Tonight:
4°c
Henry Hitchings's rating
, Breakfast goes far too lightly at Tiffany's
By
Henry Hitchings
30 Sep 2009
For many, Breakfast at Tiffany’s calls to mind an image of Audrey Hepburn in pearls, gloves and a little black dress, looking up from her coffee to beguile us with her great almond-shaped eyes.
But in Truman Capote’s original novella, Holly Golightly is a wittier and darker figure, given to singing Kurt Weill in the broken tones of an adolescent boy, and that’s more how she promises to appear in Samuel Adamson’s stage adaptation, for which she is incarnated by a newly blonde Anna Friel.
Some Cinderella-ish touches remain, but this is to a large degree Capote’s call-girl Holly, that tangily expressive creature who tellingly shares her quarters with a tiger-striped tomcat (here an amusingly torpid specimen).
However, the real talking point of Sean Mathias’s production may well be the nudity. Friel briefly appears with no clothes on, and while it’s neither titillating nor gratuitous there will inevitably be those who declare themselves shocked.
In fact, this production could do with more by way of pulse-quickening incident. There are some noisy moments involving the vulgar talent agent
OJ Berman (James Dreyfus) but not much dazzle. Instead it’s all somewhat bitty. Adamson’s script is layered but clunky, and Anthony Ward’s set, dominated by a pair of hulking fire escapes, hardly evokes the racy exoticism of 1940s New York.
As William, the young author nursing an unrequited desire for Holly, Joseph Cross seems callow and unwriterly. He lacks power, though grows into his role.
Of the other performances, only that of Suzanne Bertish resonates — an enjoyably exaggerated turn as the operatic neighbour who fantasises about getting Holly evicted.
The saving grace is Friel. Playful and engaging, she deals neatly with the demands of continually dressing up and disrobing.
She brings to the most mundane actions a puckish, elfin charm, and is sincerely powerful when the role demands it.
But Friel cannot finally redeem what feels oddly like a musical without the music.
She does sing (tenderly), but there’s no Moon River, and more to the point there’s a lack of charisma and caprice.
The magic of the party lifestyle never comes alive. Rather, there is a cramped literalism about proceedings, embodied by a couple of clumsy sequences that involve kite-flying and horse-
riding.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s is froth with a small shot of naughtiness in it — a cappuccino of a play, stylish perhaps but not nourishing.
More pictures: The Breakfast at Tiffany's press night
Until 9 January. Information 0845 481 1870.
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (8)
I don't know what play these other reviewers when to see. I thought it was great. Anna Friel is mesmerizing and Joeseph Cross is a terrific Fred Parsons. Fun show.
- John, London, 27/10/2009 15:43
Report abuse
I can't believe we spent so much on the tickets and waited eagerly in anticipation for the show... such a beautiful story destroyed by an extremely poor adaptation. Instead of depicting the grace and quirky personality of Audrey, the theatre production makes her look more like a blond play-girl. The set is poor and captures nothing of New York's magic; the casts' attempted New York accents are mixed with a hint of cockney English; and the characters don't resemble anything close to the original story. We left before the interval but I later read that Moon River wasn't even sung. Seriously? The entire show is totally off and doesn't deserve to be called Breakfast at Tiffany's!
- Dyana, London, 07/10/2009 14:53
Report abuse
I had not seen the film or read the novella before I went. This was so bad I left at the interval.
- Joey Schultz, London, 01/10/2009 10:01
Report abuse
Anna is perfect for the role, her delicate beuty is mesmerising, just perfect
- Brian, Wiltshire, 30/09/2009 17:34
Report abuse
To answer Sidney Marks questions, it is absed on the BOOK not the FILM. Therefore, as per the book it is set in the 1940's. And nowhere in the book does she sing Moon River!
- Bob Ulhat, London, 30/09/2009 14:04
Report abuse
If I could afford a trip to London and a theatre ticket, I would see the play, despite the poor reviews. It would be worth it just to see the delectable, talented Anna Friel.
- Colin, Derby, UK, 30/09/2009 13:03
Report abuse
On a much smaller scale, this is like remaking Gone With The Wind.
One can only ask "Why bother?"
What was the point of setting it in the 1940s?
Why the nudity? (Don't tell me, I know.)
Why get any doomed actress to replace the irreplacable Audrey Hepburn?
Why have her sing, if not "Moon River"?
This project was misguided, to say the least.
- Sidney Marks, London, UK, 30/09/2009 12:16
Report abuse
why bother ? you can buy the dvd and the book together for less than £20. Both are pretty much perfect.
- Squiz, Islington, 30/09/2009 09:44
Report abuse
