As I said in my What I Watched column on Sunday, I finally got around to watching the 2005 and 2006 Truman Capote films, Capote and Infamous. The first earned five Oscar nominations and one win for Phillip Seymour Hoffman who played the eccentric author to the delight of many. The second was released just over a year later to absolutely no attention whatsoever. This isn’t a surprise. Technically Capote is a better film and was deserving of its nomination of Hoffman in the lead role, but to say it is a quality Best Picture candidate, Director or Adapted Screenplay is pushing it, but also comes in large part due to what I perceive to be a poor year in quality film. I mean, Munich was a Best Picture contender and Crash came out on top. Yikes.
However, my commentary on both Capote and Infamous has nothing to do with the quality of performances or even the quality of the films on a whole as it has to do to with the approach each film takes when telling the same story of Truman Capote’s life. These two films are dramatically different from one another, painting a different picture of several of its lead characters, the largest divides having to do with Capote as well as his criminal muse, Perry Smith. Nelle Harper Lee has differences, but that primarily has to do with her involvement and influence on the storyline, which is almost a trivial matter in terms of this discussion.
McGrath’s take, which uses George Plimpton’s book of quotations, “Truman Capote: In Which Various Friends, Enemies, Acquaintances and Detractors Recall His Turbulent Career,” as its source focuses a lot on Capote’s gossiping and celebrity chasing lifestyle much more than Bennett Miller’s Capote, which only brushed on the subject in comparison. Infamous isn’t exactly a flattering title and neither is the ego-driven way in which it is revealed in the credits with the “n” intentionally left out at the start. Capote definitely touches on these aspects of Truman’s nature, but it also focuses more on Truman’s drinking as he is almost never seen without a drink, something that rarely registers in Infamous. Considering alcohol became a major contributor to his downfall, it’s inclusion is important in my eyes.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two films is the approach to Truman’s homosexuality, a subject hardly touched upon in Capote while thrust front-and-center in Infamous as Capote is asked flat-out, “Are you queer?” and his relationship with Smith becomes much more heated than at any point in Capote. McGrath even uses stories told of Capote’s romantic affair with Perry Smith, going as far as showing an on screen make-out session between Capote (Toby Jones) and Smith (Daniel Craig) not long after an admitted fabrication in which Smith is shown almost raping Capote. Considering this is a film based on stories told by those that knew Capote I wonder how responsible it is to add your own conjecture, when certain happenings can’t be proven outright.
Capote also pictures Truman as a much different person. Infamous begins with a musical number featuring Gwyneth Paltrow as Kitty Dean singing “What Is This Thing Called Love?” while Truman looks on, wearing a black suit, and accompanied by Babe Paley (Sigourney Weaver). But the next hour or so of the film has Truman dressed in much different attire. His introduction to the folks in Kansas portrays him as a loudmouth eccentric wearing a long brown trench coat with a plush collar and an orange scarf as seen above. He all but sarcastically asks detective Alvin Dewey (Jeff Daniels) out on a date, making quite a first impression on the small town. Compared to the black suit, white shirt and black bow tie worn by Hoffman throughout Capote, the impression the two men make are drastically different to say the least. Which one is more accurate? Or are they both accurate in their own way?
Capote hardly touches on Truman’s homosexuality, only having him mention the way people treat him on account of his voice as well as an introduction to his lover, Jack Dunphy (Bruce Greenwood). This can be respected, but whether it’s the right approach depends on how you look at the film. Does emphasis on Capote’s sexual orientation add more to the character? Would it be a more accurate depiction?
In Infamous it plays a larger role as people often mistakenly refer to him as “ma’am,” but both films never show Truman being treated with any hatred as a result of him being gay. So is there value? Infamous does have that kiss with Smith, something that changes a viewer’s perspective on the overall outcome as that is a relationship that differs greatly between the two films, with a character that could hardly be called the same man.
Clifton Collins Jr.’s performance as Smith in Capote more closely mirrors Robert Blake’s performance in In Cold Blood in 1967 while Daniel Craig’s performance in Infamous shows signs of the Smith we meet in these two films, but not until about 75% of the film has passed.
Shown as extremely aggressive in Infamous, Daniel Craig delivers a worthy performance, but I must admit I never grew attached to the character due to having seen In Cold Blood and Capote first, both of which offer up Smith as a rather reserved character with something behind the eyes, but never overly aggressive outside of that one moment at the Clutter’s farmhouse. As a matter of fact, that is another change McGrath throws in the mix showing Smith killing only two of the four Kansas victims while Hickock runs upstairs to kill the two women. I would say it doesn’t matter, but in terms of the story being told in Infamous it certainly does even if reports on who killed who that night have always conflicted.
Infamous is far more compassionate toward both Capote and Smith while Capote portrays Truman as an intelligent, yet self-obsessed drunk who uses and manipulates Smith to tell his story. Of course, this happens in both films, but the impression you are left after one is much different than the other. There is room for empathy at the end of each film, but Infamous allows for it much more. While Truman obviously has some kind of feelings for Smith at the end of Capote, he is shown as a man that has lost what very well may be the love of his life at the end of Infamous. The impression Truman loved Smith in Capote is there, but I don’t think the two compare.
So what do we take away from these two films? Do we have an accurate portrait of Truman Capote as a result? Is that the goal?
I think many would agree Capote, without any real level of criticism, is the better film. It’s more entertaining and it just works much better as the cutaway interviews in Infamous really stop the film in its tracks, not to mention the uneven score and unfocused direction. As a matter of fact, everyone except for Toby Jones in Infamous seem to be reading their lines with absolutely no enthusiasm or interest. Strangely, I think Jones captured the Truman Capote I have seen in interviews much better than Hoffman did, but he is surrounded by such a large group of stiffs you almost forget you are watching a quality performance. Too bad for Toby.
When I mentioned my thoughts on these two films in my “What I Watched” column a couple of commenters brought up a few things I thought were interesting. Brian said, “[I] think [Capote‘s] a perfect example of how to make a biopic, excluding showing off an entire life, focusing instead on the most important part of a person’s [life].”
Since both Infamous and Capote center on the same time in Truman’s life I don’t think Brian was comparing the movies as much as saying he liked Capote. However, to the point of “focusing instead on the most important part of a person’s [life]” I think that’s up for debate, especially considering the differences between the two films, that is unless the differences in Infamous are complete fabrications. I am not knowledgeable enough on Capote’s life to know the answer, but it does seem McGrath went out on a ledge here and there.
As to Patricia’s comment saying, “I think it is odd that you would champion an old horse like Black Narcissus and be ready to pick apart Infamous and Capote… but I will await you full article,” I can’t help but wonder what is “odd” about it. Are not all movies up for dissection? Does the age of a film matter? I couldn’t help but be equally fascinated and confused by the differences in these two films, and that to me is worthy of discussion, especially considering we are talking about the telling of a real person’s life.
While putting together my thoughts on all of this I also went over to IMDB where many have had the discussion as to which film is better, Infamous or Capote? To no surprise the majority opinion points to Capote, and when people aren’t talking about which has better performances, or how Capote is better because it is “darker” or “chilling”, there are discussions on the subject matter and I would say many people found the same differences I did, many of which dealing with character traits and/or omission and inclusion of said traits, something I wouldn’t necessarily say is up for interpretation.
Looking around YouTube I found a few videos with Capote in them such as a pair with Capote and Groucho Marx on “The Dick Cavett Show” from 1971 (here and here) as well as a pair of retro videos, which I have featured below.
On top of this I read the New York Times obituary for Capote for a quick retrospective look at Capote’s life and read his short story “Miriam” which was published in Mademoiselle in 1945.
I was hoping to gain some kind of impression of the man these two films discussed in a short amount of time. I can’t say I was entirely successful, but I think it’s odd two films could be made about the same span in Capote’s life and bring such fascinating differences to the table. While neither film blew me away they make for interesting conversation… at least I think so.
You can buy either Capote or Infamous at Amazon.com by clicking here.
