Truman Capote - A sangue freddo

Like the non-fiction novel and the Richard Brooks film that was made from it, "In Cold Blood," "Capote" focuses on and sympathizes with two killers at the expense of the four murdered members of the Clutter family. Once the viewer gets beyond this sticking point, however, all three works are outstanding, unforgettable experiences. Unlike the book and the original movie, "Capote" does explore the contradictory feelings that author Truman Capote wrestles with as he researches and writes "In Cold Blood." His feelings for Perry Smith, the more "sensitive" of the two killers, are particularly problematic as Capote becomes emotionally close to Smith and helps the men with legal aide that postpones the executions, while at the same time Capote cannot finish his book until Smith and Hickcock are hanged. Praise for Philip Seymour Hoffman's uncanny performance as Truman Capote cannot be overstated and, come awards time, if he does not collect enough accolades to fill his mantel, indictments for film critics and Academy voters would be in order. Hoffman not only captures the mannerisms and voice of Capote, he inhabits the man's soul and expresses his feelings and emotions without histrionics or the type of caricature that mimics often have made of the notoriously fey writer in the past.

Fortunately, Hoffman's performance is only the jewel in a gilded crown of fine writing, excellent direction, and solid supporting performances. "Capote" will send viewers back to their bookshelves to re-read the book and to their video libraries to re-view the 1967 film. Considering the time that Capote spent with the two convicted murderers, questions arise as to why the Richard Brooks film did not have Truman Capote as a character, but rather presented a bland, nameless investigative writer, who wanders through the proceedings without much purpose. The film is so good and so intriguing that questions such as that, and what happened to the writer that Capote lived with? and did Harper Lee write anything beyond "To Kill a Mockingbird?" and did Capote's presence at the execution lead to his alcoholism, his lack of further writing, and eventually his death, and other questions will send viewers to Google as soon as they get home. "Capote" is an outstanding film and possibly the first of the year to be assured of a place on the "10 Best" lists for 2005.

I saw a press screening of this film recently, and was highly impressed by its moving account of the period in Truman Capote's life during which he wrote 'In Cold Blood'. The direction by the relatively unknown Bennett Miller is personal, evocative and affecting, but without being over-dramatic or saccharine. This is helped immensely by Philip Seymour Hoffmann's incredible performance as Capote, as well as solid acting from Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jr., and Chris Cooper. Cooper plays K.B.I. Agent Alvin Dewey with perhaps a bit too much intensity, given his relatively small amount of screen time, but the portrayal nonetheless comes off as heart-felt.

The cinematography by Adam Kimmel is suitably gray and moody, with many evocative views of the flat Kansas plains, but most of the screen time is spent with the camera focused on Hoffmann - all of it time well spent.

While I haven't read the biography by Gerald Clarke on which it's based, the script seems to hit enough salient details to evoke Capote's frame of mind, without inundating the audience with more than would fit in a feature-length film. I suppose one of my only complaints about the film would be that at times the conversations take on a sheen of Hollywood, saying things for dramatic impact that perhaps might not have been said in real life. But then again, I never met Capote, so who knows for sure.

All in all, this was a deeply engrossing film, and one I would highly recommend, especially if you're a fan of Truman Capote.

The easiest role for an actor to play is a historical figure - we have no idea how Julius Caesar really sounded, how he moved his body, punctuated his speech, bit his lip, walked into a room, held his cigarette. The hardest role is the living, or recently deceased, celebrity whom we watched, heard, studied, mimicked and thought we understood. JFK, Martin Luther King, Ray Charles, and, above all, the inventor of self referential celebrity, Truman Capote (with apology to Andy Warhol and, of course, Noel Coward)..

After exploding to meteoric fame with his novella Breakfast at Tiffany's, Capote became the New York café society's darling, heir to Coward's gay-man-child-bon-vivant. He drank and held court with the best of New York, which just also happened to be the nexus of television in the early 60s. Before long Capote was the quintessential modern celebrity, famous for being famous. And he did it all before our eyes.

Philip Seymour Hoffman does not so much play Capote as become him. And not just in mannerism, no mean feat, but in personality, because we are convinced that Hoffman feels what Capote felt, cries over the lies, accepts his moral failings. For a short story writer-raconteur from New Orleans, Capote found himself at the center of a nationally enthralling multiple homicide, facing the ultimate journalist's Faustian dilemma: if he perpetrates a lie for the sake of exposing the truth, is he ever worthy of redemption? Capote, in the end, concluded that he wasn't; he never wrote another book. He descended into drunkenness and died a lonely soul. This is not the stuff of Holly Golightly.

I saw this picture at the Toronto Film Festival with Hoffman, Catherine Keener and director Bennett Miller in attendance. Though they had seen it many many times before, it was obvious even they were moved by it and by our reaction. As we stood and applauded them, we turned to one another, glowing in the realization that we had witnessed an amazing performance.

We knew Truman Capote. We watched him live on television. Truman Capote was (we imagined) our friend. Mr. Hoffman, you are Truman Capote.

CAPOTE, first of all, is a well written film by the talented Dan Futterman, whose performance in URBANIA we will always remember, and for Philip Seymour Hoffman, this is his "Golden Globe and Oscar Award" all in one. From the first scene, Hoffman creates the essence of the acid tongued, tremendously talented, yet damaged, Truman Capote.

Having read IN COLD BLOOD when it first came out, CAPOTE really captures on the screen the horror of what took place on that Kansas farm and the cinematography, costumes and locations are wonderful to behold. Miss Keener's performance is such a subtle and intelligent contrast to the hysteria of Capote, and his perfect foil.

In the scenes with Perry Smith, they are haunting and disturbing, as if it feels like two cobras are circling one another, waiting for the first one to strike. And in this context, I ask, "2 Capote, or NOT 2 Capote?, that is the question", because both are on the take-Smith to use Capote for obtaining a pardon, Capote, to nail the story that will gain him the adulation he so adores. And then, Capote slides downhill, while Perry rots in prison.

CAPOTE captures the essence of the 1950's, the horror of a brutal killing in the vast farmlands of Kansas, and delivers a knock out performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman. If only IN COLD BLOOD had not seemed like a manipulation by a writer out for glory at the expense of a prisoner who believed in him.

Prior to watching Capote I had very little exposure to the actual works of the writer, I have read Breakfast at Tiffanys and was not bowled over. However I approached the movie with optimism, I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman in movies like The Big Lebowski and was curious to see how a leading role would suit him. My feelings now having seen this movie is that he is and still remains a good supporting actor.

I understand that many feel his portrayal of Truman Capote was spot on and true to every nuance of Truman himself, but there is something about the movie which I feel doesn't do justice to the themes and the man who is being portrayed. The movie hinges on whether you can tolerate Truman Capote as a personality and it is my opinion that this is where the movie fails. Philip Sermour Hoffman portrays Capote as cold and career driven but has the emotional sensitivity to cry at his subjects execution. This alone is not enough to convince me that Capote is as complex and intelligent and perhaps scheming as the movie makes out.

Here is the main conflict of interest in the movie, at no point in the movie did the director sympathise with the murderers, neither did we feel Capote truly sympathise with the two men on death row, yet we are made to believe that Capote was battling with his conscience and by the end of the movie was eventually destroyed as a writer by his inability to come to terms with his actions towards these culprits. I have assumed this was the intended message of the movie but at no point is this battle of wills, or guilt ever portrayed on the screen. What we have is a very physical transformation of an actor into a Capote character that acts in a way that we assume reminds us of the great writer. There is no exploration of the theme of capital punishment, no reflection on the content of his novel 'In cold blood', no volley of ideas between subject and writer, but only a by numbers recount of events and perhaps a feeling of irritation towards Capote as a cowardly, egotistical, lime light hugging snob of the New York elite.

This is not award winning material, this is an average account of an interesting figure during an integral time in his career. Perhaps reading In Cold Blood would add some clarity to the subject but for a movie which seemed to promise so much in premise, it is disheartening that we have to go back to the source to make up our minds.