![\"\"](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/7\/7e\/Audrey_Hepburn_Tiffany's.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhen Buddy Ebsen came along as Doc Golightly, the movie briefly lost me; as interesting as Holly\u2019s past life should be, I was more engaged by her present flirtation and evolving relationship with Paul Varjak (George Peppard, a funny, likable straight man). The subplot with Doc is kind of a weird digression stuck into the middle of the movie, considering he never even shows up again once he takes the bus home. That said, I recognize that it serves an important role in the movie. It\u2019s just not what I was most interested in.<\/p>\n
Pretty much everything else is golden. The party scene is just so great, and as odd as it sounds, I felt like I could relate a little bit to it, having seen some weird and random stuff at college parties. There are so many little moments in that scene that I love: the quick speed of Martin Balsam\u2019s talking, the way Paul self-identifies as \u201cPaul baby\u201d when O.J. calls him \u201cFred baby,\u201d the moment when Paul tosses a girl off Jose\u2019s back and onto the back of another random attendee, and the comedic highpoint of the movie: the shot of one woman laughing hysterically at her reflection in a mirror, followed by the shot of the same woman sobbing at her reflection. Really, there are a lot of those small moments that I love throughout the movie. In some old movies, antiquated dialogue can create a bit of a distance between me and the movie, but here, it was funny and appealing. I love \u201cthe mean reds\u201d and the way Holly calls all men \u201crats\u201d or \u201csuper-rats.\u201d<\/p>\n
The way the romance between Holly and Paul proceeds seems like the standard romance formula, in some ways. Girl meets boy, girl gets boy, girl loses boy, girl gets boy back. (I put \u2018girl\u2019 as the subject because Holly is the one who has the real character arc here, but the other way around would work, too.) There\u2019s a really cute date scene, lots of funny banter, numerous other love interests as obstacles (most notably Jose), a final confrontation, and a kiss in the rain. But there\u2019s something so deep and unique about the conflict that drives Paul and Holly apart; it\u2019s not as simple as Holly loving another man. The conflict is more internal\u2014it\u2019s a character flaw. It\u2019s Holly\u2019s love of materialism, her stubborn insistence that these temporary distractions will fill the hole in her heart.<\/p>\n This is best represented by the heartbreaking moment when she opens the cab door and shoos the nameless cat away. Pretty much any scene in any movie when a character gets rid of a cat will inevitably hit me hard since I love cats, but this one was especially potent because it was such a powerful metaphor for how Holly feels. Towards the end of the movie, I was so frustrated with her\u2014I seriously wanted her to stop pretending she didn\u2019t have any genuine love for Paul, or her cat, or her house, or her life in New York. And that final moment, as she jumps out of the cab, searches for the cat, finds it, and embraces Paul, is so cathartic.<\/p>\n Skipping forward 35 years, \u201cCitizen Ruth\u201d is most notable for being the debut film of Alexander Payne. I\u2019ve always had mixed feelings about Payne; while I like \u201cAbout Schmidt\u201d and \u201cThe Descendants\u201d well enough, I have to admit I found \u201cNebraska\u201d pretty dull the first time I saw it. I was ready, for a while, to write Payne off as a filmmaker who simply didn\u2019t fit my tastes, regardless of how beloved he may be. Then I watched \u201cElection,\u201d and I almost groaned, because I could no longer dismiss Alexander Payne. I absolutely loved \u201cElection,\u201d and \u201cCitizen Ruth\u201d represents another boost in my regard for Payne (I still haven\u2019t seen \u201cSideways\u201d).<\/p>\n Oddly enough, the first thing \u201cCitizen Ruth\u201d reminded me of was \u201cMockingjay,\u201d the third book in the Hunger Games trilogy. In \u201cMockingjay,\u201d Katniss defeats President Snow and the primary villains of the series with the help of ostensible good guys President Coin and her best friend, Gale. Eventually, though, you realize that the good guys have some dark secrets of their own. One of the fascinating twists of \u201cMockingjay\u201d is that though President Coin might be trying to accomplish an admirable goal\u2014defeating Snow and bringing justice to Panem\u2014she\u2019s ultimately just as manipulative, vindictive, and hateful as the presumed bad guys. Gale, too, though well-meaning, is implicated in some of Coin\u2019s most heinous acts.<\/p>\n In this analogy, the pro-lifers that try to convince Ruth to keep her baby in \u201cCitizen Ruth\u201d are like President Snow and the corrupt citizens of the Capitol. They\u2019re the most obvious choice for the antagonists; they\u2019re religious zealots who seek to manipulate Ruth and use her to accomplish their own political agenda. Honestly, to me, abortion is the kind of issue that doesn\u2019t need for both sides to be treated equally, just like a movie about gay people fighting for same-sex marriage to be legal doesn\u2019t need an equally valid point of view showing that maybe gay marriage should be illegal. I would\u2019ve been fine with an unequivocally pro-choice movie, just like I\u2019d be fine with a pro-gay marriage or anti-racism movie.<\/p>\n And yet \u201cCitizen Ruth\u201d manages to humanize both sides. On the pro-choice side, the characters can be likable because they\u2019re generally more accepting of Ruth and her lifestyle and her choices. On the pro-life side, the characters can be likable because Norm (Kurtwood Smith) and Gail (Mary Kay Place) are such kind people to Ruth, feeding her and clothing her and paying her bail and putting up with her shit. Us liberals tend to dismiss radical conservatives and pro-lifers, but Norm and Gail, despite being cartoonish, were genuinely caring people. It\u2019s important to remember people\u2019s humanity, even when their beliefs are damaging.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n