Page 89 of Only Lovers in the Building

Prof. Romero: Yes, Mike?

Mike: Do you moonlight as a bartender? Because a friend of mine said—

Prof. Romero: Not going there, Mike!

Mike: If you do tend bar, let us know. We’ll roll through for extra credit.

[Laughter]

Romero rolls up his sleeves and waits for the class to settle down. When quiet settles, he launches into the lecture.

Prof. Romero: Holly Golightly is a comical name: the author chose it carefully. It rings false. A made-up name, but only in part. Lula Mae Barnes married Doc Golightly, which lends some legitimacy to it. Holly is the mask Lula Mae wears to forge her way into the city to carve a new life, and it’s so fitting. Give me some examples of names of fictional characters that provide some insight of their true nature. There are no wrong answers.

Beverly: Huck Finn! A bighearted country boy, but simple.

Prof. Romero: Good. Anyone else?

Dan: Scarlett O’Hara. She’s a firecracker.

Prof. Romero: Agreed. How about you, Mike?

Mike: Cleopatra, a queen. Regal and commanding.

Beverly: Cleopatra is not a fictional character.

Prof. Romero: I’d argue that Cleopatra as portrayed in films is absolutely fictional.

Mike: Quick question. Holly Golightly is a hooker. Right?

Beverly: A hooker? Really?

Mike: Yeah . . . For lack of a better term.

Prof. Romero: I promise you there’s no lack of better terms. Look into it.

Beverly: She was an escort. There’s no shame in it. New York City rent is outrageously high, then and now.

Dan: She’s a pathological liar. All she does is make up stuff.

Prof. Romero: Holly fled her hometown and escaped a bad marriage. Her creative thinking—what you call lying—is a coping mechanism. She makes up her reality as she goes.

Dan: Creative thinking . . . Okay.

Prof. Romero: The novella is a tale of a complicated friendship. A writer becomes infatuated with his eccentric neighbor. The film adaptation gives us a love story. The writer falls in love with his eccentric neighbor, and they live happily ever after. Which brings us to today’s topic: endings. Let’s discuss Hollywood’s need to manipulate even the best-crafted stories to tack on a happy ending. Would the film have been less successful without it?

Beverly: If the man is straight, then they have to fall in love, and if they fall in love, it has to work out. I don’t make the rules. That’s just how it goes.

Prof. Romero: You’re right to point out the film’s inherent homophobia. They erased the gay character to make the story more palatable to the average moviegoer. The gay writer is clean-cut and straight. In the original story, the friendship doesn’t fare well. Holly takes off for Brazil, alone. She even abandons her cat. The writer will spend the rest of his life wondering about her.

Mike: I’m no romantic, but how is that satisfying?

Prof. Romero: That’s one take. You’ve all read the book, and you’ve watched the movie. Show of hands, who prefers the Hollywood ending? Nearly all of you! Interesting. Let’s hear your arguments.

Dan: Are we overthinking this? The movie is a classic for a reason.

Prof. Romero: The novella is no less a classic.

Mike: The book is a bummer. Hollywood was right to tweak it. Everyone knows Capote’s best work is In Cold Blood.