Truman Capote - A sangue freddo

This is not a biography of Truman Capote, but rather a biography of his last complete major work "In Cold Blood." I read this book as a teenager and thought it brilliant and disturbing. This film does a wonderful job of depicting the moral ambiguity of Capote's work, his egotism, and the life history and inner conflicts which allowed him to create this great work. All the same, the subject matter here is really not explored in the depths it deserves, and the film sometimes loses its focus in the depth and quality of its performances.

Hoffman has already won a number of awards for his performance. I have no qualms about this - he's a great actor and this is a challenging and powerful role played to the hilt. However, I also want to point out the tremendous supporting cast. Catherine Keener and Clifton Collins are both deserving of recognition for their intense portrayals of Harper Lee and Perry Smith.

If you're a fan of Capote, or a fan of In Cold Blood, you will enjoy this, though it isn't really going to show you anything that you were not aware of. If you are the sort who goes to movies you're not necessarily that interested in just because a great performance is involved (like me in this case), you will likely enjoy Capote.

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.

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.

This is a fine character study of Truman Capote whose professional desires collide with his personal desires, as he researches and writes about the 1959 murders of a Kansas family. The film examines how these conflicting desires arose, and how Capote, the person, handled the ordeal once he realized that these desires were mutually exclusive.

Hoffman mimics Capote's posture, voice, facial expressions, and overall mannerisms quite well. It's a great impersonation. But, towards the film's end when Capote has to say goodbye for the last time, Hoffman's portrayal of Capote's grief and helplessness goes well beyond parody. It's an example of genuine acting ability.

Other performances are also good, especially Chris Cooper as Prosecutor Alvin Dewey, and Catherine Keener as Capote's friend, Nelle Harper Lee. In addition to the fine acting, the story itself is gripping, because it is a true story. It's been told before, most convincingly in 1967's "In Cold Blood", from the POV of the killers. That film was photographed in B&W. "Capote", by contrast, is in color. But the colors are all muted, reassuringly so, in view of the subject matter. The tone of "Capote" is solemn and earnest, almost funereal. The pace is slow and deliberate. Music is restrained.

Viewers with little or no interest in the central character may find the first half of the film slow going. It plods along without a lot of tension or suspense. But as the writer bonds with the convicted killer, tension picks up, and then further builds en route to a profound destiny.

My only critique, beyond a slow beginning, pertains to the minimal attention given to era atmosphere. Given that the story takes place in the late 1950s and early to mid-1960s, I would have preferred more cinematic cues of that time period, especially with regard to music, decor, and cultural themes which are curiously absent, aside from obvious props like cars and telephones.

The Clutter killings were, and still are, unsettling and haunting, even after all these years. "Capote" is a high quality film that describes Truman Capote's research into the case, especially as regards the mindset and motivations of the killers, and further examines the effects that Capote's investigation had on him, both as a writer and as a human being with feelings. Though the story is good, Hoffman's wonderful performance is the real reason to see this film.

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.