Was Holly Golightly Really A Ho?
Posted by: Susannah Breslin
Filed in:
news
8:00AM, Wednesday September 9th 2009
“Was Holly Golightly Really a Prostitute?” The New Yorker wonders. A British stage production of Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s prompted the Telegraph to ask the same question. After the jump, what The New Yorker uncovered.
In a 1968 interview with Playboy, Capote said:
Holly Golightly was not precisely a callgirl. She had no job, but accompanied expense-account men to the best restaurants and night clubs, with the understanding that her escort was obligated to give her some sort of gift, perhaps jewelry or a check ... if she felt like it, she might take her escort home for the night. So these girls are the authentic American geishas, and they’re much more prevalent now than in 1943 or 1944, which was Holly’s era.
So, there you have it ... sorta! At the very least, the character Audrey Hepburn catapulted to infamy, like her sugar daddies.
- Caster Semenya Will Keep Her Gold Medal
- Quickies: Soccer Player Elizabeth Lambert Really Regrets Hair-Pulling ... Really
- Prostitution Is A Family Affair For “Secret Diary Of A Call Girl” Blogger
- Sneak Peak at Brad & Angelina on Date Night (PopEater)
- A History: Sex Tapes We Weren't Suppossed to See (Maxim)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
jenivived
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:05 am: [report]
Anyone who read the book would know that! I think it spells it out ... Of course, I’ve never seen the movie, so perhaps that is a little more subtle?
ccal
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:32 am: [report]
The novella makes the point very clear that Holly is basically an escort service, the movie it is more subtle and paints her more in the light that she only gets the money because the gentlemen she goes out with are nice guys not because she’s an American geisha or whatever you want to call her.
Ginger
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 08:21 am: [report]
Uh…yes?
But it isn’t as apparent in the movie. At least not now. I guess when it first came out, people were shocked that sweet little Audrey Hepburn was playing such a scandalous woman.
It is a lot more obvious in the book than it is in the movie, but if you use your imagination you can still see it.
effing hickster
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 09:08 am: [report]
@jenevived: Yes, Truman always seemed a little more cautious about revealing scandal than Tennessee Williams, don’t you think?
BlueVibe
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 09:09 am: [report]
She was a call girl, plain and simple. I don’t think they would have been explicit about that in a major movie in 1961 (at least not with a pretty, likable, heroine), though.
elizabethmarley
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 09:24 am: [report]
When I first saw the movie at 12, I didn’t quite understand what was going on with either of the lead characters. But as I grew older, it became obvious that they were both prostitutes in one form or another.
cali_candy
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 10:18 pm: [report]
what? she was a prostitute? **oblivious**