Movie Doubles

Ecriture As Pennance - 'Capote' And 'Infamous'

This movie double combo is probably a lot easier to understand. Here are two movies based on the life and times of Truman Capote, the same incident which prompted his writing of 'In Cold Blood'.
What's even more interesting is that both films were made within 12months of each other, and one of them went on to garner an Oscar for the actor's portrayal of Capote himself. How unimaginative is Hollywood really? I think in these two films, we do begin to see a glimpse of just how unimaginative these people can be - but that is not the point of this post. I just wanted to draw people's attention to the weirdness of being able to see the same story twice, back to back.

Both films are steeped in the cinematic vernacular of the period piece covering the middle 20th century. 1959 of the films feels so distant as to register as an entirely different continent to the one we are familiar with; In both films, it's hard to believe this is an America that is about to explode into the 1960s, let alone elect John F. Kennedy for President. Nonetheless in both films, Truman Capote preens and struts about with an outlandishly in-clandestine gay manner. In both films, detective Alvin Dewey comes over as stodgy as potato salad, and Nelle Harper Lee as a troubled co-traveler who witnesses Truman Capote's journey into the deep dark matinee hour of his soul.

So what exactly do we have here? Between the two films, we begin to get a larger picture of the Truman Capote persona, and perhaps another reason why two films were made about the same topic and same man. The name dropping, gossiping socialite act segues right into the contempt that allows him to write with the style he does, and in so doing we get a glimpse of Hollywood preening and looking into itself in the mirror. This is particularly true in 'Infamous' where the stellar cast includes Sandra Bullock as Nelle Harper Lee and Jeff Daniels as Detective Alvin Dewey.

Sandra Bullock's performance, when contrasted with Catherine Keener's portrayal of the same figure is at once poignant and phony in a way that only Hollywood camp can attain. It's a sad fact that stars carry all their previous roles as luggage into their new roles, but it is particularly taxing to see the woman who gave us two 'Miss Congeniality' movies and a raft of ugly Rom-Coms playing an introverted, circumspect writer. While her performance is passable to good, she never shakes being Sandra Bullock.

Equally, Jeff Daniels carries the 'Purple Rose of Cairo' as well as 'Dumb and Dumber', so he is just as vexed in his characterisation of a Kansas detective in late 1959. By contrast the cast surrounding Philip Seymour Hoffman in 'Capote' are decidedly understated as they trudge through a lonely grey patina filled with the sorrows of USA '59. Chris Cooper's Alvin Dewey is less expressive, more weather-beaten, more studied, less glamorous. Keener's portrayal of Harper Lee is in the same vein, and clinically short in glamour, but steeped in nuanced looks.

This is not to say that one film is decidedly better than the other. Whereas the sheer mass and gravitas of the cast surrounding Toby Jones as Capote in 'Infamous' leaves us unconvinced (Gwyneth Paltrow appears at the start in a cameo, singing; and if that really is her singing, why isn't she selling more albums than Coldplay?), we are surprised by the variety of facets Toby Jones' Truman brings to life. Equally, we are convinced of the bravura performance by Hoffman in 'Capote', and feel somehow that the understated mood of the whole enterprise misses something crucial in the interaction between Truman and Perry Smith.

In 'Infamous', we are treated to an incredibly muscular and super-charged Perry Smith, played by a recently minted James Bond, Daniel Craig. His screen presence is so big, it totally eats up Toby Jones' hammy characterisation in the jail scenes. The incredible dynamism in his performance style is nothing like the brooding performance by Clifton Collins Jr.
who sits in the dark, dank, cell opposite Phillip Seymour Hoffman and just mumbles his despair - in extreme close up.

It's clear 'Capote' has a larger budget as the sets are more lavishly built, the wide shots are wider, and the closeups more delicate and yet strong and centred. Even the shooting style in 'Capote' suggests the writing concerns of Truman Capote where objects substitute themselves as metonymy. A picture here, a knife there, the cell bars that cast moving shadows, the slight back-light that pours in from the corridor. The incredible depth to shots and sequences is staggering at times and enchanting in other scenes.

'Infamous' has none of that. In its place is a patient appraisal of relationships. We are treated to the lavish conversational, raconteur world of Truman Capote as he smarms and charms his way through Manhattan life. The master shots are off-kilter, the closeups are loose and mismatched, the angles are odd. All of these aspects adds up to a more jocular, didactic film. As a director, my tastes lie with 'Capote', but as a writer, I suspect my sympathies lie with 'Infamous'.

Watching the two films, one thing does become clear: Truman Capote actually goes home to his spiritual home in trying to write this book. He encounters a figure in Perry Smith, somebody he might have become, and in turn, this fuels his insight. He writes the book not so much to document what has happened but to bring out the scope within himself to encompass the crime. I cannot judge the book - I found it hard going when I tried reading it years ago. I don't even relate to the urgency within Capote to write this story; And it is true this story of four murders pales into insignificance when compared to the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer, or Charles Manson which is to say, the crime itself has dated - a strange notion in of itself too.
Yet, what both films do successfully deliver to us, is the sheer desperation of Capote trying to write his masterwork. He sold his soul to get it done.