I haven’t seen the movie Capote, but I have read the book In Cold Blood. And the premise that Capote needed the killers to be executed for the book strikes me as a dubious premise. Capote needed: 1) the killers to be convicted, 2) the killers to talk openly (“confess”) to him. Once those occurred, whether they were executed for their crimes doesn’t seem necessary for the publication of his book. Did they talk to Capote only under the condition that he could not use their conversations until after their deaths?
Correction on my post above. It started in major cities recently. Houston has it at its main art house theater.
The killers both confessed the day they were captured, though their stories changed a bit (mainly who did the actual killings). Neither ever tried to recant that they were there and that they were responsible for the murders, and essentially the best their lawyers could hope for was life in prison rather than the death penalty (which even in In Cold Blood they are not portrayed as sympathetic people- if anybody ever deserved the drop, they did). So Capote had nothing to do with that.
I haven’t seen the movie but the rumor is that Capote fell in love with Smith. One of the prosecutors swears (in Plimpton’s biography) that Capote and Smith were physically lovers (Capote bribed guards to go away according to him), but this is speculative at best. Capote did feel a kinship with Smith because they were both the children of alcoholic generally uncaring mothers and grew up pillar to post in families that didn’t understand them or try to, but he never minimized Smith cold blooded nature.
I wonder what ground the other Capote movie (featuring Sandra Bullock, most improbably, as Harper Lee) is going to cover. I also wonder how separate studios both got funding for multimillion dollar risky projects that are essentially the same story.
I don’t know the answer to that.
I’m definitely going to read the book again. The interviews (about the movie) left me with the impression that I missed a major point about Capote’s involvement with the killers, and the effect of his involvement.
Or maybe I’m reading something into their comments that isn’t there. They made Capote sound manipulative and callous.
The killers did confess, were tried and convicted, and sentenced to death. It was the fact that they kept getting Stays of Execution that delayed their deaths. I got from the movie that Capote needed the executions to take place so he’d have the logical ending for his book, rather than a vague, unsatisfying “they’re still on death row, awaiting execution” type ending. I didn’t get that he thought the book would be more or less successful, just that it needed the satisfying ending everyone reading it would expect and that everyone knew would happen eventually anyway. He was, of course, right. The part in his book about the executions is very powerful.
The movie implied that Capote realized how cold he was being in the pursuit of his masterwork (such as refusing to contact or visit Smith, who had come to look at him as a friend, until Smith talked to him specifically about the night of the murders, and refusing to look for and pay for a new lawyer for the appeals, and lying to Smith about the title of the book), and it tore him up inside.
According to the movie, Capote was manipulative and callous toward Smith (and Hickock) in the last couple of years before the executions, but from almost the start of his investigation he saw in Smith a kindred spirit, and the more he learned about Smith the more certain he was of it. At one point he says something like (this is hugely paraphrased), it’s as if he (Capote) and Smith were born in the same house, grew up with the same challenges and hardships, but once grown up Smith walked out the back door (meaning into a life of crime) and Capote walked out the front door (meaning into a life of creativity and productivity). He was sympathetic and empethetic up to a point, but he still saw Smith as a cold-blooded killer and had no qualms about the guy swinging for what he had done. It was all about the timing though, wanting it done so he could finish his book. I didn’t get that he was sorry that Smith was hanged, but that 1) there but for the grace of god go I and 2) he didn’t lift a finger to help delay it and he withdrew his friendship with a doomed man JUST so he could get the information he needed about the night of the killings and have the ending he needed for the book.
One aspect I love about all this is that Capote never tried to rationalize or excuse what Smith had done, but he put a human face on someone that everyone thought was a monster. That seemed to scare people even more. Only monsters sprung from the bowels of hell would do something like that, not orphan kids who are good at drawing pictures. It’s all (In Cold Blood the book and Capote the movie) very psychological and very fascinating.
The movie never gives the impression that Smith and Capote were ever physical lovers. They just decided not to go there I guess. The movie does make it pretty clear that Capote fell in love with Smith.
Capote was a model for Dill?!!? Now it all makes sense! Thanks middleman!
The first time I saw Hoffman was in Magnolia. I saw greatness in his performance there and he’s never let me down. I can’t wait to see this movie, and I’d love to see him bag the trophy.
If, as the OP says; Philip Seymour Hoffman was “was born to play the role” of Capote - having also not seen it, I can only hope he can at least hold a candle to the brilliant job Robert Morse did in the 1989-90, one-man show: Tru.
(If you missed it on Broadway, it may be available via PBS).
I first remember him a smallish role in Scent of a Woman. He was so smarmy.
He’s been good in everything he’s ever done.
Unfortunately not. I have sent them e-mails begging for it to be released or at least re-aired, but to no avail. That’s a truly “make you laugh/make you cry” play.
The actor who plays him in the next movie is best known as the voice of Dobby the House Elf in Harry Potter. The movie also features a young actor as Gore Vidal, so I hope the studio has their lawyer on stand-by (Gore hated Capote with a white-hot passion [probably because Capote could, imo, write circles around him when it came to fiction] and by his own admission loves litigation [he sued Capote, in fact].)
Nice review. (Better than the ones I heard on the radio.)
What you say about humanizing these two guys – that’s what I remember people saying when the book first came out. The tone and style were unusual. We’d had true crime books before, but Capote was the first writer who didn’t sensationalize, or demonize. Some folks didn’t know how to take that.
I also hope he is as good as Brian the Dog from Family Guy, who also did a one DOG show about Truman Capote! 
As did Greg Kinnear with Matt Damon attached in the conjoined twin “comedy” Stuck on You.
Many people would rather hear that monsters have been sprung from the bowels of hell (“Ah, so that’s why they did it! Figures”) than hear about abused childhoods (“Ah, you’re just trying to make excuses!!”) when someone does something terrible, be it Perry Smith or Andrea Yates. People ask “Why did they do that?? How could they do that??” but if you try to tell them anything other than “Oh yeah, hell’s door opened up for a second. Bummer, eh?” they get all defensive as if you’re trying to let the killers off the hook and want them to get a Get Out Of Jail Free card and roam among society doing what they do best just because they had an abused childhood, had a mental illness, or whatever.
I’ve never understood people who ask “why?” but don’t want to hear logical guesses based in reality.
Wow.
I’m not sure if this is the best place to post this (though I did a search and this seems to be the most current thread).
I finally saw the film (I waited so long 'cause I’m not a huge Capote fan-- sorry I did. I’d recommend this to people who’ve never read a thing by him, or even who have and hated it) and if Hoffman doesn’t get the Oscar I’ll never again watch the highlights of the ceremony (stopped watching the actual thing a while ago). I won’t even read the list of winners in the next day’s paper, because it will be a travesty. Heath Ledger was great in Brokeback Mountain, and I liked Joachim Phoenix in Walk the Line, but neither performance can hold a candle to Hoffman’s. Damn. And the guy who played Perry was pretty damn special, too.
I agree with you Cat Fight but I don’t think you’ll have to worry. I believe Hoffman has a lock on the win. Anything can happen of course, but I’d be shocked if he didn’t win. Hoffman is well-respected and hasn’t received the acclaim he deserves, IMO. I’d bet people will be falling all over themselves to vote for him. If anything will hold him back, it’ll be because it’s a biopic and one of them won last year too. Then again, Phoenix (who I’d pick if it weren’t for Hoffman’s performance) has the same problem. Worse even, since his is also a musical performance like Jamie Foxx’s. The only other person I can see sneaking up and taking the Oscar might be Viggo Mortensen, who should be nominated for History of Violence (which, because I say that, means he won’t be).
Other possibles are Russell Crowe for Cinderella Man, David Straithairn for Good Night, and Good Luck and possibly Terrence Howard for Hustle & Flow, besides Heath. Heath is too young, Terrence is too new, Crowe is too cranky, Viggo is too outsider. So it’ll be between Hoffman, Phoenix and Straithairn. I loved GN&GL but all Straithairn really had to do was frown a lot and look really serious. My opinion means nothing, but I do think it will come down to the 2 biopic actors, because they really made their characters live and breathe. I think Hoffman had the harder job because most people either knew nothing about Capote or they just thought he was a weirdo with a silly voice. That you ended the movie very disapproving of what Capote had done, but you still cared for him, was quite a feat for Hoffman.
God, I’m such a geek. I do follow the awards season very closely and try to see all the movies prior to nomination day. I’ve seen all the big films (except for The New World, but I don’t think Colin Ferrell is a threat) and you’re right, nobody comes close to Hoffman. My confidence in his upcoming win remains unshaken.
If anyone lives in the Chicago-Evanston area and wants to see Capote, it’s playing as a double-feature at the Century Evanston (Century 12 and CineArts 6) with Breakfast On Pluto, another very good movie with a Best Actor-quality performance by Cillian Murphy, who was nominated for a Golden Globe (yay!) but doesn’t stand a chance at an Oscar nomination. The double-feature isn’t overly advertised and they might not even mention it when you buy the ticket for one, but it’s real. This theater often does double-features of Award season movies and I’ve taken advantage of it several times over the years. They only place I ever see the d-f advertised is the Chicago Reader online showtimes (on the right, 5th listing down).
Just saw this movie and was mesmerized throughout. The film came here last year and left quickly (along with Good Night and…), but was brought back quickly after all the awards.
Forget “Brokeback”, Hoffman gives the performance of a lifetime, and absolutely deserves the Oscar. What a dynamic and unrelenting portrayal this was.
Funny, I just saw it last night myself, and was also blown away, by the script and the direction more than Hoffman’s superb performance. It was the quietest movie (aside from those awful shotgun blasts) I’ve ever seen that wasn’t a silent film–very haunting and powerful, and visually lovely. Bruce Greenwood, Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener–all the supporting roles were spectacular, too, especially the guy who played Perry Smith.
Heh, I just saw it Thursday. I guess it’s in wide release now!
I have always been a fan of “PSH” (huuuuge crush) and his acting prowess is absolutely blinding. If you look at the range of characters he’s played so convincingly - the embarassingly awkward Scotty in Boogie Nights, the stuck-up doctor in Patch Adams, the compassionate caretaker in Magnolia, the over-the-top transvestite in Flawless (see this movie!!), the screaming badass in Punch Drunk Love…man, the list goes on. He’s covered EVERYTHING and the role of Capote probably couldn’t have been pegged better by anyone else but him. He shows Capote as flamboyant, pathetic, concerned, popular, loyal, strong, weak…but NEVER takes any of it too far. He’s never “over acting.”
He’s just f’n brilliant. I am so excited to see everyone pulling for him for an Oscar. Glad he’s finally had a huge starring role that hopefully will win it for him.
Heh, I just saw it Thursday. I guess it’s in wide release now!
I have always been a fan of “PSH” (huuuuge crush) and his acting prowess is absolutely blinding. If you look at the range of characters he’s played so convincingly - the embarassingly awkward Scotty in Boogie Nights, the stuck-up doctor in Patch Adams, the compassionate caretaker in Magnolia, the over-the-top transvestite in Flawless (see this movie!!), the screaming badass in Punch Drunk Love…man, the list goes on. He’s covered EVERYTHING and the role of Capote probably couldn’t have been pegged better by anyone else but him. He shows Capote as flamboyant, pathetic, concerned, popular, loyal, strong, weak…but NEVER takes any of it too far. He’s never “over acting.”
He’s just f’n brilliant. I am so excited to see everyone pulling for him for an Oscar. Glad he’s finally had a huge starring role that hopefully will win it for him.
The best part for me (other than the film itself) was that, in a fairly packed house, there were none of the sniggering fools who usually ruin this type of film for me. In reading about Capote’s life, I saw where he tested at an IQ of 215. Not surprising in the least.