First "Capote", now "Infamous"

For those of you wondering whether to see this year's movie about Capote writing "In Cold Blood" when you've already seen LAST year's movie about Capote writing "In Cold Blood", my answer would be, yes. No, make that, naahh. Or maybe, um, maybe...?

Both films cover the same ground: socialite writer from the Mecca Of All Culture journeys to the real world to write about a multiple slaying; the writer decides to create a new way of reportage, breaking down the walls between fiction and journalism.

What's different about Infamous is that there's more detail, a bit more scope and perspective, and more condescention (both from the audience, and the literati). How they managed to get more into a shorter running time (okay, 4 minutes) is beyond me. But here, you get not only a feel for 1950's New York, but you get to form an opinion about the characters that inhabit the literary world.

Not neccessarily a good opinion. They are flambouyant, breezy, and totally out of touch with anyplace you or I probably came from (Truman's origin tale to the contrary). This is not the atmospheric Manhattan of 2005's Capote (and Good Night, And Good Luck), but an opulent Xanadu divorced from the lands beyond its borough. The inhabitants are catty, insecure scenery-chewers (accurate or otherwise).

And this Capote is smug, preening, and the Droopy-dog voice is cranked up to 11. In his world, it's all about him. This is not to say he doesn't charm the rubes. This doesn't mean he doesn't make an honest bond with the subjects of his book. It just means Toby Jones has a heckuva lot more cartoon characterization to overcome than Philip Seymour Hoffman did before making it work for me.

The first film is more like you are plunked-down from a time machine into the situation, and you are left to find your way with your own power of observation, as George Clooney did to me weeks earlier when he dropped me into the CBS newsroom in the same time period. The latter is more like pure docudrama, with everything you need laid out from beginning to end.

I think, if you are new to the story and want to know it all, you will be a tad more satisfied with Infamous. But if I had just-under two hours to spend in a darkened room sharing the rarified air with Truman, I would opt for the movie that bears his name. Best-case scenario, see both.

 

Our local paper gave it a good review, but emphasized No one will ever do Capote like Hoffman. Sandra Bullock is supposedly excellent.

We left Capote feeling like we'd been run over by a truck. The intracies of the Perry/Truman relationship defined and tacitly suggested by the screenplay were heady.

I'll rent Infamous, but no way am I paying $8 to see it in the theater.

 

Though, from what I have seen (haven't caught the movie yet) Toby Jones looks and sounds more like Capote than Hoffman does. Whether his performance is as good is another matter.

 

How in the world do two movies about the same subject get made at roughly the same time? It's hard to imagine someone deciding to finance INFAMOUS even if CAPOTE hadn't wrapped yet, knowing the first film was also going to be a serious, non-exploitive examination of the exact same topic.

 

It happens all the time in Hollywood. The two movies were in production at the same time but Infamous was held back for a year.

 

The first one was great. I have no desire to see a new "over-explained for the masses" version. And Catherine Keener vs. Sandra Bullock :thumbsdn: .......haha.....not even close!

 

I liked Capote for the most part, but I did have a problem with Hoffman simply being too heavy for the role. I just couldn't get past that. Right as I'd start to get drawn in, I'd think "Truman Capote didn't look like that in the early 60s." Not sure I care to see this, really. I'd rather spend my time re-reading In Cold Blood.

Jason