they force change.
i admire that quality. at this point in my life, i loathe routine even though i live by it for the most part. as often as i can, i try to break patterns and try new things, although it is usually motivated by interest and not to force change for the sake of change.
certainly, living the way audrey’s character does has a undeniable romantic appeal. those few people i encounter who drift into my life and astonish me only to vanish just as quickly are impossible not to admire.
the way connections are made which seem deep on one side, but superficial on another is frightening. i think its every persons fear that a friendship isn’t reciprocated with the same enthusiasm on the other end. in Aubrey’s case, it seems like that fear always comes to fruition.
i guess it isn’t really her fault. the fact that her life is spent quickly building relationships then moving upwards from them may not be her fault. i think the movie makes it out to be her personality and not malicious intent.
the idea of entering someone’s life, astonishing them, then leaving just as quickly is interesting to me. not only for the result on my own life, but also the lasting impression it would leave on said person.
efficient is another way to look at this. in the most optimistic sense, audrey’s character is getting everything out of a relationship in a short amount of time instead of a long one.
or maybe the truth is entirely different. just because a person astonishes and surprises you, does not mean that the resulting relationship was “deep”.
presumably, a deep relationship comes from length and not intensity.
maybe that is the crux of the movie.
for her whole life, aubrey’s character lived intense and short relationships which is a admirable lifestyle as perceived from the outside. admirable because passion is more easily noticed than depth. by the end of the movie though, she decides to do the opposite and develop a long and perhaps less intense relationship.
although, i am implying a trade-off here. passionate/exciting relationships are short and “deep” ones are long.
both of these claims are probably not entirely true.
a deep connection can come out of a short encounter.
the other side i am not so sure.