« I am not Normal | Main | Ode to Sister Singles »
February 12, 2006
Capote: A Long Walk Towards Death
First, I believe this entry was better in the wee hours of the morning when it was almost finished and my computer froze, forcing me to shut down and lose my thoughts forever.
I believe the first reviews of Capote were not great, but that once it came out there was great buzz about the movie and Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance. Add an Oscar nom, and it made it to the top of my "really want to see in a theatre" list. So I went last night to see it.
I was truly engaged with the film for about the first half. But it never went beyond the surface of any scene; perhaps in part due to the affectation-filled quirks of the title character. Insights were left to one-liners, most of which I'd already heard in the many trailers for the film. I couldn't remember why the name Capote stuck in my mind, until I read the Wikipedia entry for the man - he produced the infamous Black and White Ball to celebrate Katharine Graham's birthday, which she wrote about in her autobiography, which I read several years ago.
I still want to read In Cold Blood, since I already love the "literary non-fiction" genre that Capote created. But about half way through the film I started seriously questioning what all the buzz was about. And two-thirds through the film I started empathizing with Capote's desire for the killers to be killed - simply because I knew that would end the movie.
I blame a slow paced script and elongated camera shots for my disinterest. When I was originally mulling the film over in my mind, I thought maybe I didn't have the attention span for a slower movie. But no, I fully appreciate movies that engage me with underlying emotions or revealing context. This movie was almost all fluff and slow, torturous shots of walls as the camera languidly moved from speaker to reacting character.
On a larger scale, why are films that rest primarily on one man's shoulders such a critic and Oscar favorite? Last year there was Ray, now there's Capote. I don't think either is as great as people make them out to be. To me, Catherine Keener's portrayal of Harper Lee was the emotional heart of the movie: her character revealed more about Capote and his milieu than the entire two hours of Hoffman's overly restrained, completely unrevealing, though perhaps superficially accurate portrayal of Capote. What is more important in a film: being historically accurate in your portrayal of a real person or engaging the audience? While I'm glad Catherine Keener got a supporting actress nom, I'm disappointed that the film garnered as many Oscar nominations as it did because it simply isn't that good. Then again, 2005 on the whole simply wasn't as engaging as 2004 for film.
More info:
IMDB page
Victoria Alexander's review via Rotten Tomatoes - a spot-on review esp this graph:
My biggest complaint about CAPOTE was how dull it was. Where was the flamboyant Truman or the alcoholic "Tiny Terror" who finally pooped all over his wealthy friends by writing about their off-marital assignations and peccadilloes? Instead we get the subdued Truman who "related" to the killers as "outsiders."
Roger Ebert tells you all the best lines and plot twists of the movie.
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Ross Anthony's Hollywood Report Card entry
Capote Wikipedia page
Posted by cj at February 12, 2006 03:36 PM