Pop star Pixie Lott may give Holly Golightly new life in a new production of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, but she misses the mark with her American accent.
Richard Greenberg’s stage adaptation of the classic tale is based on the novel written by Truman Capote rather than the 1961 film starring Audrey Hepburn.
The show oozes 1940s glamour and sophistication, enhanced by the stylistic set, wardrobe and music.
This is Lott’s first theatre appearance and though it is hard to not compare her to Hepburn’s Holly Golightly, she brings a fresh take to the character.
When the actress appears on stage all eyes are on her as she grabs your attention with a glowing stage presence and multiple outfit changes.
She gave the audience goosebumps and sent shivers down spines with her cover of Moon River.
However, it did come across that she was less experienced than the rest of the cast and struggled to keep up a consistent American accent.
On the other hand, Lott is a good choice for a character representing a free spirited woman with allure and mystery.
Even though Holly is the most famous character, it was Fred who was chosen as the protagonist and narrator, using the same angle as the book.
We follow Fred’s experience in New York and his strange relationship with his obscure next door neighbour, Holly.
The story reflects on Fred’s non-sexual love for Holly who is loved by many men.
There is certainly drama brought to the table with this production, there is plenty of lust and romance but this is not a typical love story.
We are shown Fred’s struggle as a writer and the stress he faces trying to deal with the New York lifestyle.
Fred is a likeable character but is nowhere near as cool as he is represented in the film, leaving the most interesting character left a bit on the side lines.
The overall production of the show is good, representing the era well and with a nice flow – give or take a misplaced scene involving a horse and a bath.
But sticking with the roots of the book may alienate people by not reiterating the well-loved story shown in the 1960s that people are more familiar with.
However, the strength of the book’s plot gives it an interesting angle and it is certainly fun to be surrounded by the glitz of the 1940s.
