Capote

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:03 am

Good, but insubstantial and somewhat unsatisfying. Hoffman is amazing as the titular obsessive author. He does a fantastically believable job of portraying the egoism and self-absorption that sealed Capote off from the rest of the world. My favorite example of this comes at the celebration of his apparently-only female friend (played by an infectiously smiley Catherine Keener, aka the GILF from 40 Year Old Virgin) Harper Lee's Pulitzer winning To Kill A Mockingbird; we see him basking in adulating camera flashes, seemingly unaware that this isn't even his party. Although the movie is very good when it is trying to be Philip Seymour Hoffman the One Man Show, the plot avoids for long stretches its central story of Capote researching a quadruple murder case in Kansas and bonding a little too closely with the killers. When it finally gets around to telling that story in its last third-or-so, it's good but not very satisfying. Oscar-worthy acting and a good ending don't quite save it from a B+, although this is one of those movies that I will have to think about for the next couple days. Lastly, I love that this story about the methods Capote used to get his book finished give the novel's title, In Cold Blood, an unsettling double-meaning.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:20 am

Spot on review, Puce. Amazing acting. Disappointing over-all but still quite strong. Too long and seemingly intentially focused on the act of writing rather than the course of justice. But perhaps this is true, as I can only imagine that the whole episope is well documented.

Post by jb » Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:28 am

I loved it. <b>A+</b>

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:31 am

roymond wrote:seemingly intentially focused on the act of writing rather than the course of justice. But perhaps this is true, as I can only imagine that the whole episope is well documented.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Well, that's probably because the movie was about Capote, who was ultimately more focused on the act of writing than the course of justice. Well, at least in the beginning. Throughout the movie, the question keeps arising from different characters: "What is the name of the book," and that in fact is not the name of the movie. Capote was self-obsessed, so any movie doing him justice seems like it had better focus in on his point of view.

The movie is not about the course of justice, the movie's about a self-obsessed man writing a book. It's not a movie about that book, it's a movie about making that book. How does one truly paint a portrait of evil? By running up to it and asking it a questionnaire? No, by paying off wardens so that you can feed evil babyfood so it doesn't starve to death. I think that the movie shows Hoffman getting "too close" to the killers from the first time he meets the one and gives him aspirin.

I think it's pretty clear that Capote is falling in love with his subject, because he's basically treating their meetings as a platonic love affair. Ignoring the bad parts about the person, focusing on the good. Getting scared when the other person likes or needs you too much. Putting up ultimatums when you know that the relationship is already over. Not wanting to see the end of the relationship, even though it's unavoidable and the best thing for everyone involved.

Do you create better art when you love the subject? Worse art? What if what you love is yourself? Does that affect your art, and does that affect how you deal with other people? I think these are big weighty questions that are addressed because of the longer nature of the film, because the film focused on the entirety of Capote's creative process during the book, rather than him getting grisly facts out of the one killer.

I mean, if you take the last third and make it into a movie, you've basically got: "Four Shots in the Dark: The Clutter Family Killings" to be aired 6 times a week on Lifetime during March sweeps.

I liked Capote, quite a bit.

Post by jb » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:55 am

Yeah, it wasn't about the killings, it was about Capote and his ruination. It was all about Capote. Lots of shots of him just sitting there doing almost nothing. It was kind of what I wanted Brokeback to be like.

Post by **Lunkhead** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:02 pm

Erin and I saw it a while ago and both liked it a lot. I'd give it an A-. In terms of comparing it to Brokeback Mountain, I think the difference for me was the quality of the acting. I could watch Phillip Seymour Hoffman portray Capote in quiet moments and it would be compelling, and the same goes for Heath Ledger in Brokeback, to a degree, but not for Jake G. He lacked the charisma to get me to identify with his character and that kind of undermined my ability to get into Brokeback.