Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
63 of 65 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The other side of the story, February 17, 2007
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.
|
|
|
31 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The story of a broken heart . . ., February 20, 2007
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.
|
|
|
24 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
worth seeing first, October 30, 2006
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."
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Video On Demand ~ Allie Mickelson
Video On Demand ~ Robert Blake
Video On Demand ~ Rae Don Chong
Video On Demand ~ Kevin Bacon
Video On Demand ~ Bronwen Hughes
