Pushing Daisies‘ Anna Friel will star as Holly Golightly in a new stage version of Breakfast at Tiffany’s opening in London this fall, according to Variety. I loved Daisies, in all its primary-colored whimsy, so I’m pleased that the lovely Friel has such a great role in her future. Still, a young actress taking on anything associated with the ever-beloved Audrey Hepburn is setting herself up for quite a backlash. There’s a trail of discarded magazine headlines dubbing one winsome brunette or another the "next Audrey Hepburn." Unfairly or not, most have not lived up to the title. (But keep trying, Jennifer Love Hewitt!)
It’s not always their fault of course — Hepburn is almost canonized at this point, and it’s impossible to measure up to a saint. There’s a deep, dark secret to all this Hepburn worship, though: Breakfast at Tiffany’s isn’t a very good movie. Hepburn is as charming and gorgeous as always, but the movie completely defangs the dark Truman Capote novella it’s based on. I am curious to see what Friel does with the Golightly role, and if the stage version is more faithful to Capote’s original tone.
What do you think? Are you glad Friel’s got some Golightly in her future? Or is this just Hepburn heresy?
Side note: When I first read the sentence "Anna Friel will star as Holly Golightly," I misread it as "Anna Faris will star as Holly Golightly." How awesome would that be? Maybe Faris is the next Audrey Hepburn.
BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S is not a very good movie? Hmmm… I love it and consider it a classic – the major flaw for me is Mickey Rooney’s racist caricature Mr. Yunioshi. It’s common knowledge that Capote envisioned Holly being played by Marilyn Monroe but the film stands as its own creation and different from the novella.
My main complaint here is that I wish theatre producers would quit converting films into stage productions – but if anyone can pull this off, I’m certain it’s Anna Friel!
I LOVE Anna Friel. She could definitely pull this off. Ah, Pushing Daisies…
I disagree that it’s not a good movie just because it’s not the same as the novella. Judged independently from one another, they are both great: One is a great, somewhat dark story, and the other is a great romantic comedy (minus Mickey Rooney, of course.) Differing from its source material is not a reason to claim an independent work is bad.
It’s unfair to compare the film to the original novella, especially considering the subject matter. It was 1961 after all. Like the others have stated, my only objection to this great film is Mickey Rooney.
It’s unfair to compare the film to the original novella, especially considering the subject matter. It was 1961 after all. Like the others have stated, my only objection to this great film is Mickey Rooney.
Of course, no one could come close to Audrey Hepburn. That being said, if anyone could pull this off, it would absolutely be Anna Friel. She is fantastic!
The stage version *is* going to be more faithful to the novella than the movie according to everything I’ve read.
I have no particular affection to Audrey Hepburn, so I don’t have a problem with Anna Friel taking on Holly Golightly.
Dear Kerrie,
You must be very young to not understand that Hollywood always takes
liberties in making changes to a character or a situtation in a film that was not orignally based in a book. Haven’t you learned that by now? And for you to say that Breakfast at Tiffany’s is not a good film? Hmmm….looks like somebody doesn’t know their film history!!
As long as they don’t recast Mickey Rooney.
that’s hilarious. I made the same mistake with Anna Faris/Friel
She should talk to Mary Tyler Moore.
The musical “Holly Golightly” almost killed her career, just after The Dick Van Dyke Show” ended.
She and the show received some of the worst reviews ever given to a broadway show. I think it only ran for a few nights.
HOW THE F**K DOES THIS RETARD STILL HAVE A JOB AFTER WRITING “Breakfast at Tiffany’s isn’t a very good movie” ??? Its the idiotic writers like her that make me glad i don’t pay for my subscription to EW.
Audrey Hepburn is my idol, she is just so elegant, had timeless classic beauty, a true female. Anna Friel can rise to the ocaision and look pretty with make up on etc, but isnt a classic beauty. Her acting isnt anything out of the ordinary. I still feel she is a typical soap actress. In addition, she doesnt look anything like Audrey Hepburn. I cant think of anyone really who could pull it off, possibly Winona Ryder, Keira Knightly or Natalie Portman. Still, I think she may just pull it off with training, costume and good lighting etc, and wish her luck.
Saw the play on Saturday. SHE PULLS IT OFF. Although the play itself is a little slow in the first half Anna had us all in her hands as soon as she appeared on stage, complete with blonde wig (to get away from Hepburn comparisons?).
The play is very different to the film which is really a bit of fluffy nonsense but none the worse for that. The play however pulls no punches and Holly is a hooker, end of story. I’ll not get into any spoilers here so I won’t go into any more of the differences. I will, however, say that there was not a dry eye in the house at the end.
Frankly I never doubted that Anna could do it as anyone who saw her performance a few years ago as Lulu on the London stage would be aware of her huge talent.
Go see it!!
Saw Anna Friel in Breakfast at Tiffany’s last night and suffered one of the most tedious theatrical experiences ever! Not Friel’s fault,(the girl simply doesn’t have an iota of stage presence to speak of),nor indeed any of the cast – except perhaps the male lead, Joseph Cross, who really needs to go back to acting school. The problem with this production is Sean Mathias’s directorship, which has resulted in an overly-long and incredibly flat, unenergetic and peculiarly downbeat affair which by half way through the second half, had ground completely to a halt. By the time we got out of the theatre, it was indeed nearly time for breakfast!