"Capote" is a film with undeniable assets: it's got the best performance by an American actor in the last decade and some of the wittiest dialog in an American film in recent years. Philip Seymour Hoffman's once-in-a-lifetime performance is simply jaw-dropping (and he's aware of it): it's a triumph of vocal and body work, with a huge range (mentally and emotionally), but above all it sparkles with supremely intelligent acting in portraying the lizard man with the 215-point I.Q. and the 1,000,000-point ego.
The film focuses entirely on the circumstances concerning the genesis of Truman Capote's masterpiece "In Cold Blood" (the title that had, of course, a double meaning, as it described both the set of mind of the 1959 Kansas harrowing criminals and of Capote himself in his Machiavellian saga to finally complete his book). The film concentrates on Capote's transformation from lightweight literary wunderkind and jet-set wit to trend-setting, seriously talented writer, depicting the Faustian/Mephistophelian process he goes through as he realizes that, in order to produce his ground-breaking "non-fiction novel" -- which helped consolidate American media's fascination with violence, death and crime -- he has to sink deeply in muddy waters of manipulation, adulation, mendacity, bribery, omission, ultimately having to face the ugliest side of himself, like a modern Dorian Gray. In "Capote", the horrifying Kansas crime, the murderers and the circumstances that led to their execution are the background scenery allowing the filmmakers to question the author's autistic egotism, gargantuan ambition and tortuous, perverse morality (just in case anyone forgets: Capote's novel benefited who, again?)
If "Capote" ultimately impacts less than it could/should, director Bennett Miller is probably to blame. Visually, it's bland and unexciting: it's a real shame to see such an unimaginative handling of such potentially thrilling material. "Capote" has some of the dullest courtroom scenes in movie history (and the competition is high, as we know). And what about those gigantic, paralyzed close-ups? And that static, lifeless camera? The audience goes to see the film pretty much aware that Capote's (and the screenwriter's) wit and Hoffman's performance are the core of it, and no one was asking for an action movie, but did it have to look so bland? Maybe Miller just lacks mileage (this is only his second film); or maybe he's simply not visually oriented, maybe he's an actors' director. Despite the fascinating subject, a great performance and above-average dialog, Miller's "Capote" disappointingly looks like a TV movie.
Apart from those (not trifle) objections, "Capote" is recommended for all of us who thought wit, subtlety and acting excellence had all but disappeared from American films. PS: Richard Brooks' irregular but visually striking 1967 version of "In Cold Blood" is a complementary companion to this one.
The film focuses entirely on the circumstances concerning the genesis of Truman Capote's masterpiece "In Cold Blood" (the title that had, of course, a double meaning, as it described both the set of mind of the 1959 Kansas harrowing criminals and of Capote himself in his Machiavellian saga to finally complete his book). The film concentrates on Capote's transformation from lightweight literary wunderkind and jet-set wit to trend-setting, seriously talented writer, depicting the Faustian/Mephistophelian process he goes through as he realizes that, in order to produce his ground-breaking "non-fiction novel" -- which helped consolidate American media's fascination with violence, death and crime -- he has to sink deeply in muddy waters of manipulation, adulation, mendacity, bribery, omission, ultimately having to face the ugliest side of himself, like a modern Dorian Gray. In "Capote", the horrifying Kansas crime, the murderers and the circumstances that led to their execution are the background scenery allowing the filmmakers to question the author's autistic egotism, gargantuan ambition and tortuous, perverse morality (just in case anyone forgets: Capote's novel benefited who, again?)
If "Capote" ultimately impacts less than it could/should, director Bennett Miller is probably to blame. Visually, it's bland and unexciting: it's a real shame to see such an unimaginative handling of such potentially thrilling material. "Capote" has some of the dullest courtroom scenes in movie history (and the competition is high, as we know). And what about those gigantic, paralyzed close-ups? And that static, lifeless camera? The audience goes to see the film pretty much aware that Capote's (and the screenwriter's) wit and Hoffman's performance are the core of it, and no one was asking for an action movie, but did it have to look so bland? Maybe Miller just lacks mileage (this is only his second film); or maybe he's simply not visually oriented, maybe he's an actors' director. Despite the fascinating subject, a great performance and above-average dialog, Miller's "Capote" disappointingly looks like a TV movie.
Apart from those (not trifle) objections, "Capote" is recommended for all of us who thought wit, subtlety and acting excellence had all but disappeared from American films. PS: Richard Brooks' irregular but visually striking 1967 version of "In Cold Blood" is a complementary companion to this one.