Scandaleusement célèbre

Infamous has a difficult comparison with the earlier "Capote." Still it is a different view of the same story and characters and is written with more emphasis on the perspectives of those who knew, or thought they knew, Capote. Toby Jones may not fully match the nuanced performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman but he does, possibly, a better imitation of Capote. Infamous has a better known cast of supporting players and they do a creditable job. Sandra Bullock's Harper Lee isn't the quite same as that portrayed so well by Catherine Keener in "Capote" but her character blends perfectly with the tone of "Infamous." Daniel Craig adds another fine acting turn as the "In Cold Blood" killer who receives the most attention. Even Gwyneth Paltrow makes an excellent impression in a brief opening scene as, apparently, singer Peggy Lee. (In the showing I saw, she was introduced as "Kitty Dean???") I wondered why another version of this story was filmed and it may not do well after the success of "Capote" but I was surprisingly entertained and intrigued by this movie.

Greetings again from the darkness. What a unique film-going experience. Having the opportunity to see two takes on the same subject matter within a year or so is pretty rare in Hollywood. It happened most recently with "Tombstone" and the vastly inferior "Wyatt Earp". Rarely does it happen when both films are exceptionally well made and acted ... as is the case with last year's "Capote" and now, "Infamous".

First of all, you must understand that the films are actually based on different books. "Infamous" is based on George Plimpton's book in which he really tries to capture Truman Capote, the man and the genius. Because of this, director Douglas McGrath ("Nicholas Nickleby" and "Emma") utilizes some faux-interview segments, much like a "Biography" segment on television. Of course, both films center around the process of Capote researching and writing his masterpiece "In Cold Blood" based on the brutal slaying of a Kansas family in their farmhouse. They both also explore Capote's bizarre relationship with Perry Smith (played brilliantly here by the next James Bond, Daniel Craig). The sexual tension between the two is palpable, but we continue to question if Capote is merely manipulating Smith for the story or if, in fact, there is real substance to the attraction. We will never know if his reaction on death row is heartbreak or guilt. The mystery adds to the power of the story.

The cast in this film is nothing short of spectacular. From the opening moments with Gwyneth Paltrow portraying the great Peggy Lee in a melancholy stage moment to Sigourney Weaver, Hope Davis, Isabella Rossellini and Juliet Stevenson doing the twist, the actresses are terrific - as are their amazing costumes! In addition to Daniel Craig as Perry Smith, Lee Pace (as Dick Hickcock), Jeff Daniels as the sheriff and ("Last Picture Show" director) Peter Bogdanovich as Bennett Cerf, the actors are also top notch.

Toby Jones as Truman Capote is much more flamboyant and colorful than the amazing performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman last year. Many will try to compare, but what I say is, enjoy them both for their high level of artistry! Now for something I never thought I would put in writing. Sandra Bullock is extremely effective as Nelle Harper Lee (Capote's muse and of course, the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird"). Bullock usually flips her hair and bumbles all cutesy-like through her performances, but not here. She plays Ms. Lee straightforward and tough, just like the real thing. How wonderful.

Yes, the story is still heart-wrenching, but "Infamous" provides much more levity, humor and color than the more somber "Capote". Both are wonderful films with excellent casts. Enjoy them both as fine film-making seems to be a rare commodity these days.

When I saw "Capote" I was really impressed by the presentation of the story and the quality of the acting. When I saw "Infamous" today, I was caught up with the story in a way I had not been before. It was closer to the experience when I read the book many,many years ago. "In Cold Blood" is about killing human beings, and I believe that it is no more right for cold blooded murders to do it than for me do do it as a member of society that authorizes the death penalty. I believe that the film as well as the book makes people think about this issue The cast was superb, and I said the same about the earlier rendition, but this time the characters were fully developed and believable under the circumstances. I had been impressed before, but this film is different from the last--it is more emotional, more detailed in rendition of the characters, and more interested in showing not just the destruction of Truman Capote, but in sharing the ideas that he expressed in "In Cold Blood".

When I was growing up (I am 62 now) I recall that I did not like Capote when I saw him on talk shows repeatedly. I really knew nothing of gay culture or what even that meant at the time, so it had nothing to do with the sexual orientation. It had to do with the ego that was constantly expressed and realted to nothing that I really cared about.

But what was incredibly important to me then and now is that we can lose track of the fact that we are all human beings, a point that was stressed in the film. Killers may be killers, but they are us, in a way, filled with some of the same ambitions, hates, emotions that most of us can control. What separates us from them might not be very much, so why do we need to kill them as they jailed their victims? It is easy to kill, but not so easy to try to understand. This film hits an emotional level that the previous film did not. I am pleased that it ultimately was made. I am also pleased that the quality of the performances, the writing and most especially the direction, were so superb. Watch the scene where the farmer speaks only to Harper Lee and not Capote. It is an incredible monologue, but the circumstances are noted.

Everyone's seen the 2005 drama Capote, which won Phillip Seymour Hoffman his Best Actor Oscar, but how many people have seen Infamous, the exact same story filmed at the exact same time but was held back a year because the other made earlier festival deadlines? If you've only seen Hoffman's performance, you owe it to Toby Jones and everyone who put their talent into the later film to rent Infamous.

I've seen them both, and there's a remarkable difference. Capote bored me to tears; I actually nodded off to sleep a couple of times. I barely remembered the sequence of scenes, and in fact, when I watched Infamous, some of the events were a surprise to me even though I was supposed to have seen them before. The 2006 film was entertaining, riveting, and many of the scenes will stay in my memory forever. Writer-director Douglas McGrath delivered his specialty: fast-paced, witty, emotional, and complex.

To pay homage to the true crime genre pioneered by Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, McGrath made his film a combination of dramatic fiction and mockumentary. Interview testimony from Capote's friends (Sigourney Weaver, Sandra Bullock, Peter Bogdanovich, Juliet Stevenson, John Benjamin Hickey, Jeff Daniels, and Isabella Rossellini) is intercut with scenes that drive the plot forward. Just as Capote alters the truth to suit his writing, McGrath adds fictional elements to the plot. This is, simply put, the greatest tribute to Truman Capote's writing style.

While the plot itself isn't my usual fare, I always love watching movies that feature fantastic performances. I don't like grizzly murder mysteries, and I'll admit to looking away from the television set during the gruesome scenes. In both films, Truman Capote is inspired to write the first true crime novel by a terrible small-town murder. He travels with his writer pal Harper Lee to interview the townsfolk, and he ends up spending a great deal of time talking with the murderers in prison. Does the brooding criminal who guards his words carefully look familiar? Probably not, but wash off the brunette rinse, take out the brown contacts, and replace the American accent with an English one. . . The same year Daniel Craig made a splash in his first James Bond flick, he was also in Infamous - and he was fantastic. Don't feel bad if you don't recognize him and have a, "Where's Fredric March?" moment. A large part of the story is Capote's quest to humanize the murderers, and the scenes between Jones and Craig are multifaceted and extremely well-acted.

If you don't really know who Truman Capote is, you'll love Phillip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal. He's the guy that dresses and talks funny, right? If you actually remember the "eccentric" author, you'll continually pinch yourself as you watch Toby Jones. It was an effort to keep reminding myself that I wasn't actually watching Truman Capote spliced alongside modern actors. In some scenes, he personifies "light in the loafers" and passes gossip amongst his friends for entertainment; in others, he's so emotionally conflicted the audience is free to take their own interpretation. Depending on your point of view, you can see Capote as a selfish manipulator consumed by his novel, or a tormented soul who desperately wants to create a fictional world to improve what really happened. Since both sides can be argued, Toby Jones is remarkable.

In a major chunk of the film, Jones is challenged by Craig's reluctance to share his story. The other murderer, Lee Place, is very open, but Craig maintains he's a human being, not a character in a story. Years ago, I took a directing course that focused on working with actors. Our assignment during each scene was to write out a different motivation behind every line of dialogue, to help our actors give better performances. In Infamous, Jones runs through every conceivable motivation as he tries to figure out what will make Craig trust him enough to open up about his feelings. He offers logic, money, and emotional blackmail; he sends him different types of literature to read in his cell; he makes any number of promises about the tone he'll take with the book and shares his own sad stories. It's both exhausting and interesting to watch.

Jones perfects the art of finding out what each person in his life needs and giving it to them, but is the mere satisfaction of being a chameleon enough? He gives a little smirk at the time, but as the high fades, he needs either more or different to keep him happy. In one scene, he breaks down in exhaustion and confesses to his friends that the years have taken their toll. Just as you think he's going to reveal his true feelings, he offers a comment on his book instead. It's one of his many moments of brilliance that keep you in a constant state of unease.

Rent Infamous. It'll surprise you. Sandra Bullock masters the Alabama accent, which you know is no small feat if you've ever studied different dialects. Daniel Craig is unrecognizable, and Toby Jones is perfect. I could write pages praising Toby Jones's performance, but I couldn't say it any better than Rex Reed did in The New York Observer: "They gave the Oscar to the wrong Truman Capote. ... (Hoffman) was doing an impression. In Infamous ... a diminutive actor with a titanic talent named Toby Jones literally becomes the man himself. This is no lisping impersonation learned from watching old Johnny Carson shows: Mr. Jones moves into Truman's skin, heart, and brains. Infamous shows you the man's soul."

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence and adult content, I wouldn't let my kids see it.

Unsatisfied with 'Capote', I turned to 'Infamous', and was pleased with what was given. Jones' performance lets us see a lot more of Truman Capote; the 'wind-up toy', the wit, the manipulation, and the years of suffering were performed expertly and such contrasts and comedic breaks added more dimension than Hoffman's version. Harper Lee's importance was appropriately heightened in this movie, which I applaud.

'Infamous' portrays the entirety of the Clutter murders as I had Imagined from 'In Cold Blood'. We get a good overview, however incomplete, as crucial details about Perry are omitted, and the theme of sexuality takes a more obvious stand. While an interesting thought, I feel it muddies Perry's character a little; his reasoning is not quite clear nor correct. I don't really feel Craig was right for the role; there's a certain immaturity he doesn't quite exude.

Overall, I enjoyed this film and appreciated its varying tone and Toby Jones' Capote. It was refreshing and more satisfying than the flatly sombre atmosphere in 'Capote'.