Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) 👎

So... this movie passes all the most important tests, Bechdel, Sexy Lamp, Mako Mori, Molly Haskell... but is it feminist? Not at all.
Holly is "born sexy yesterday", "manic pixie dream girl" AND "damsel in distress". She is a sex worker, but could as well be a virgin.

V Bechdel test
One of the ladies ask the time and Holly finds out what time it is

V Mako Mori Test
It really is Holly's story

V Sexy Lamp Test
The female character cannot be replaced with a sexy lamp without it removing something essential from the story.

V The Crystal Gems Test

Now, there really are only two female characters in this movie, Holly and 2E, but only one really main male character, unless one counts mr Yunioshi... and I really don't want to. I think both ladies are complete characters, how ever light.

X F-Rating

X Sphinx Test

A woman has a primary role, but is she driving the action? Is she active? No. She is basically reacting all the time. She doesn't seem to have a plan, other than that of saving the money to buy a farm in Mexico, but she can't save. The story IS essential and has a huge impact on a wide audience, Holly isn't really stereotypical, but she is compelling, complex and multidimensional - in a way. In another way she is one of the first manic pixie dream girls, and as such she is very stereotypical... But that wasn't very common when this movie was made.  I really wouldn't say Holly is a feminist icon.

X The Feldman Score 3

Though... I don't know if there is a female protagonist who determines story outcomes. It seems more to be like the Writer happens to coincide with this Butterfly who fascinates him, and it's all very laisse faire what ever. No-one really determines the story outcomes. There is a female character who initiates sexual advances, Paul is basically 2E's boytoy. But - Holly is a victim and sexualized.

V Furiosa Test

Actually... it kind of did pass this in the 60s. People were offended by Paul being a "kept man", and that Holly had abandoned her husband, and was using the men.

V The Roxane Gay Test

The Maisy Test for sexism in kids' shows

X Gender Balance - Gender Representation:

This is a man's story about a woman.
The crew is almost 100% male, the cast 1 woman to 2 men.
The first crowd scene is mostly men, until it gets so crowded it doesn't matter, then it's about 50/50.
Most talking roles go to men, anyone with anything important to say is a man. Men get to define and explain Holly to Paul. Most everything that is said is said to make the image of Holly more clear. She is obviously an object of observation here.

X The Uphold Test
X The Rees Davies Test
X The White Test
X The Hagen Test
X The Koeze-Dottle Test

X Gender Freedom:

Boys and girls do not get to do the same things. 2E kind of does her own thing, but she is the only one. There's plenty of girls who don't even seem to have much brains at all. Like Irving. Most females seem to be more or less sex workers.
All males have a very stereotypical male roles. Even 2E's boytoy.

X The Peirce Test
This is bit of a problem to me... Holly is a female character who is a protagonist with her own story... or is she? This is Paul's story, not Holly's. HE is the protagonist in this movie, and she is being observed. We aren't really telling Holly's story here, we are telling Paul's story, about the time he lived in the apartment above the one where Holly lived, and how he saw and experienced Holly.
I really don't think she has dimension and exist authentically with needs and desires that she pursues through dramatic action. A lot of dramatic action, but I get the feeling Holly is fleeing all the time. She keeps running, avoiding, fleeing, evading... she has all these masks and roles and stories... it's only in the end we see 10 minutes of the real human being behind it all, and then the movie ends... and there is nothing there to say that it doesn't go back to what it was. I sincerely can see no other outcome to Holly's story that she will be evicted when she's old and replaced by dozens of other girls, more attractive than she is, no-one will be paying her bills, and she will disappear in New York, and end her days as a bag lady somewhere... probably still loitering around Tiffany's. Sort of a female Fisher King. I don't see her as an active player with any power over her own life and destiny. A true phony. She isn't what she believes to be, but she believes it so strongly that everyone else believes it as well.
I really don't think the audience can empathize with or understand the female lead’s desires and actions

X The Villarreal Test

In the first scene of the movie, we see Holly get out of a taxi and then go eat her breakfast watching the things in Tiffany's window. She is dressed for party. So - she is not introduced as one of three common stereotypes in her first scene... that comes in her first lines. She is not shown to be in a position of authority or power, she is not a mother, she isn't really sexual either... sex is implied through the whole movie, she COULD still be virgin as far as we KNOW. Escorts don't necessarily have sex with her customers, and what we see is Holly escaping all her customers. She doesn't even kiss any of them. The closest we get to sex is when her ex-husband carries her into her apartment and closes the door after them. We know their marriage was annulled, so it's highly possible, even probable, that they didn't consummate it.

O The Landau Test
I suppose it passes - she doesn't end up dead, pregnant or... plot problem?

X The Tauriel Test

X The Willis Test

traditional gender roles

The gender roles are pretty traditional. Even Holly, who ran out of her traditional and expected role as a wife, to live high life in New York, is more or less a hapless character in need of rescuing and taking care of. She seems to me very weak and almost whiny, passive and reactive, doing what she is told by men, promising sexual favors for what she needs, be it mr Yunioshi opening the door for her, or money to pay her bills. She doesn't take care of the house, food, children, or things like that, but she is being pretty, arm candy, someone men want to be seen with.

Paul on the other hand, even though he is a writer who doesn't write and is supported by his sugar mommy, seems to be active, strong, independent person. I suppose Holly is more independent, but she gives an impression of being a vine.  We don't have a manchild, we have a womanchild. Innocent, gullible, as if she didn't realize that she is a sex worker.

X the MacGyver Test

This film doesn't show fathers, honest, hard-working men, (except perhaps Doc Golightly, who is sort of a hapless loser). There isn't much violence, but no problems either... on the other hand... Paul kind of pushes himself on Holly with the "You are mine" crap in the end. I don't see any MacGyver worthy male role models in this movie.

X the Raleigh Becket Test

X Kuku test

The males are pretty much disposable, act for women's benefit. Fathers aren't mentioned. Could be understood as fathers being disposable and inadequate. The movie doesn't relate everything negative to males and positive to females.
What about reversed? The females are pretty much disposable, taken advantage of by men.
Mothers aren't mentioned. Could be understood as mothers being disposable and inadequate. The movie doesn't relate everything negative to females and positive to males.

X Gender Safety:

She's an escort. Come on. But - no-one gets raped. She has to flee from unwanted attraction, mr Yunioshi seems to be expecting her to model nude - now, it's not said straight out, but that's the impression I get.
Children are not sexualized. Except that we find out she got married when she was 14. But - we don't know what happened in the marriage.

Age of primary and secondary actors?

Audrey Hepburn (Holly) 32
George Peppard (Paul) 33
Patricia Neal (2E) 35
Buddy Ebsen (Holly's husband) 53
José Luis de Vilallonga (José da Silva Pereira) 41

We are shown Audrey sleeping presumably naked, undressing, wearing a bathrobe, but not naked.
We are shown George sleeping presumably naked, naked upper body.
We are show a woman doing striptease, we are shown her naked back, but not front. When she starts her striptease, she is wearing a very tight gown
No children in this movie.

There is sexual objectification. Irving is just a thing. Holly is almost just a thing.

There is some sexual abuse. Holly is several times shown fleeing from unwanted attention and expectations, references enough to make it clear she's an escort, lot of insinuations.

Holly remarks on Paul's "keeper", and Paul gets offended.
The "break-up" is also ridiculous. He so obviously doesn't consider himself to be a kept man, so the idea of that Holly and Paul would be equal in their position as a sex worker is ridiculous. Frankly, it feels to me that Paul see 2E as his sponsor, a mecenate, whom he f*s just because he can, not that 2E is keeping him.
And I would say 2E was in love with him (which according to Paul meant that he belonged to her) and was hurt by Paul wanting to leave her for another woman. Even though he depended on her. It was kind of him telling her that he didn't love her and never had, that he had just f'd her because he could, and she could stuff her idea of that she had any claim on him.That part was very cruel in my mind, and makes me dislike Paul even more.

V Molly Haskell

Though, Holly is basically "born sexy yesterday", "manic pixie dream girl" AND "damsel in distress". She "belongs" to Paul.
"For a woman to "deserve" good things, she must fit into the "good woman" category. She must be innocent, dutiful, helpless, submissive, obedient, quiet and pretty. The "good" she deserves is the love of a man, the protection, and support of a man."
Well... Holly is innocent, like all animals are, helpless, pretty... in a way submissive, obedient and quiet. She does what is asked of her, if you just pay her, no questions asked. Sure, she's wild and can be loud and trash about, but... in a way that is just a wild bird flapping in panic. She is a girl child. And she deserves the love of the man, Paul, gives up her freedom and accepts belonging to him.

2E apparently has lady friends. Holly doesn't. She is set apart from other women in basically every possible way. She is exceptional, fascinating, special, above her colleagues in style, everyone thinks she is a socialite, even when it was made very clear already in the beginning of the movie that she is Lula Mae, a country girl.
The man in the movie is set up as the norm - he discusses freely with the other men, they treat him respectfully and openly, the women are sort of being observed, especially Holly, as if they were some sort of exotic animals, not really human beings.  There is a sort of camaraderie between men in this movie. They belong to the same club. Berman confides in Paul the first time they meet. Holly's husband does. Sally does. José da Silva Perreira trusts him from first meeting.

O.J.Berman says he made her. There are no female role models, parental figures, mentors in the movie.

This is pretty stereotypical; a man has a story about a woman who is all feelings. *sigh*

The theme of the movie is the struggle between being free and belonging, being wild and being safe. In my mind Holly is presented as something primitive, animal like, instinctive wild thing, but not a strong, powerful beast, more like a little bird or something furry and cute - in a way Paul rescues an injured stray and takes care of her. Holly is the cat, but she is a declawed cat. She might fight back, struggle, say mean things, but it's totally futile. Paul gets his way anyway.
Like - they have this wonderful day of doing things they haven't done before, it is implied they spend the night together, the next day Holly doesn't want to have anything to do with him, but he is all in love and assumes they will go steady now, that she belongs to him. He gets offended when she shuts him out.
And the thing is that Paul doesn't give Holly stability and safety. He isn't rich. He depends of 2E, and there is nothing in the movie that says he thinks giving it up. After all, 2E pays for the apartment. Is he going to move into Holly's apartment? Who is going to pay for it? So... he just weighs her down and binds her and puts her into a cage. Which is what she abhors.
Paul is seriously behaving like a petulant child. "It's not a cage because I love you!"

gender balanced cast: not in any way
Heavy emphasis on appearance. She became a style icon because of this movi. And she IS thin... also... "the queen of the pig people"? 

 

Jobs: men are businessmen, mobsters, lawyers, writers, women are wifes and sex workers

X Social Justice and Equality:

There are some oriental women, but there is mr. Yunioshi, with Mickey Rooney in yellowface as one of the most offensive stereotypical caricatures as a Japanese man.
I suppose José Luis de Vilallonga passes as Latino, even though he is Spanish and counts as white...
Disabled people? LGBTQ+? Different class backgrounds? Not really.
Does the show support equality? No. Social justice? No. Critique of power structures, consumerism, environmental exploitation, social exploitation? No. It is obviously about social exploitation, but it's... not critiquing it. It's basically saying "everyone is exploiting and exploited, so what?"

D The Representation Test

X The Vito Russo test

Well... In the book Paul was gay and Holly sort of bisexual. In the movie they are both straight. Now, GLBT people interpret some of the events in the movie as confirming Holly's lesbian tendencies, like the way she looked at the striptease show. I don't see it, but I am straight, so what do I know.

X Kent test
X Aila test
X The Waithe Test
XThe Ko Test 
X The Villalobos Test
X The Deggans Test
V The Shukla Test

"two ethnic minorities talk to each other for more than five minutes about something other than race"
The Asian women are talking about something in Chinese (I assume. Could be some other language. And I don't know what they are talking about. Could be race.

X The Latif Test


3 Breakfast at Tiffany's Problems No-one Ever Talks About
Breakfast at Tiffany's: a Feminist Critique

Now, people have been asking why Mickey Rooney's yellowface is such a problem. For example Jack Marshall in Ethics Alarms in Ethics, Stereotypes and Holly Golightly

Why the Asian character in Edwards’ film is more offensive than the stereotypical nerds in the hit TV show “Big Bang Theory"?
Because the Asians are a minority in our society. I am not OK with the stereotypical nerds in the hit TV show "Big Bang Theory" either. There's also a lot more problems there than "stereotypical nerds". The whole show is a big can of worms most people don't dare to criticize because it is popular.

Why the Asian character in Edwards’ film is more offensive than the stereotypical Jewish and WASP characters in Woody Allen movies?
Woody Allen is Jewish.
WASPs are the majority and everyone knows enough WASPS to recognize a stereotype when they see it, whereas most white people don't know many POC to be able to recognize a stereotype and caricature, or not to be influenced by it. (That is, we white people (And everyone, basically) know "not all white people" are like that, but we don't know enough colored people to know they are not like "that")

Why the Asian character in Edwards’ film is more offensive than the stereotypical black buffoons in Tyler Perry movies?
Tyler Perry is black

"Who has decreed that “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” intends Rooney’s cartoonish portrayal as a critical commentary on anyone but Truman Capote’s fictional Japanese character?"

Has someone decreed that? And are people protesting because it's a "critical commentary" on someone? I don't think so. I think people are protesting because it's an offensive racial caricature, AND yellowfacing. Mickey Rooney, a well paid Hollywood star, took the job from some struggling actor. There were plenty of real Japanese actors available in Hollywood and every one of them would have made a better portrayal of a Japanese man than Mickey Rooney.

But, let's look at it.
1) He is the only Asian man in the movie. There are a couple of Asian women in Holly's party, dressed in a very typical Asian dresses, they look like they have been flown in straight from Hong Kong. Why aren't they dressed like every other woman in the room?
2) Rooney's cartoonish portrayal is an exact copy of the caricature Japanese of 30s, 40s, 50s... It is pretty much perfect. Every adult watching this movie recognizes him immediately. He isn't depicting some random fictional character from a book, he is depicting The Jap.

3) He further cements the preconceived notions by not speaking proper English.
4) What Truman Capote wrote is different from this.

"Why, in “Gone Witth the Wind,” is Butterfly McQueen’s idiotic “Prissy” sufficient to have that film labeled racist, despite Hattie McDaniel’s “Mammie” in the same movie, arguably the most admirable character in the story?"
It doesn't matter how admirable her character was. Besides, Melanie Wilkes was the most admirable character in the story. Mammy was a caricature who behaved like white folks in 1939 expected black women to behave. Prissy and Mammy are equally racist, Prissy being the symbol of all the negative qualities black women were believed to have, Mammy of all the positive ones, but they were both caricatures. Even the fact that Hattie McDaniel got an Oscar for the performance was sort of an insult... it was kind of telling all the black people that THIS is what you are supposed to be, be a "good girl" and you'll get rewarded. Brrr.

"Would Rooney’s portrayal be acceptable if the actor was Japanese?"
No. But at least if a Japanese actor had played mr Yunioshi, Mickey Rooney wouldn't have taken the job from someone who needed it more.

"“Long Duck Dong,” the comic Chinese exchange student in “Sixteen Candles” played by an Asian actor, is easily as stereotypical a comic portrayal as Rooney’s Mr.Yunioshi, but it is still funny, and so far, nobody has called for boycotts of that John Hughes classic."
Yet a lot of people have reacted to it, and condemn it as racist and offensive.

The co-founders of the Asian American popular culture magazine Giant Robot, Martin Wong and Eric Nakamura, said before Sixteen Candles, students of Asian descent in the United States were often nicknamed "Bruce Lee". After Sixteen Candles, they were nicknamed "Donger" after Long Duk Dong. Wong said, "If you're being called Long Duk Dong, you're comic relief amongst a sea of people unlike you." Nakamura said, "You're being portrayed as a guy who just came off a boat and who's out of control. It's like every bad stereotype possible, loaded into one character." In addition to being called "Donger", the students were taunted with quotes of the character's lines in poor English such as "Oh, sexy girlfriend."

As this is basically what happened with Charlie Chan as well. People taunting any Asian person they see by quoting stupid lines from the movies - and I'm sure this is what happened with mr Yunioshi as well. "This time I'm warning you! I am definitely, this time going to be carring the porice!"

"Marilyn Monroe is a stereotype in “The Seven Year Itch”; 

Yes, and every blonde woman can tell you why that isn't a good thing

"in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” Cate Blanchett plays a Russian Communist right out of “Rocky and Bullwinkle.” 

Indiana Jones movies are classical adventure stories where everybody is a caricature, but they are also seen as be offensive.

"Mel Brooks’ Western spoof “Blazing Saddles” ends with a sound stage full of  flaming queens, slap-fighting cowboys while they do synchronized swimming routines."

"Flaming queens"? Mel Brooks is famous for making fun of everything and everyone. People expect that when they go watch Mel Brooks movie. But - that scene especially is considered offensive and cringe worthy as well. And Mel Brooks was told to leave it out from the movie. It would have been better.

"So what?"

How are racial stereotypes harmful? If you need to ask, you really should research the issue.

The short of it is: stereotypes and caricatures are harmful, because people believe in them, and then they treat people according to these beliefs.

"The usual argument against stereotype comedy is that it is a form of cultural bullying, using unattractive portrayals to keep minorities in a subservient and oppressed status, ridiculed by the power-wielding majority. Somehow, I don’t think the Chinese who hold America’s financial obligations and the Asians who are dominating our colleges are threatened any by Mickey Rooney wearing false teeth and goofy glasses."

The Chinese who hold America's financial obligations are not an American cultural minority.
The "Asians who are dominating our colleges" - 60% of college students are white.
And might be that today's Asian American are more harmed by more modern racist stereotypes than this one, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

"The most egregious comic stereotypes in popular culture right now are white, middle class males. The fat, moronic fathers in “The Simpsons” and “The Family Guy” make Mr.Yunioshi seem like Cary Grant."

White, middle class males have plenty of material to identify with. Almost half of all the actors working in television shows right now are white and male. There's plenty of white, middle class fathers to pick, if Homer and Peter feel offensive. Except that if you think Asian people shouldn't feel offended by mr Yunioshi, you don't have any reason to feel offended by how white men are being portrayed.

"There is no end to the kind of cultural censorship Ursula Liang is advocating."
You are wrong, there.
Firstly, she isn't asking for censorship. She is asking people to boycott the screening. She isn't asking for banning the movie, or that all the copies of the movie be destroyed.
Secondly, Movies with a View is partially financed by public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. What people watch in their own homes is one thing, what is shown to a public on tax payers money is something different.
Thirdly, this movie's cultural value is seriously not that big. USA has created hundreds of classic movies, and many of them are better than Breakfast at Tiffany's. I don't see anyone missing anything if they never saw the movie (except the cringe worthy racist yellowface act Mickey Rooney defended still 2008. "Everyone always tells me I was so funny!").

"Now it only serves as an interesting reminder of how American attitudes have changed, and an oddity, as well as fodder for debates over the use of stereotypes in drama. "
It doesn't though... I know people defending offensive material often say things like that, but it never happens. Like, there is a museum of mammy things, and the owner defends it by saying that "it's an important part of the American cultural heritage and we have to keep it so that people know about how offensive it is", yet you don't even know it is offensive. And considering that there's 20 years between mr Yuniuchi and Long Duck Dong, considering what you wrote, and what the comments to this say, I don't think the American attitudes have changed that much.
And, really, there is no need to debate the use of stereotypes. It's harmful. Just stop it. End of discussion.

"As always, there’s an elegant and effective remedy for Laing and anyone else who find Rooney’s portrayal objectionable. They can go see another movie."
So you do not find Rooney's portrayal objectionable after all. 

They couldn't go see another movie. SYFY Movies with the View showed only one movie each night. Going to see another movie would have meant missing the event. Like offering to buy the whole room dinner, but only as long as they eat seafood. Allergic? Go to another restaurant.

"five minutes of out-dated burlesque from Mickey Rooney"

Well... considering that it is just five minutes, it's out-dated, and you call it a "cringe-worthy scar on an otherwise marvelous film" and that it doesn't belong there, let's cut it out alltogether. Or... let's edit the movie and put in a real Japanese actor who doesn't speak broken English, but acts as a real Japanese American photographer in New York back in 1961 would have acted, without the mockery of Japanese culture.