criterionforum.org

"In Cold Blood" is one of my favorite films, and a fascinating book on top of that. This year, two identical-sounding films centered around Truman Capote and "In Cold Blood" will be released.

"Capote" :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/
http://www.sonyclassics.com/capote/main.html
Truman Capote (Hoffman), during his research for his book In Cold Blood, an account of the murder of a Kansas family, the writer develops a close relationship with Perry Smith, one of the killers. With Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper.

From the trailer, I saw many historical recreations of the same scenes that were filmed earlier for "In Cold Blood" (the arrests, the flashbacks, the demise of the killers), and essentially, it's the same story, just with a different point of view (and one of a much harassed, droopy-sounding homosexual). Despite the potentially good performances, it feels like this is showing us the exact same story that was already perfectly depicted in the 1967 film (with gorgeous b&w 'scope cinematography by Conrad Hall), but hopefully it will rightly get more into Capote's life and his work with the case, leading those curious into checking out the novel or the 1967 film adapation of his book (both are worthwhile, and the film is a cinematic masterpiece). I look forward to comments on it.

"Infamous " :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420609/maindetails
While researching his book In Cold Blood, writer Truman Capote (Toby Jones) develops a close relationship with convicted murderers Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. With Daniel Craig, Sandra Bullock, Gwyeneth Paltrow, Peter Bogdanovich, and others. With cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel.

Alright, bad timing, to say the least, so what the hell is going to happen? My guess is that "Have you Heard" will be shelved (or released directly to video/ sold to cable), because "Capote" is generating a lot of critical praise, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is being hailed a character actor legend making his breakthrough performance. However, I'm very curious as to the style of "Have you Heard?" A lot of stars are in it playing famous characters (ala "The Aviator") and it seems like it will focus a lot more on Capote's Hollywood reputation (don't forget he co-wrote the screenplay for "The Innocents") dramatically leading into the crowned jewel of his career (In Cold Blood). It's anybody's guess what it's fate will be, but I must say that Daniel Craig is absolutely perfect casting.

Dylan

Anyone interested should pick up the October issue of Vanity Fair (with Paris Hilton on the cover...I'm sure she has a lot of fans here), and read James Wolcott's insightful and beautifully written article Tru Grit.

He discusses the two films, and Capote in general. He's seen the Hoffman film and raves about it and writes that he's read the script for Have You Heard and characterizes it as "...rudely comic and delicately melancholy and I can't wait to see it."

I share your love for In Cold Blood, a movie I saw for the first time when I was probably 8 or so (my mom had read the book and loved the film, as well.)

EDIT: He writes that Have You Heard? has been pushed back to 2006.

It's Valmont and Tombstone, all over again

I saw Capote about two weeks ago on one of the most dismal nights of my life. I thought watching a film (which was reportedly) about the writer's process would encourage or, at least, inspire me. It did neither.

In a way Phillip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal is kind if indictment of writers (but most especially, Capote), in general. Plumbing the abyss of the human psyche to eventually come through with a light that galvanizes is the sort of catharsis I prefer; which is why I tend to go for moralists like Dosteovsky or, say, Camus. But when a journey takes you into the abyss and lets you off there never to return, well, what can you do with that? In Cold Blood as many of you know, is Capote account of the murder of a Kansas family. In the film Hoffman lies, bribes, cajoles, charms and manuevers his way into being one of the most famous authors of the twentieth century but almost fails in exhibiting the one aspect that would propel his account into a real work of substance: compassion. Director Bennet Miller shows us how Capote as witness lived the act of compassion, which is the only light in this two hour period of darkness. Where In Cold Blood fails as a testament to the lives of the murderers and victims, Capote succeeds as a living witness to what most other people could not embrace. A+ for that. Acting Kudos for Hoffman.

I just saw it tonight, and it was pretty good, if flawed. It searches for a silent angle to the material, yet the film seems rather flat. I have read the novel "In Cold Blood," which is breathtaking, and have seen the 1967 film adaptation three or four times (directed by Richard Brooks, starring Robert Blake, with gorgeous B&W photography by Conrad Hall), an adaptation that is not only better than the book, but a masterpiece of filmmaking.

When I saw the trailer to “Capote,â€

While I have no advance knowledge of the material, my impression was the same, in particular:

Dylan wrote:The scenes where he is drinking and conversing with people at cocktail parties are the best in the film, feeling vividly candid and naturalistic.

Unfortunately that's what, maybe three minutes.

I'm not sure, I'm tempted to say it was more like six minutes, but in any case those scenes were great, the only scenes in the film that take us away from "In Cold Blood" and into an aspect of Capote's personality (in this case, the humorous, strange, and surprisingly outgoing social character he was), which is what I believe most of the film should've been (and of course also dealing with his sexuality, strange habits, etc., which the film vaguely hints at early on {his little 360 turn while opening his suit}). Over the end credits, I saw that Hoffman produced this film as well, leading me to believe that he had been working on his Truman Capote performance for some time. It really shows, it's a pretty great performance, I just wish the film had more depth. After I wrote my above post, I put on the DVD of "In Cold Blood" and scanned around for a couple minutes. It had been more than a year since I had even glanced at the film, and Christ is it so much better in every department. I was actually sort of shocked.

What "Capote" needed was some structure. Lets get to know Capote and get a grasp on this immensely intriguing character before we lead into the Cutter family murders. Of course, I also wanted a little more about after he finished the book, how he functioned afterwards, etc. Maybe some of this was filmed but deleted? But even with the massive potential for a greater film lurking over and around "Capote," I still rather liked this alternative perspective, though my closeness to the source material had no small part in that.

Meanwhile, I very much look forward to how "Capote" compares to the other Truman Capote film coming out, now titled "Infamous." From the sounds of it, "Infamous" may be more of what I'm looking for in a film about Capote (e.g., more about his personal life, hopefully more depth into his relationship with Perry), but we'll have to wait and see.

Dylan

I'm going to have to get around to reading the book and watching Brooks' movie. Capote is the film it wants to be, rather than what we, one fully versed, the other blind, would have preferred. Do those cocktail scenes, handled so well, take away from the rest of the movie, or do they, as was certainly intended, provide a foundation for it? The brief social scene late in the film, viewed from a distance, was a gasp of wonderfully fresh air, and only served to remind me of what I was missing.

I really don't understand the mostly lukewarm response to Capote on this forum. It's extremely well made, every frame is carefully detailed and composed. I love the "minimalist" style which I find incredibly effective and appropriate for a film like this and the chilly "washed-out" color palette is also utterly breathtaking. Capote is unsettlingly ambiguous and gripping as we see how Capote with his ache for literary transcendence betrays people, especially Perry Smith in order to create In Cold Blood. That entire angle is completely fascinating to watch. How can anyone not like a film that features Harper Lee, another writer who is as enigmatic as Capote? Does anyone know anything about this reclusive author's reaction to Capote or maybe Catherine Keener's interpretation? I find it very interesting that both Capote and Lee didn't pen another book after this Kansas tragedy. I feel that Capote brilliantly captures the mood that is so thoroughly mysterious and brooding, not unlike the author Capote himself.

At least this wonderful film brought back and continues to keep Capote's book on the bestselling list. He would have loved that.

EDIT:

Just discovered this.

From contactmusic.com:

HARPER LEE SHUT OUT KEENER

Oscar nominated actress CATHERINE KEENER was devastated when famed author HARPER LEE, who she played in CAPOTE, refused to speak with her before filming.

The TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD author, who had been celebrated writer TRUMAN CAPOTE's best friend since childhood, refused to cooperate with the making of the film in any way.

Keener explains, "She's a very private person. When I got the job I thought maybe I'd go down to Alabama, where she lives, and knock on her door or something.

"They (the producers) told me that she didn't want anything to do with it (the movie), because she wanted to remain a private person."

After Capote was released, Lee contacted Keener to tell her how much she enjoyed the film.

Keener says, "It's wonderful (that she got into contact). She saw the film and she liked it very much and was very enthusiastic about Phil's (PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN) performance."

Well, there were only three posters on here that really went into it during its release, and one of them liked it. My opinion wasn't really negative, I just thought the film was quite flawed, and not even close to as successful as documenting this history as "In Cold Blood" (have you seen this yet, Michael?).

The ambiguity is one of the things I didn't like, especially when I knew everything they were being ambiguous about. When that happened I couldn't help but thinking the 'ambiguity' was kind of lazy...maybe if I watch it again it will strike me more as a stylistic approach (which I didn't consider on my initial viewing, but it's certainly a way to justify it). Thing is, there are questions left unanswered in "Capote" that are pretty obvious facts if you've read the book or seen the 1967 film, and I had problems with that.

I do think it's well made and acted, just not satisfying or definitive.

I think you should see "In Cold Blood" if you haven't. You might love it, it's very cinematic, depressing, and horrific. I cry everytime

In Cold Blood" (have you seen this yet, Michael?).

Yes, I have and I love it. One of my top ten films of 1960s. The film is still powerful, staggering and disturbing today. So is Capote's gorgeous book which I've read twice. He has been one of my top three favorite writers since my high school years.

Dylan, reading your Capote thoughts, I'm still trying to make sense out of the flaws you pointed out. Since Capote deals with real-life characters, don't you think it's wise that the film chooses to keep things more on the ambiguous side (also like Raging Bull) instead of spelling everything out? If I'm not mistaken, you seem to expect the film to flesh out the relationship between Capote and his partner or Nelle. Were you expecting a "bio-pic"? The way I see Capote is that it's more of a story of the birth of an artist's masterpiece than the story of the artist's life. Sure, we receive numerous snippets of Capote's early life.. enough only to reinforce Capote seeing himself in one of the killers, the very inspiration that gives birth to In Cold Blood. Through that "prism", we get to see Capote as an awfully complex human being.. in such a new light that his famous mannerisms seem nothing. I don't think Capote tries to be like In Cold Blood - the book and the film - simply because they've already been made. Capote seems to focus on one aspect - the birth of a masterpiece. What it takes for an artist to create one. Such a personal journey that the film is wise enough to keep it ambiguous, leaving room for us to fill in with our own personal feelings and thoughts, making us connect to Capote on a human level. Whoever wrote the script should have won the Oscar. Couldn't ask for a more perfect script.

Great film.

Since Capote deals with real-life characters, don't you think it's wise that the film chooses to keep things more on the ambiguous side (also like Raging Bull) instead of spelling everything out?

As I said in my original post, I didn't go into the film with any expectations. I was caught off guard when I seemed to know more about the characters than the film was showing, and I didn't really get into the ambiguity (I wanted more about how Capote and Harper Lee were childhood friends {did you know that Truman was supposedly the inspiration for the character of Dill in "Mockingbird?"...not that this fact needed to be in the film, but I wanted a little more about them personally, the way the film plays we have no idea how long they've known each other, and while that's the intention I don't entirely agree with this}). I don't typically love biopics, but there are ways I think we could've seen just a little bit of young Truman and have made that relevant to the film (in the same way Cronenberg introduced to us the doctors as kids in "Dead Ringers"). I wanted more insight into the man.

The way I see Capote is that it's more of a story of the birth of an artist's masterpiece than the story of the artist's life.

That's pretty much how I rounded off my first post, in fact.

When all is said and done, my main gripe is that I wanted more of a beginning and more of an ending. I want more before the murders took place, and I wanted to see how Truman functioned in society after that incredibly harrowing, stretched out period where he was waiting for Perry and Dick to get executed (that was probably my favorite part about the film, I wasn't aware that Capote was so dishonest to them throughout the writing, and that he in fact gambled majorly with dishonestly supporting them as innocents). As Ben said, the film is what it wants to be. It chose the ambiguous route, I simply wanted more (but I'm in the minority).

I don't typically like biopics, but there are ways I think we could've seen just a little bit of young Truman and have made that relevant to the film (in the same way Cronenberg introduced to us the doctors as kids in "Dead Ringers"). I wanted more insight into the man.

Me too but thankfully Capote didn't adopt the Lifetime Channel formula. I totally understand your wanting more insight into the very brilliant, eccentric Capote. However, let me use your example of Dead Ringers, Cronenberg is able to do this because the doctors are fiction. Cronenberg creates those characters so he can do whatever he wants with them. But Capote is a real life person so I think a director would need to be more cautious and sensitive if making a film centering around real life people. Unlike Jake La Motta of Raging Bull, Capote was already dead when Bennet Miller filmed Capote. Plus Harper Lee, being a recluse, refused to help out. With the very beautiful and delicate script with an almost Zen-like simplicity, Bennett Miller made a very quietly powerful film that is not so much about Capote's life as a whole but the most important sliver of his life. That is writing In Cold Blood. The film gives insights about his early life just enough to provide an idea why Capote ultmately connects to Perry but I'm glad that the film doesn't take the flash-back route like you see in so many bio-pics.. that would have ruined the tone and rhythym completely. I'm also glad that the film doesn't spell out the relationship of Capote and his partner and also Harper Lee. That would have taken the spotlight away from the film's heart. The heart = the author's giving birth to his masterpiece with Harper and Jack acting as "mid-wives".

Have you seen the film To Kill A Mockingbird? Or read the book? I read the book in high school. I haven't seen the film yet.

Anyone read the biography titled Capote by Gerald Clarke? It's been sitting in my "to read" clutter for more than a decade. My first experience with Truman Capote was his performance as Mr. Lionel Twain in the Neil Simon comedy Murder By Death when I was very little. I thought the way he carried himself was peculiar and cool....and of course, unforgettable. Then later on in my early high school years, I picked up his first novel Other Voices, Other Rooms which I fell in love with. Following that, I read everything he wrote.

I'm eager to read more thoughts on this writer and his works.. and also the film adaptation of In Cold Blood from you folks.

Michael wrote:Anyone read the biography titled Capote by Gerald Clarke? It's been sitting in my "to read" clutter for more than a decade. My first experience with Truman Capote was his performance as Mr. Lionel Twain in the Neil Simon comedy Murder By Death when I was very little. I thought the way he carried himself was peculiar and cool....and of course, unforgettable. Then later on in my early high school years, I picked up his first novel Other Voices, Other Rooms which I fell in love with. Following that, I read everything he wrote.

I'm eager to read more thoughts on this writer and his works.. and also the film adaptation of In Cold Blood from you folks.

I have never read Clarke's biography, but the film, Capote, was based on his book, and having seen the film, might borrow a copy from the library. The renewed interest in Capote's work as a result of the film's success is astounding, though unfortunately, his output was minimal, so there isn't all that much to choose from.

In case you weren't aware, Capote was responsible for much of the dialogue (along with John Huston) for Beat the Devil, as well as for De Sica's Indiscretion of an American Wife/Terminal Station. The former is a marvelous romp, and if you haven't seen it, try to rent a copy, though unfortunately, none is a decent transfer.

Capote made numerous television appearances, some of which were hilarious, but regrettably, some of his later guest spots were rather sad as he often showed up tipsy, drugged or both. He was usually OTT, but what a madcap character he was, and a terrific raconteur. The Maysles brothers made a short documentary portrait in 1966, A Visit with Truman Capote, though unfortunately, I have not seen it.

Let me state that I don't think anything with young Truman would've made that big of a difference...it's just because of the kind of person he was, the kind of character he is, that there was a ripe opportunity to offer contrasts, not just like this (though childhood), but in many other ways as well. I forgot to mention that he wasn't just a recluse during the writing of "In Cold Blood," he had a very loose and bizarre social life that I thought would've been fascinating to contrast with "In Cold Blood." Though this just further shows that as someone 'full versed,' I personally wasn't satisfied.

Have you seen the film To Kill A Mockingbird? Or read the book? I read the book in high school. I haven't seen the film yet.

I read the book and I've seen the film a few times. The film changed my life when I was an early teen, and for a few years it was in my top ten of all-time. While I don't connect with it these days like I used to, it's still a lovely film. Oscar-winning screenplay, Gregory Peck is astounding, it's Robert Duvall's first film and he's perfect as Boo, it has great kid performances, thoughtful, intelligent direction, and one of the prettiest music scores ever (by the great Elmer Bernstein). Definitely see it, Michael.

kinjitsu wrote:In case you weren't aware, Capote was responsible for much of the dialogue (along with John Huston) for Beat the Devil, as well as for De Sica's Indiscretion of an American Wife/Terminal Station. The former is a marvelous romp, and if you haven't seen it, try to rent a copy, though unfortunately, none is a decent transfer.

Definitely. It's very droll (Bogart is underrated as a dry comic) and a lot of fun.

Alexander Cockburn's father Claud wrote the novel and Alex used the title Beat The Devil for his Nation column for a long time.

The ambiguity is one of the things I didn't like, especially when I knew everything they were being ambiguous about. When that happened I couldn't help but thinking the 'ambiguity' was kind of lazy...maybe if I watch it again it will strike me more as a stylistic approach (which I didn't consider on my initial viewing, but it's certainly a way to justify it).

Can you give me some examples of "ambiguous" films that work for you? I'm thinking Antonioni's L' Avventura and Blow Up.

I'd be here all day. I love and cherish ambiguity, I just don't think it was the right approach here.

Dylan, that was a stupid question. My apologies. I don't know what I was thinking but I shouldn't have uttered Capote next to Antonioni. There are way too many different types of "ambiguity".. especially its intention and the use of it.

Polybius wrote:

kinjitsu wrote:In case you weren't aware, Capote was responsible for much of the dialogue (along with John Huston) for Beat the Devil, as well as for De Sica's Indiscretion of an American Wife/Terminal Station. The former is a marvelous romp, and if you haven't seen it, try to rent a copy, though unfortunately, none is a decent transfer.

Definitely. It's very droll (Bogart is underrated as a dry comic) and a lot of fun.

Alexander Cockburn's father Claud wrote the novel and Alex used the title Beat The Devil for his Nation column for a long time.

I thought Beat The Devil was a terrible film and I wasn't surprised to find out after that the script was written right before filming each day. It very much seems like a script that was rushed without any clear direction.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I thought Beat The Devil was a terrible film and I wasn't surprised to find out after that the script was written right before filming each day. It very much seems like a script that was rushed without any clear direction.

Terrible? How so? I thought it a little gem...

kinjitsu wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:I thought Beat The Devil was a terrible film and I wasn't surprised to find out after that the script was written right before filming each day. It very much seems like a script that was rushed without any clear direction.

Terrible? How so? I thought it a little gem...

I thought the "comedy" wasn't that funny at all and it seemed to be half crime-caper half fish-out-of-water story, but neither half worked. Nothing seemed to gel properly for me. Perhaps Hustom was aiming at a screwball feel, but the exercise felt overwrought and undercooked.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I thought the "comedy" wasn't that funny at all and it seemed to be half crime-caper half fish-out-of-water story, but neither half worked. Nothing seemed to gel properly for me. Perhaps Hustom was aiming at a screwball feel, but the exercise felt overwrought and undercooked.

Okay, so it's a flawed little gem and something of a lark, but you are being too hard on the film. I doubt that Huston set out to make a masterpiece, but just have some fun.

Oh, and Ravello in the 50s...

Beat the Devil is brilliant. Huston did the adaption, but the dialogue is pure Capote. Jennifer jones'character -- a creative liar -- is a truman self-portrait. A box office failure it became the first real cult film.

Fun fact: Stephen Sondheim was an a.d. on it.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Beat the Devil is brilliant. Huston did the adaption, but the dialogue is pure Capote. Jennifer jones'character -- a creative liar -- is a truman self-portrait. A box office failure it became the first real cult film.

Fun fact: Stephen Sondheim was an a.d. on it.

Thank you, David, I stand acquitted.