Everybody loves Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The 1961 romantic comedy by Blake Edwards is so beloved that it even inspired a pop song several years ago. Central to everyone’s love for this film is the spirited performance by Audrey Hepburn. So captivating is this performance that most people assume, as did I, that Audrey Hepburn’s Holly Golightly was the Main Character of the story.
Further examination proves that this is not the case.
Audrey Hepburn’s performance aside, the most important throughline in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is the romantic relationship between Holly and Paul Varjak (George Peppard). It’s what everyone remembers about the film, it gets the most screen time (close to 90%) and even comes complete with its own theme song. It is therefore safe to assume that one of these two characters is the Main Character.
Why?
The most important relationship in a story is the relationship that develops between the Main Character and the Impact Character. Some call this the “B” story line, others prefer to call it the Subjective Story. 1 Either way, it is this throughline that is at the heart of a story. In Breakfast at Tiffany’s, this relationship exists between Holly and Paul and thus, one will be the Main Character and the other will be the Impact Character.
As I stated in the beginning, most people assume that Holly is the Main Character. After all, she is the most assertive one. She is certainly a “willful” character. And we do open up the film on her as she visits the famed jewelry store. Furthermore, she is the one that breaks down and cries and ultimately changes in the end. So it must be her story, right?
Confusing Main Character with Protagonist
What about Paul?
While it is true that Paul is not very assertive, this is not an essential element of a Main Character. The Main Character is a point of view; not a driving force of the plot. It is through the Main Character’s eyes that we witness and experience the events of a story.
Some witnesses just prefer to stand on the sidelines.
Thus we can claim Holly’s assertive nature as the main reason why many would label her as the Main Character.
The Main Character is a point of view; not a driving force of the plot
The problem is that this assertive nature is more often than not a revealing characteristic of the Protagonist, not of the Main Character. An Archetypal Protagonist consists of an Action element and a Decision element; the Action element being the motivation to pursue, the Decision element being the motivation to consider.
Holly clearly is a character driven by pursuit.
She, as with many of the other characters in the film, strives to achieve a “state of Tiffany’s,” that is, everyone in the film is more or less trying to get ahead and elevate their status in life. Holly is the central character in this struggle and the one we primarily see pursuing this activity.
But she does not represent a personal perspective on the story’s problems.
Paul does.
That is why you need to separate the Main Character perspective from the concept of the Protagonist. One is an indicator of perspective; the other a function of plot.
Sharing the Surprise
But how can we be sure? That opening sequence with Holly at Tiffany’s surely feels like a personal moment. An elaborately dressed, yet lonely woman enjoys a pastry while window shopping in the early morning hours. What could be more personal than that? In fact, when I first saw that scene I thought to myself, “Well this is an obvious Main Character moment.”
It all comes down to surprise.
One way an author can clue an audience in to what character they should be empathizing most with is to reveal things to the audience the same time as they reveal it to that character. In that way, the audience shares the same emotional experience that the character does. We have, in essence, become that character.
Understanding this then, it is easy to see that it is Paul who represents our “in” to the story’s events, not Holly.
When Paul is surprised at something that happens in the story, we share his surprise.
The best example of this can be found when Paul begins to hear “Moonriver” being played outside his apartment. We, as the audience, have no idea where that music is coming from or who is playing it. We know it’s important because we heard it in the opening titles and because it’s a pretty popular song, but we have no idea who would be playing it right outside his bedroom window.
Paul steps out and sees that it is Holly playing the song on the guitar.
His surprise is our surprise.
We have shared an emotional experience with this character (albeit a very stoic one) and therefore have taken his perspective on the story as our own.
Another example of this shared perspective between character and audience can be found at the party at Holly’s apartment. Standing in Paul’s shoes, we witness the rather saccharine portrayal of what is essentially an orgy among the upper class of New York. It’s as if we are experiencing these seedy events for the first time. Again, a personal experience shared with the Main Character.
Holly, on the other hand, is more a part of the party, part of the group. She stands apart from us and it is her influence, or impact on us, that we feel throughout the rest of the story - the very definition of an Impact Character.
Their Surprise is Our Surprise
When we’re trying to identify the Main Character of a story, it’s important to really consider whose shoes we stand in. It’s much more than simply looking at the character that is the most willful or the most assertive. Instead, we need to think of the character we most empathize with. Do the events that occur in the story come as a complete surprise to us, or were they something that we knew would happen all along?
The Main Character is most often the character through which we share the most wonderment.
Footnotes for this article
- At least those familiar with the Dramatica theory of story!↩
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment