CAPOTE
CAPOTE (2005) Dir Bennet Miller, starring Phillip Seymour Hofmann
and INFAMOUS (2006), dir Douglas McGrath, starring Toby Jones, Sandra Bullock etc
Capote is (yet another) bio-pic of an American hero, this time novelist Truman Capote, author of classic works Breakfast at Tiffanys and In Cold Blood, comes under the microscope. After Capote's success with Breakfast at Tiffanys, the author began to experiment with an innovative new form, which he called 'the non-fiction novel' (something of an oxymoron). This novel is concerned with the horrific slaying of a family of four, the Clutters, in Kansas by two white drifters. The film details Capote's first interest in the case, his travels backwards and forwards by train to Kansas from New York with his childhood friend Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird. His increasing absorption in the case and the ensuing trial of would-be murderers Perry Smith and Richard Hickock.
Capote gathered copious notes and many interviews with local people over six years, detailing every aspect of the case, including the effects that the murders had on the locality (the Clutters were apparantly a very well-respected family). In the film there is no attempt by the Kansas judiciary to give Perry and Hickock a fair trial, instead their lawyer instructs them to waive their rights with the implicit promise that the judge will therefore look more favourably upon their plight if they do. In the end their use of the waiver does not save them from conviction and the death penalty, so Truman Capote seeks to re-address the matter by finding them a lawyer who might argue their case for a re-trial at their appeal. He fails to do so, their appeal is rejected and they are hung.
What's interesting about the film's depiction of this case, but never totally baldly stated, is that its clear from the start that the trial is a sham, that Smith and Hickock's real crime is the crime of being poor, a truly heinous, horrible and terrible crime in the America of the 1960s. Truman Capote, however, wasn't poor, but he wasn't a qualified state killer either. No, he purports to be a novelist and therefore the conscience of America, a witness to the sham trial of Smith and Hickock, an exploiter of their gory story for a good story, ultimately for immense profit under the banner of authoring an avante-garde, truly innovative and new kind of book, 'the non-fiction novel'.
Truman Capote had a funny voice. Phillip Seymour Hofmann, the actor portraying Capote in the film, imitates that funny voice. Later he is given an Oscar for his depiction of Capote. Truman Capote is the real victim of the film, not the Clutters, not Smith and Hickock, but this poor man who was 'born that way', born with a funny voice, an affected (but not essentially an effeminate) voice. Truman Capote who went to Kansas with his funny voice with his funny friends to write his funny book. Its unsurprising that the film tells us in big black bold letters that Truman Capote was a debonair host, ultimately cosmopolitan, urbane, witty and a homosexual. However, 'Capote' does not dwell unnecessarily upon the author's homosexuality, allowing the issue of his essential difference to become clearer as the events depicted unwind.
Its clear that Capote is reminded of his own upbringing by the character studies he makes of Hickock, but especially of Perry, whom its purported he had some kind of emotional, even physical relationship with. The film depicts the complexity of Capote's character and his deepening involvement in the case, how ultimately he does little to give Perry and Hickock the fighting chance they deserve by securing them the services of a lawyer. It's also clear that 'In Cold Blood' finished his writing career, for after its massive impact, he was never able to finish another book.
Whether or not Truman Capote exploited the case for his own financial and personal ends is a matter of opinion. The film offers us facts that offer us a range of possible interpretations, including the opinion that Capote himself was an unpleasant pariah, a selfish social parasite, existing in a vapid literary and social world, posturing as a 'homosexual'. Its hardly homophobic to walk away with that opinion and I'm sure Truman Capote himself would have welcomed the possibility for real readers to think objectively and freely.
Its clear that he became emotionally involved.
This film is particularly effective in allowing the viewer to draw his or her conclusions from the source material, rather than imposing its own meanings on the events depicted. A quite original and moving film.
'Infamous' covers all the same material but in many different ways. Its much lighter in tone overall, veers towards caricature in its depiction of Capote and emphasises celebrity rather than the hard facts of the case. The film emphasises Capote's role as a celebrity, him being familiar not only Noel Coward, Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother, but also engages in poker and arm wrestling with Bogart, Frank (Sinatra) and Marlon (Brando). Capote's role as a member of High Society deigning to descend among common folks, in order to help two obviously guilty white hobos, is laid on a lot thicker and more obviously than in 'Capote' and can be read as deeply offensive by those who are stricken with such a thing as a social conscience. But the film is lightly humorous, well written, more visually engaging than the other film (which sometimes resembled a drug-induced hallucination), but somehow lacked the darkness, the tragic aura that surrounded the author in 'Capote'.
'Infamous' boasts many more celebrities, including: Gwyneth Paltrow, Sigourney Weaver, Isabella Rossellini, Juliet Stephenson. 'Infamous' is more of a womens' film: Truman Capote is much camper, his voice and dress infinitely more feminine, his relationships with his circle of adoring NYC women fans, including Babe Paley (Weaver), are emphasized at the expense of the image of the macho writer investigator of 'Capote'.
The second film is clearly attempting to offer a set of related but also diverging points from 'Capote' and its almost compulsory that the two films be watched together. The truth is simply that the life and work of Truman Capote were so complex to evoke two divergent, fascinating interpretations allowing us a range of opinions and conclusions, opinions that are still important and relevant today.
Paul Murphy
and INFAMOUS (2006), dir Douglas McGrath, starring Toby Jones, Sandra Bullock etc
Capote is (yet another) bio-pic of an American hero, this time novelist Truman Capote, author of classic works Breakfast at Tiffanys and In Cold Blood, comes under the microscope. After Capote's success with Breakfast at Tiffanys, the author began to experiment with an innovative new form, which he called 'the non-fiction novel' (something of an oxymoron). This novel is concerned with the horrific slaying of a family of four, the Clutters, in Kansas by two white drifters. The film details Capote's first interest in the case, his travels backwards and forwards by train to Kansas from New York with his childhood friend Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird. His increasing absorption in the case and the ensuing trial of would-be murderers Perry Smith and Richard Hickock.
Capote gathered copious notes and many interviews with local people over six years, detailing every aspect of the case, including the effects that the murders had on the locality (the Clutters were apparantly a very well-respected family). In the film there is no attempt by the Kansas judiciary to give Perry and Hickock a fair trial, instead their lawyer instructs them to waive their rights with the implicit promise that the judge will therefore look more favourably upon their plight if they do. In the end their use of the waiver does not save them from conviction and the death penalty, so Truman Capote seeks to re-address the matter by finding them a lawyer who might argue their case for a re-trial at their appeal. He fails to do so, their appeal is rejected and they are hung.
What's interesting about the film's depiction of this case, but never totally baldly stated, is that its clear from the start that the trial is a sham, that Smith and Hickock's real crime is the crime of being poor, a truly heinous, horrible and terrible crime in the America of the 1960s. Truman Capote, however, wasn't poor, but he wasn't a qualified state killer either. No, he purports to be a novelist and therefore the conscience of America, a witness to the sham trial of Smith and Hickock, an exploiter of their gory story for a good story, ultimately for immense profit under the banner of authoring an avante-garde, truly innovative and new kind of book, 'the non-fiction novel'.
Truman Capote had a funny voice. Phillip Seymour Hofmann, the actor portraying Capote in the film, imitates that funny voice. Later he is given an Oscar for his depiction of Capote. Truman Capote is the real victim of the film, not the Clutters, not Smith and Hickock, but this poor man who was 'born that way', born with a funny voice, an affected (but not essentially an effeminate) voice. Truman Capote who went to Kansas with his funny voice with his funny friends to write his funny book. Its unsurprising that the film tells us in big black bold letters that Truman Capote was a debonair host, ultimately cosmopolitan, urbane, witty and a homosexual. However, 'Capote' does not dwell unnecessarily upon the author's homosexuality, allowing the issue of his essential difference to become clearer as the events depicted unwind.
Its clear that Capote is reminded of his own upbringing by the character studies he makes of Hickock, but especially of Perry, whom its purported he had some kind of emotional, even physical relationship with. The film depicts the complexity of Capote's character and his deepening involvement in the case, how ultimately he does little to give Perry and Hickock the fighting chance they deserve by securing them the services of a lawyer. It's also clear that 'In Cold Blood' finished his writing career, for after its massive impact, he was never able to finish another book.
Whether or not Truman Capote exploited the case for his own financial and personal ends is a matter of opinion. The film offers us facts that offer us a range of possible interpretations, including the opinion that Capote himself was an unpleasant pariah, a selfish social parasite, existing in a vapid literary and social world, posturing as a 'homosexual'. Its hardly homophobic to walk away with that opinion and I'm sure Truman Capote himself would have welcomed the possibility for real readers to think objectively and freely.
Its clear that he became emotionally involved.
This film is particularly effective in allowing the viewer to draw his or her conclusions from the source material, rather than imposing its own meanings on the events depicted. A quite original and moving film.
'Infamous' covers all the same material but in many different ways. Its much lighter in tone overall, veers towards caricature in its depiction of Capote and emphasises celebrity rather than the hard facts of the case. The film emphasises Capote's role as a celebrity, him being familiar not only Noel Coward, Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother, but also engages in poker and arm wrestling with Bogart, Frank (Sinatra) and Marlon (Brando). Capote's role as a member of High Society deigning to descend among common folks, in order to help two obviously guilty white hobos, is laid on a lot thicker and more obviously than in 'Capote' and can be read as deeply offensive by those who are stricken with such a thing as a social conscience. But the film is lightly humorous, well written, more visually engaging than the other film (which sometimes resembled a drug-induced hallucination), but somehow lacked the darkness, the tragic aura that surrounded the author in 'Capote'.
'Infamous' boasts many more celebrities, including: Gwyneth Paltrow, Sigourney Weaver, Isabella Rossellini, Juliet Stephenson. 'Infamous' is more of a womens' film: Truman Capote is much camper, his voice and dress infinitely more feminine, his relationships with his circle of adoring NYC women fans, including Babe Paley (Weaver), are emphasized at the expense of the image of the macho writer investigator of 'Capote'.
The second film is clearly attempting to offer a set of related but also diverging points from 'Capote' and its almost compulsory that the two films be watched together. The truth is simply that the life and work of Truman Capote were so complex to evoke two divergent, fascinating interpretations allowing us a range of opinions and conclusions, opinions that are still important and relevant today.
Paul Murphy
Comments