Customer Reviews

Infamous

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

In an incredible bit of misfortune, 'Infamous' will have to live with the stigma of being 'that other movie' about Truman Capote writing his masterpiece 'In Cold Blood'. Over time that distinction may begin to wear off, but only time will tell. The trouble with this situation is that it is impossible to see 2006's 'Infamous' without comparing it to 2005's 'Capote' -- even if you try. I promised myself that I would attempt to watch it with a fresh perspective, but within ten minutes I had decidedly broken that promise and started a list of differences and similarities in my mind. What is so unfair about this is that while 'Capote' is a very good movie, 'Infamous' is just a good one, making its faults stand out that much more by comparing it to its predecessor. Never before has being good not been good enough.

Purists undoubtedly take to 'Capote' as the superior film and lambaste 'Infamous' as a pretender to the throne, but what they are missing out on are the intriguing differences in perspective that the two films have. It is here that 'Infamous' earns its merits, but also where its defining flaw comes into play: that it is too afraid to risk making Truman an unsympathetic character. 'Capote' gets at the heart of the deviousness inherent in Truman's dealings with Perry Smith and Dick Hickock (the killers on death row whose stories, along with those of their victims, comprise 'In Cold Blood') -- how he used and abused their friendship and trust in order to write his masterpiece. Philip Seymour Hoffman's Truman Capote is an egotistical liar that sells his soul for his story, made sympathetic by Hoffman's careful portrayal and by the fact that his cruelty causes him to spiral into drink, depression, and ruin for the rest of his life. The makers of 'Infamous' shy away from this aspect of Capote, choosing to go for sympathy instead. His deceit is only mentioned in passing -- with the effect that you wouldn't notice it if you weren't looking for it. This Truman really cares for Perry Smith, and the film posits that what ruined him after the executions was the loss of the one person he had ever truly connected with. This Truman is a victim of his book's conclusion rather than culpable in it. It's an interesting theory, but it holds less weight and feels toothless. I don't know enough about the facts to speculate as to whether or not the sexual tension that develops between the writer and the convict is accurate, but it does add an element of intrigue to the story.

The relationship between Truman and Perry in 'Infamous' adds a layer to the characterization of the author that was missing from 'Capote': that he was really a damaged, insecure man at heart, and had been ever since his childhood. The bravado, the confidance, the wit, and the eloquence that Manhattan's high society adore him for is a mask that he has put on to hide how he really feels about himself. His entire personality is an affectation, and his carefully maintained social life is artifice. Other reviewers have criticized 'Infamous' for being too stylized, but I think that they were trying to show how fake his life in New York was -- and in my humble opinion they succeeded. Toby Jones' portrayal is, as such, less natural than Hoffman's, but is perfectly suited to this intention of the filmmakers and succeeds in its own right. Had 'Infamous' come before 'Capote' Jones may have been more recognized for his work with an Oscar nomination of his own, but as I said earlier, timing has not been kind to 'Infamous'. Anyway, Truman and Perry make a connection because they can be who they really are around each other: Perry can talk about his lonely, abusive childhood and desire to be an artist, while Truman can let his guard down and stop acting like a "wind-up doll" (to use a term from the movie). 'Capote' gets at the heart of Truman's duplicity, but 'Infamous' gets at the heart of his insecurity.

The two film's really work as companion pieces, then, so I would encourage everyone to get over their prejudice and look at the two film's as two different sides of one of America's most distinctive voices. It is fitting that a personality as outsized as Truman Capote's couldn't be captured by only one film, and he would probably be pleased to know that that is the case.

Based on interviews in George Plimpton's oral biography of Truman Capote, this well done film offers a somewhat different take on the character we'd already come to know through the previous year's "Capote," which covers the same storyline - the writing of the author's bestseller, "In Cold Blood." Toby Jones gives a notable performance that emphasizes Capote's vulnerability - reinforced by the actor's diminutive size - compared to the more arch and self-centered Oscar-winning portrayal turned in by Philip Seymour Hoffman. While both films show how Capote is overwhelmed by the stress of composing this landmark book and waiting for its publication as the two killers are held for years on death row, "Infamous" wants us to believe that Capote fell deeply in love with one of them, Perry, who returned his affection and regarded him to the end as "Friend Truman." That Capote never wrote anything of the caliber of "In Cold Blood" again and spent the rest of his years in a downward spiral of self destruction is used in the film as evidence that it was the fateful encounter with Perry that ruined him.

Sandra Bullock gives a wonderfully controlled performance as Capote's lifelong friend Harper Lee, who after the success of "To Kill a Mockingbird" never published another novel and left New York to return to her childhood home in Alabama, where fate provided a much more congenial retreat from the limelight. "Who knows what the heart wants," she remarks sadly at the end of the film, "and who can defend themselves against it?" And while the film treats its subject with a certain playfulness, reflected in a mostly cheerful and larky soundtrack, it is finally the story of a broken heart. The DVD has a very cogent and informative commentary by writer-director Douglas McGrath. Definitely worth watching, even if you've seen "Capote." Side by side, they demonstrate nicely Capote's own vision of truth as it's found in creative nonfiction.

Probably the best order in which to view the films on this subject is this version first, then last year's, then the Robert Blake movie.

If CAPOTE is a sophisticatedly sec pinot grigio, INFAMOUS is a heartier, fruitier wine. The power of CAPOTE is its restraint, with the complex central character both monstrous and sympathetic in his cool-eyed pragmatism about needing the killers to die in order to complete his book successfully. INFAMOUS suggests that Capote is more emotionally torn by this conflict of interests between his attraction to Perry Smith and his ego as a writer. There's more wallop throughout the more indulgent film, but CAPOTE's refusal to provide easier emotional releases makes it the more mature work. That said, I'd be more apt to replay this version.

The opening scene, in which Gwyneth Paltrow struggles through the pain behind the lyric she's singing, sets the overall approach of this film. It is dramatically effective, it's well-played, and it telegraphs both the theme and the somewhat manipulative means this movie will rely upon. Similarly, the sexual relationship alleged in the prison sequences is carried off by excellent performances, is graphic as fantasy rather than likelihood, and distinguishes CAPOTE's restraint as probably a more honest narrative choice.

The acting and period design are excellent--making favorable comparisons to similar ambitions of the period piece on George Reeves' suicide. Audiences will appreciate INFAMOUS more if they're aware of the history of Capote's ANSWERED PRAYERS, the gossip fest that exposed the secrets of all his socialite "swans" and thus cost him their friendships.

It's interesting that, in all three versions of this existential saga of meaningless virtue and shallow sophisticates, the Perry Smith performance particularly shines. In this instance, Craig all but steals the film as a Tommy Lee Jones-like hunk, though it must be noted that Segourney Weaver is fantastic at the Twist.

The murders at the eye of this maelstrom are depicted in all three versions of the story, and they remain chilling in each instance. (My companion at INFAMOUS was enraged, not having seen CAPOTE, that INFAMOUS treated such brutal killers so sympathetically--in Perry's case, as a romantic fantasy--but she acknowledged that this film is excellent.) Based on the treatments of that central event, I'd recommend seeing the lighter (but not lite) INFAMOUS first, followed by the ascetically satisfying CAPOTE, and then the 1967 Richard Brooks original on the subject. The reverse order would not do INFAMOUS, well, "justice."

Generally speaking, Douglas McGrath's "Infamous" covers the same ground as Bennett Miller's 2005 film "Capote"--how Truman Capote researched his great non-fiction novel, "In Cold Blood," and how it both made and broke him. But whereas Miller's movie remained austerely focused on the book and what it did to Capote, "Infamous" wallows lusciously in the gossipy New York high society Capote swam in like a minnow--or, as Babe Paley and Slim Keith might eventually have said, like a shark. "Capote" didn't even depict Paley or Keith; in "Infamous," they're played by a glammed-to-the-nines Sigourney Weaver and Hope Davis, with Peter Bogdanovich and Juliet Stevenson thrown in for good measure as Bennett Cerf and Diana Vreeland. Instead of a wildly transformed Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Infamous" stars the British actor Toby Jones, a remarkable physical and facial double for Capote, and plays up the flamboyant aspects of Capote's singular character. And rather than simply emphasizing that Capote was sharply drawn to the murderer Perry Smith, "Infamous" asserts that Capote and Smith fell deeply in love with each other. ("Infamous" underscores the attraction by casting Daniel Craig--the new James Bond, for crying out loud!--as Smith, an extreme contrast to "Capote's" physically unprepossessing Clifton Collins Jr.) In most ways, "Infamous" measures up fully to "Capote"--the dialogue and performances are just as convincing. Sandra Bullock's Harper Lee and Jeff Daniels' Alvin Dewey are pretty much equal to Catherine Keener and Chris Cooper's performances in the earlier film. And, if Jones lacks the screen charisma of Hoffman, he makes up for it with a performance that skilfully hits every conceivable emotional note, from laugh-out-loud humor to tearjerking tragedy. (Jones' monologue about his mother's suicide would make stones weep.) Nevertheless, and perhaps inevitably, "Infamous" seems slighter and wispier than "Capote." Like Tru dishing with Babe Paley at La Cote Basque, it lingers more on the salacious aspects of the story than "Capote," to its comparative detriment. Some viewers, however, may prefer "Infamous" to "Capote" for it lighter, more colorful tone. In any case, anyone with even the slightest interest in Truman Capote or "In Cold Blood" owe it to themselves to see both movies.

Which is really saying something, seeing as the other Capote-related film I saw this week (I forget the title) won a bunch of those Golden Award Statuette Thingies (including Phillip Seymour Hoffman for his slick portrayal of the Tru-man himself). But seriously, how ticked off must writer/director Douglas McGrath have been when he found out That Other Film was going to hit theaters first, relegating his outstanding piece of moviemaking - which chronicles the exact same period of Capote's life - to the status of sloppy cinematic seconds? I listened to the entire commentary track hoping to get some info on this, but Mr. McGrath was all class, never mentioning a thing about it (could it be no one has had the heart or the nerve to tell him yet?). Regardless, I find "Infamous" to be the more emotionally satisfying and flat out better biopic for many reasons.

First, McGrath and lead actor Toby Jones had better source material from which to mine this particular mix of truth and speculation; for instance, McGrath's friend (and sometimes creative conspirator) Woody Allen introduced him to Dick Cavett, who let Doug and Toby have total access to the decades of tapes of Cavett's talk show, upon which Capote himself was a frequent guest. Also, Toby's godmother works at a New York City library and through her got to see all of Capote's "papers" - actual notebooks written by the man himself, including the one he took to killers Dick Hickock and Perry Smith's final hearing. To me, these materials, along with the George Plympton book from which the screenplay is adapted (along with Capote's own In Cold Blood, of course), made for more sturdy script construction materials than the Richard Avedon photos, anecdotes and bios that were use to make That Other Film.

In addition, McGrath grew up in Midland, TX but has lived in New York City for twenty-six years, so he was/is very comfortable and skilled when it comes to writing about both the small-town Midwest setting in which the "Cold Blood" killings occurred as well as that of the bigtime socialite scene of the Manhattan elite.

Add to all that the fact that McGrath is no stranger to adapting great novels for the screen (he previously wrote screenplays adapted from Jane Austen's Emma and Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby), and you can see why this was the more charmed and charming Capote project from conception to completion (except for that pesky release date, that is).

Oh, and have I mentioned the acting? Well, funny thing about that. You would think That Other Film's acting duo of Chris Cooper and Catherine Keener would blow away this movie's more tepid-seeming tandem of Jeff Daniels and Sandra Bullock in any movie, but the latter pair actually make it a close contest by turning in strong performances as the "foxy" Alvin Dewey and voice-of-reason (and Pulitzer Prize-winning author) Nelle Harper Lee. Dazzling luminaries from Gwyneth Paltrow to Sigourney Weaver and Isabella Rossellini add cinematic sparkle to smaller roles as the Manhattan social stars who populate Capote's New York universe. But the real star of the show is "New Bond" Daniel Craig, all but completely transformed behind dark hair and contact lenses, in a powerful and chameleonic command performance as the doomed killer/artist Perry Smith. Such a potent mix of ferocity and sensitivity, his raw and revealing portrayal is the best (and most surprising) thing about the film.

But the screenplay, as I may have mentioned, is also something really quite special - McGrath exhibits tremendous affection for both source material and subject but certainly doesn't pull and punches about the book or the man. In his director's commentary, he describes the adaptation of any book to the screen: "you take an engine apart and then you have to put it together inside a smaller car" "and when you take it apart - boy, you see how really good they (the authors) are, and how carefully they construct, and how artfully they put their story together."

McGrath displays an almost equally skillful craft in the words he chooses and uses. The movie itself is structured like the book In Cold Blood (for example, we learn about the crime early in the novel, but don't actually "see" the crime until much later). And the movie's tonal arc mirrors the true-life arc of Truman Capote - it starts out full of boisterous bombast and uproarious joie de vivre (p.s. I have no idea how factually accurate the dialog is or isn't - and frankly I could give a rat's rump, because it's so well written and I was enormously entertained), but then slowly there is more and more sadness until the gloomy and bitter end. The film's score does an exceptional job in, er, underscoring this tonal transition, as it too moves from a delightful jauntiness, through spare and spacious emotional (and cinematographic) moments, to the more mournful moments at the closing stages - a fantastic job by Rachel Portman, here.

Toward the end of the film, Harper Lee offers one of her many "testimonials" to Truman: "One must remember that at the center of any bright flame there's always that little touch of blue." Such is an apt description for the movie itself - it burns brilliantly before flickering and fading to its sad finale. But its warmth and beauty will linger in your memory long after the credits roll. So if you can only see one Capote-related film this week (or this year or this lifetime), I strongly recommend this one.

This movie starring Toby Jones as Truman Capote covers almost the same ground as the Academy Award-nominated film "Capote," starring Philip Seymour Hoffman. I'm not sure why two such similar movies appeared at almost the same time. But actually of the two, I found this Jones movie to be the more absorbing. If you only have the time or inclination to watch one dramatization of Truman Capote's writing of "In Cold Blood," I suggest this movie be the one.

It doesn't have the cachet of Hoffman's performance. But neither does it have the sometimes annoying tone of self-importance of that other film. Nor does this movie have some of the anachronistic locutions found in "Capote." It is truer to Capote's wit and way of telling a story.

Best of all though, "Infamous" shows much more of the gossipy society circle that Capote generally inhabited. Juliet Stevenson turns in a priceless and all-too-brief performance as fashion editor Diana Vreeland.

There is also more texture to Capote's relationship with killer Perry Smith here. I'm not sure how much of the more developed romance shown in this movie is conjecture, but it makes for a heartbreaking love story. Daniel Craig turns in a gripping performance as the dark, vulnerable and volatile Smith.

Director Douglas McGrath provides a very interesting, literate commentary on the DVD. His accompanying thoughts run like a polished essay, without being at all pretentious. He becomes another character in the unfolding biography, a character most of us would probably like to get to know better.

All-in-all, we do get to know the wit and wiliness Capote better through this film. We see Capote as that flickering brilliance that Sandra Bullock-playing-Harper Lee describes. She says he had the sunny brightness of a candle flame - but always with that tinge of blue at the center of the burning.

It's a shame that two Capote films came out so closely together, only because many people didn't bother to see this, the second one. I enjoyed them both and together they give perhaps a fuller picture of this complex person. I found the performance just as good as the Oscar winning Hoffman performance and again, it's just bad luck for this actor. I thought Sandra Bullock's Harper Lee was first rate, too. The difference in the two films, as I saw it, was that Capote showed TC as a monster, who cruelly manipulated Perry Smith for his personal gain, whereas Infamous shows a more vulnerable version of the writer, one who was genuinely moved by the criminal. I loved the scene where Smith told Capote that he didn't much care for his work because he felt superior to his characters and that it had no kindness...! Perhaps this was his contribution to the heart and soul of Capote because his book In Cold Blood, did show Smith as a bright, highly sympathetic person. Who knows what lurked in the heart of the "real" Truman Capote? Which film was closer to the truth? I prefer to believe the latter version, but we don't really know. In any case, they're both worth seeing.

This movie is one of those mysteries of Hollywood. Why we got two movies about Truman Capote's writing of "In Cold Blood" is hard to fathom. If "Capote" had not been made, this movie would have been more widely received than it has been. Let's just admit from the start that "Capote" and Philip Seymour Hoffman created the more powerful and charismatic Truman, but Capote is more or less an impression of them man than an embodiment or impersonation of him. Toby Jones captures the physical presence and the strange way Truman spoke more completely. However, the Jones version plays more needy and less self-assured (but similarly tortured) than the Seymour Hoffman Truman. I don't prefer one over the other and enjoyed both. I have not heard anyone who knew Truman comment on which was more "accurate".

While both movies deal with Capote's homosexuality in some way, this movie is more frank and takes it further than "Capote" does. Some may find the overt displays of sexuality in this film disturbing, but it is never graphic. Where in "Capote" the relationship between Truman and Perry Smith is dominated by the manipulative writer, the relationship in "Infamous" is manipulative and desperate on both sides. Which it actually was, I do not know. Does anyone really know since the parties involved are dead? Would Truman's testimony about it be reliable? Didn't it change over time? I love the scene where Truman is recounting something Perry told him and changing it slightly for different groups of people to gauge the effect. For the book, he chooses the version for effect not accuracy.

Sandra Bullock is terrific in her portrayal of Nelle Harper Lee. Frankly, it was such a delight seeing such a wonderful characterization that I didn't recognize her at first. Usually she portrays the trademark sunny and goofy character despite the name or plot, and that is enjoyable, but this turn as a character was a real treat. Jeff Daniels is also very good as the lawman Alvin Dewey who at first denies Truman access and then befriends him and enables Capote's ability to get information for the book.

The movie employs a technique of interviewing the characters who knew Truman as if the actors were the people providing insights for a documentary. Some people have objected to this, but I kind of liked it.

I enjoyed this movie and admired its accomplishments. Is it as strong a movie as "Capote"? No. However, it has some marvelous scenes. As just a few examples, the scene at the end with Truman going through the things Perry Smith left him is very powerful. Also, Sigourney Weaver has some marvelous scenes as Babe Paley and shows the powerful emotional connections Truman had with many women throughout his life. I also liked Peter Bogdanovich as Truman's editor and publisher, Bennett Cerf. When no one else would go to the hanging with Truman, it was Cerf who accompanied him.

I would recommend seeing both films and appreciating each for its strengths rather than trying to pit one movie against the other.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

The 2006 biopic INFAMOUS, like CAPOTE (2005) covers a chapter in writer Truman Capote's life; i.e. his "reportage" (as Tru liked to say) of a brutal quadruple homicide in a small Kansas town, exhaustive investigations that ultimately led to the 1966 publication of the crime classic, IN COLD BLOOD.

This film is superior to CAPOTE in these respects: Toby Jones is the reincarnation of Capote in height, face and voice. Watch this man for 30 seconds and you'll forget it's an actor and not Capote himself. He's THAT good! Also, an outstanding supporting cast that features Sandra Bullock as Harper Lee, Sigourney Weaver as Babe Paley and Gwyneth Paltrow as nighclub singer Kitty Dean (Paltrow is fabulous!). Finally, there's Jeff Daniels as Kansas investigator Al Dewey, Isabella Rossellini as Marella Agnelli, and almost as amazing as Jones, Peter Bogdonovich is the spittin' image of publisher/writer Bennett Cerf. (Who knew Bog could act?)

INFAMOUS isn't perfect of course. There's a refusal to paint Capote as a back-stabbing friendship destroyer (as gigantic Philip Hoffman did so well in his Oscar-winning turn), although we do see an incident of mischievous gossiping. The script also injects some arguably superfluous man love (both tender and violent) into the story. It's clear that Tru's loyalty to Perry Smith prevents his total honesty, yet no mention is made that Smith probably killed all four victims, which varies from Capote's ultimate book description and crime scenario as depicted here. Finally, Tru's obsession over Smith and resultant alcoholic dissipation after the murderer's hanging is a P.S.ed afterthought.

Nonetheless, Toby Jones IS Truman Capote, and no matter any differences or similarities to the previous year's Hoffman turn, this one stands on its own as a darn good movie! Highly recommended.

An unfortunate twist of providence plagued this 2006 film since it was one of two major studio productions covering the same story and completed almost at the same time. The other movie, Bennett Miller's "Capote" (2005), was universally acclaimed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's superbly etched performance winning accolade after accolade including last year's Best Actor Oscar. Held back for a year, this version is decidedly more colorful but somewhat more superficial, coming across less as a character-driven study than an unrequited love story between world-famous writer Truman Capote and notorious murderer Perry Smith.

Both movies focus on Capote's investigation of the 1959 Kansas murder of the Clutter family and the two young men convicted of the crime, Smith and Richard Hickock. Director/screenwriter Douglas McGrath places greater emphasis on Capote's celebrity-filled social circle in Manhattan by using them as a narrative device to move the story along. The other major difference is how the relationship between Capote and Smith becomes less about the author's singular ambition to get his story than how two disparate men find a common bond in their mutually repressive situation. The author's compassion for Perry contains a deeper sense of longing in McGrath's version, and the feelings are reciprocated with surprising candor by Smith.

Yet, the whole venture falls short because the star-studded cast and smart production values cannot compensate for the hollow ring at the core of this film. We are never really privy to Capote's creative genius, nor does his resulting book, "In Cold Blood" feel palpable beyond passing references. There is certainly not a lack of effort here, as character actor Toby Jones is far more of a dead ringer for the real Capote than even Hoffman. At the same time, the startling accuracy of Jones' cadence and mannerisms still cannot match Hoffman's pained gravitas in the role. Prior to becoming the current 007, Daniel Craig impressively conveys the tender and terrorizing sides of Smith with equal aplomb. As author Harper Lee, Sandra Bullock submerges herself into the quiet role of a low-key confidante who keeps Capote on his toes. Jeff Daniels effectively plays the taciturn D.A. Alvin Dewey, although the overall portrayal of the star-struck townsfolk feels overly patronizing.

The remaining star turns amount to extended cameos and frankly a marginal waste of stellar talent - Sigourney Weaver as Babe Paley, wife of CBS chairman Bill Paley; Hope Davis as Slim Keith, who was married to director Howard Hawks and agent Leland Hayward; Isabella Rossellini as socialite Marella Agnelli; Juliet Stevenson as Vogue editor Diana Vreeland; and in the opening nightclub scene, Gwyneth Paltrow as Peggy Lee (whose name has been changed to `Kitty Dean' in the movie). The late 1950's period look of the film benefits from expert, unobtrusive work from cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, production designer Judy Becker, and costume designer Ruth Myers. Thanks to the exhaustive research he conducted on his subject, McGrath contributes an informative commentary track on the 2007 DVD, the only extra beyond the original theatrical trailer.