Capote (Bennett Miller, 2005) / Infamous (Douglas McGrath, 2006)
-
kinjitsu
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Uffa!
Then I consider myself in good company.matt wrote:Nabokov was a fan of Beat the Devil and that's good enough for me.
Time, time, what is time? Swiss manufacture it. French hoard it. Italians squander it. Americans say it is money. Hindus say it does not exist. Do you know what I say? I say time is a crook...
-
kinjitsu
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Uffa!
David Thomson on Have You Heard? / Infamous in The Independent:
"The best new film I've seen this year is about the writer Truman Capote. It shows what happened to him when went to Holcomb, Kansas, to research the inexplicable murder of the members of the Clutter family. It's not the prettiest or most cheerful portrait of the writing life you're ever going to see. For instance - and I know, this comes just in time - it's a good deal more unsettling than the version on show in last year's film, Capote, for which Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar.
Now, I like Hoffman and I thought he gave a brilliant impersonation last year as Capote. I don't mean to knock him or that film, but what I want to tell you is that I have just seen a new picture - it will not open until the autumn - that is called Infamous, in which an English actor, Toby Jones, is Capote without the least hint of impersonation. He looks and sounds not only more like the real Truman Capote, he is the man."
"The best new film I've seen this year is about the writer Truman Capote. It shows what happened to him when went to Holcomb, Kansas, to research the inexplicable murder of the members of the Clutter family. It's not the prettiest or most cheerful portrait of the writing life you're ever going to see. For instance - and I know, this comes just in time - it's a good deal more unsettling than the version on show in last year's film, Capote, for which Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar.
Now, I like Hoffman and I thought he gave a brilliant impersonation last year as Capote. I don't mean to knock him or that film, but what I want to tell you is that I have just seen a new picture - it will not open until the autumn - that is called Infamous, in which an English actor, Toby Jones, is Capote without the least hint of impersonation. He looks and sounds not only more like the real Truman Capote, he is the man."
-
Christmas Cyclops
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:49 pm
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
David Ehrenstein
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
- Contact:
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
I only now got around to seeing Infamous and I was startled by how good it was. It really is an excellent picture and, in my mind at least, a far more significant accomplishment than Capote.
Though I liked the Miller film well enough it didn't leave a lasting impression on me. Also, I think in retrospect that it was a mistake to maintain such a consistent, somber tone. That choice just doesn't do the complexity of the subject matter proper justice.
McGrath's film is a model of finely tuned performances, superb scripting and careful, unobtrusive directorial style. All of these things accent one another as they should and enrich the experience of this story. Toby Jones inhabits his performance in a way that is almost shocking. It never feels like an imitation or a studied parody of particular tics; it simply feels lived. On top of that, he and McGrath are not afraid to present Capote as an alienating presence. Certainly he would have been that in his visit to Kansas and we get a better sense of how he must have embraced his persona as a means to confront others' defenses. There is the sense that he really could do nothing but that; he couldn't deny who he was as being true to himself was the one very real angle he had. But Capote is also seen more frequently in his New York environs and we begin to understand just how difficult it would have been for him to approach an empathy born out of anything other than self-interest. His relationship to that social scene is more clearly tenuous and full of distinct tensions. McGrath seems to imply (and does imply in his wonderful commentary) that Truman couldn't maintain his bearings in this more superficial world of surfaces once he had let in a genuine expression of compassion.
The scenes with Daniel Craig as Perry Smith are also much more effective than the ones with Clifton Collins, Jr. in Capote. Collins is a terrific actor but there was always a kind of cool disconnect between he and Hoffman that came across as indecisive on Miller's part. Capote seemed like a slightly eccentric social researcher, distressed by the personal feelings which might mar his anthropological study. McGrath is unafraid to take his characters into a place of far greater mutual vulnerability. This ups the ante, especially as we are never allowed to forget that Smith is a dangerous, unmanageable presence. The single take set piece in this film in which we see two of the killings at the Clutter home is the strongest depiction of screen violence I've seen in many a moon. It is rough stuff and disrupts our own desire to share in Capote's seemingly genuine sympathy with Smith.
The bond between Smith and Capote feels more dangerously exposed here as well, appropriately as part of the point is in asking what really lay at the heart of Capote's motivation to expose himself to Smith as some kind of kindred spirit. The movie strongly suggests that the emotional chaos Capote allowed to engulf him was not expected or desired but was the inevitable result of his willingness to go beyond his own affectations and attempt a more fully human connection. Perhaps this was inspired by the fractured elements of himself he saw in Perry, but whatever the case this crack in the facade may have exposed a deep vein of vulnerability that he was unable to recover from.
And ultimately that's the great accomplishment of this great film. McGrath and company are unafraid to take very real risks with the presentation of their material. The tone of the picture, though perfectly sustained, dips in and out of virtual farce (especially at the start) but this works impressively well and it suggests that the filmmakers understood how vitally important it was to show the different aspects of Truman's character and Smith's as well. By extension the film walks a fine line between blatant sentimentality and confused reasoning. But it stays firmly on that line and we emerge from the experience with something that feels deeply, desperately true and so much more painful for it.
Though I liked the Miller film well enough it didn't leave a lasting impression on me. Also, I think in retrospect that it was a mistake to maintain such a consistent, somber tone. That choice just doesn't do the complexity of the subject matter proper justice.
McGrath's film is a model of finely tuned performances, superb scripting and careful, unobtrusive directorial style. All of these things accent one another as they should and enrich the experience of this story. Toby Jones inhabits his performance in a way that is almost shocking. It never feels like an imitation or a studied parody of particular tics; it simply feels lived. On top of that, he and McGrath are not afraid to present Capote as an alienating presence. Certainly he would have been that in his visit to Kansas and we get a better sense of how he must have embraced his persona as a means to confront others' defenses. There is the sense that he really could do nothing but that; he couldn't deny who he was as being true to himself was the one very real angle he had. But Capote is also seen more frequently in his New York environs and we begin to understand just how difficult it would have been for him to approach an empathy born out of anything other than self-interest. His relationship to that social scene is more clearly tenuous and full of distinct tensions. McGrath seems to imply (and does imply in his wonderful commentary) that Truman couldn't maintain his bearings in this more superficial world of surfaces once he had let in a genuine expression of compassion.
The scenes with Daniel Craig as Perry Smith are also much more effective than the ones with Clifton Collins, Jr. in Capote. Collins is a terrific actor but there was always a kind of cool disconnect between he and Hoffman that came across as indecisive on Miller's part. Capote seemed like a slightly eccentric social researcher, distressed by the personal feelings which might mar his anthropological study. McGrath is unafraid to take his characters into a place of far greater mutual vulnerability. This ups the ante, especially as we are never allowed to forget that Smith is a dangerous, unmanageable presence. The single take set piece in this film in which we see two of the killings at the Clutter home is the strongest depiction of screen violence I've seen in many a moon. It is rough stuff and disrupts our own desire to share in Capote's seemingly genuine sympathy with Smith.
The bond between Smith and Capote feels more dangerously exposed here as well, appropriately as part of the point is in asking what really lay at the heart of Capote's motivation to expose himself to Smith as some kind of kindred spirit. The movie strongly suggests that the emotional chaos Capote allowed to engulf him was not expected or desired but was the inevitable result of his willingness to go beyond his own affectations and attempt a more fully human connection. Perhaps this was inspired by the fractured elements of himself he saw in Perry, but whatever the case this crack in the facade may have exposed a deep vein of vulnerability that he was unable to recover from.
And ultimately that's the great accomplishment of this great film. McGrath and company are unafraid to take very real risks with the presentation of their material. The tone of the picture, though perfectly sustained, dips in and out of virtual farce (especially at the start) but this works impressively well and it suggests that the filmmakers understood how vitally important it was to show the different aspects of Truman's character and Smith's as well. By extension the film walks a fine line between blatant sentimentality and confused reasoning. But it stays firmly on that line and we emerge from the experience with something that feels deeply, desperately true and so much more painful for it.