Capote Reviews

There are many ways to tackle a celebrity biographical film, typically they lean hard on the “greatest hits” approach, presenting a series of vignettes that don’t add up to a complete portrait or point-of-view as to why this artist mattered. Instead these films gloss over everything that went into crafting their public image or artistry, presenting a canonized portrait of the persona, one in which they seemed to spring fully formed from the ephemera of the culture of their time in order to move things forward. These films are tedious, and the examples of them too numerous to mention, far better are the films which zero in on one specific moment and use it to explore why this person mattered.

Capote focuses in on the titular author’s decision to take a grisly murder story he read in the newspaper, and write a book about, crafting an entirely new genre of writing in the process, while simultaneously destroying his creative muse in the process. In a sense, Capote sees both the birth of a legendary work and the moment that lead to the decades long demise of his artistic output, becoming a jet set member and frequent bon vivant on talk show appearances. The seeds of the latter are sprinkled throughout the film, while the former is the driving force of the film.

Truman Capote’s life is made up of such moments that could be made into arresting and engaging films, but it makes sense to focus in on the creation of In Cold Blood. A manageable four year period of time, which saw him go from an author of respected short stories and novels to a literary lion and white-hot celebrity, birthing the non-fiction book in the process, and the film uses this entry point to explore the complicated psychosis of the troubled writer.

Seeing a news item and a chance to create a portrait of a town dealing with tragedy, Capote’s ambitions get the better of him, driving him inextricably towards Holcomb, Kansas. For Capote, this town would grow to become the location of his eventually undoing, as he grows closer and closer to the two murders, one of whom in particular could be described as something of a (twisted) soul mate or kindred spirit. The contradiction of falling in love with one of the killers while needing them to die to create a satisfying conclusion to his book highlights the viciousness of Capote’s ambitions while also planting the seeds of alcoholic destruction and complete avoidance of his artistic craft. The film slowly shows us the broken, destructive core, a man of great narcissism, underneath the mask of a charming, impish wit and social butterfly.

The (late) great Philip Seymour Hoffman’s essay of Capote is not an easy bit of copying mannerisms and resting on obvious twitches of a public persona. Hoffman digs deeper than normal, revealing the self-hatred in quiet moments when Capote realizes he has fallen in love with the killer while also waiting for him to die. A telling exchange occurs between him and his best friend, Harper Lee (a magnificently understated and warm Catherine Keener), where he says that there was nothing he could do to save them, and she responds with “Maybe, but the fact is that you didn’t want to.” Lee is the only character in the film who sees Capote for who he truly is, and she telegraphs it often.

Scenes of Capote gad flying about town with the rich and famous, poking fun at the rubes he’s documenting, then returning to Kansas and charming them with stories of the glitterati and movie stars display his contradictions. If one knows anything about his life, one knows that Capote’s childhood was marked by loneliness and abandonment, his public face a carefully cultivated persona to get love and attention from whoever was present. These scenes reveal that neediness and sadness. While not always a flattering portrait, Capote is fair-handed in detailing both the good and bad of a real person. What makes the film work so well, and Hoffman’s performance so perfect, is how it stares Capote’s moral and artistic disintegration straight in the eye and never flinch for a moment.

I thought I remembered hearing about that author in one of my English classes. I enjoyed it! Brilliant lead actor.

I already saw this movie but it was a while back go and, on top of that, I have just finished reading ‘In Cold Blood’ so I was really eager to check it again. Well, after years of being one of the best supporting actors around, it was time for Philip Seymour Hoffman to shine in a leading part. Finally, he got his shot with this flick, of course, everybody was blown away and he was deservedly rewarded by an Academy award. Even though Hoffman usually gets most of the credit concerning this movie, I think we shouldn't forget Bennett Miller who delivered here a very strong  directing début. To be honest, I have to admit that the movie was actually more impressive before I read the actual book.  I mean , even if Truman Capote seemed to be a really interesting guy, even if this story was quite intriguing, eventually, the book itself was still so much better after all so you might wonder if the whole thing was eventually really worth it after all. Still, it was really neat to see how Capote managed after many years of hard work and obsession to craft one of the best books ever written, In fact, he was so consumed by the damned thing that he eventually never wrote another book afterwards. Indeed, they gave us here some pretty impressive creative process at work and I thought it was just spellinding to watch. To conclude, I really enjoyed this movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Philip Seymour Hoffman's work.

Finding Philip Seymour Hoffman to be an exceptional actor, Capote was on my list of movies to view. I knew Truman Capote was an excellent author, with fantastic writing but I had no other knowledge of his personal life. This opened up my eye. The whole aspect of "In Cold Blood", which is what this film revolves around; takes a deep look into Capote's mindset and how this novel came about.
The scenes were set up quite well and suited the film well. The dialogue was very realistic and authentic. Hoffman is a phenomenal fit for Capote! I was shocked at how well he pulls off Capote's eccentric and well homosexuality. I never would have seen Philip Seymour pull it off, but he did with exquisite precision and authenticity.
No-one else in the film really stood out to me, however all the actors were good and didn't suck haha.
The only dislike I recieved with this film, is the lack of "somrthing", to make it fuller. Its difficult to describe, its not an action film(of course), but something was definitely needed. Some parts didn't take off as well as it could have. Other then that, the film was great and the storyline and writing was very well done. I'm glad I bought Capote, that Philip Hoffman can act..wow!

Rating: 7.4/10

a única coisa q realmente gostei no filme foi a atuação de Seymour Hoffman ... e olhe lá.
eu já tinha assistido Infamous a uns meses atrás, e é a MESMA história.
a forma como Infamous conta a história é muito melhor, Capote ficou muito dramático ...

Philip Seymour Hoffman ei onnistu useinkaan pettämään. Tässäkin mies tekee todella vahvan ja vaikuttavan roolityön.

Elokuvaa katsoessa ei oikein osaa päättää, pitääkö Hoffmanin roolihahmosta vai ei. Sellaiset elokuvat ovat aina mielenkiintoisia. Ne, joista ei oikein tiedä.

''Sometimes when I think of how good my book is going to be, I can't breathe.''

Truman Capote (Hoffman), during his research for his book In Cold Blood, an account of the murder of a Kansas family, the writer develops a close relationship with Perry Smith, one of the killers.

Philip Seymour Hoffman: Truman Capote

Bennet Miller's Capote is a film that shows a great intellect albeit sometimes manipulative and cunning, in the way it captured the essence of Truman Capote, a man who achieved fame and notoriety with most of the fiction he wrote. This film concentrates in the period of his life in which he got obsessed by a notorious murder case of the fifties about the murder of a family in Kansas.
Dan Futterman has written the screen play based on the book by Gerald Clarke. The film is an account about the writing of the novel In Cold Blood that showed how the two young men who committed the heinous crime are caught, processed and hanged for their actions.



Having watched Infamous, I'd say this telling of Capote is far superior, and doesn't dangle on un-necessities and unneeded comedy. This also doesn't romanticize Capote and Smith relationship but rather shows the Vampiric leech-like way he sucks forth what he wants from Smith for his own means, in this case the book.
When Capote opens we get a vision of a lonely house in the distance. This being the Midwest, we are given a flat expanse devoid of elevations anywhere. The camera takes us to that lonely house as a young woman comes calling for her friend that lives in there. Not getting any response, she goes in to a room upstairs where she discovers her friend has been killed. The colours are dark, as is the tone of the film.
Truman Capote, who had been connected to the New Yorker magazine, sees the article in the N.Y. Times and gets interested. This case that shocked the country, at the time, shows a promise for the writer. The next time we meet him, he is in the small town in Kansas accompanied by his good friend and steadying influence, Nell Harper Lee, a writer.

''Ever since I was a child, folks have thought they had me pegged, because of the way I am, the way I talk. And they're always wrong.''

By becoming friendly with the sheriff's wife, Mr. Capote gets a privilege by having access to the two murderers. Truman is clearly deeply affected by his relationship with Perry Smith, a handsome dark man who shows a lot of intensity. By gaining their trust, Capote is able to put together his best selling book In Cold Blood, which will revolutionize American letters in the way the two criminals are portrayed.
Truman Capote, while pursuing the completion of his book, doesn't come clean to Perry Smith. In fact, when questioned about things he has learned, Capote gives evasive answers because he is not prepared to share with his main subject things that clearly should have been clarified from the start.

Watching the brilliant take of Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote on the screen, brought to mind another great actor, Daniel Day-Lewis, who like Mr. Hoffman is a chameleon in the interpretation of a character. Mr. Hoffman is perfect as the writer because he has captured every mannerism and the speech inflection of Truman Capote. Catherine Keener is perfect as Nelle, the true friend and companion. Bruce Greenwood plays Truman Capote's companion Jack Dunphy. Chris Cooper is totally under-used and strangely out of place as Sheriff Dewey.
Adam Kimmel excellent cinematography contributes to the atmosphere the director gave the film because of the use of muted colors in what appear to be the bleak winter of the Midwest.

Its premises alone makes this movie intriguingly fascinating. When was the last time you saw an eccentric but brilliant writer pitched against a to-be-convicted murderer, each trying to use the other? This is almost like watching the struggle in the boxing ring, with the fighters maneuvering to outsmart each other. Capote wants to get Perry Smith to tell him about that fateful night when Smith and Hickock (who received little attention in this movie) murdered a family in Kansas in cold blood during a robbery. Smith clings on to Capote as his savior. The subtle battle of wits, pawn and player, deceiver and deceived, is on.

''It's as if Perry and I grew up in the same house. And one day he stood up and went out the back door, while I went out the front.''

Despite a troubled childhood, Smith is a cold blooded killer. Even his own sister warns Capote that under the sensitive and sympathy-winning appearance, his brother is not to be trusted and can kill any one without blinking. Capote, on the other hand, dangles the bait of getting the best lawyer while all the time aims straight at getting Smith to tell him what happened on the night of the incident. Then, as we are almost ready to believe his tearful plead, to his sorry self essentially, that he couldn't have done anything to save the life of the murderers, his best friend, honest, sensible, successful Harper Lee (Catherine Keener) tells him, quietly and calmly "But the truth is, you didn't want to", because only the execution will allow Capote to complete the work.

The beauty of the piece is that it retains a certain element of ambiguity. We do not know for sure, one way or the other, whether the two had indeed developed a genuine friendship over the six years from the arrest to the execution. We do see a certain chaotic dissymmetry. During his six years in prison, Smith's only real meaningful connection with the outside world is Capote. To Capote, however, Smith is only a part, although a very important aspect of his life. The movie makers make sure that we remember this, by showing intervening scenes of Capote being the core of attention, as he always is, to a crowd of admirers, monopolizing a self-indulging conversation, always in love with himself, as Lee once put it. At the end of one of these scene, after another round of roaring laughters, Capote turns to one of the loyal listeners and quipped "And what have you been doing lately?", More roaring laughters in approval to his witty humour. There's our hero, thats the persona he creates for his public audience and friends. Which interestingly enough, in the end, we are left wondering if Capote had really been touch by this whole incident and the eventual death of Smith, thanks to the superb portrayal by Hoffman. Or more importantly had he lost a piece of his soul in a confusion of guilt laced with remorse for having put so much of himself into his book. It drained him, and nearly destroyed him in a way, which was the general impression I came across with afterwards. Maybe his alcoholism which claimed his life in 1984 was a way to deal with some inner demons he may have had looming over him. Yet Capote was a man who succeeded, yet at what cost to himself?

Truman Capote: And there wasn't anything I could have done to save them.
Nelle Harper Lee: Maybe not. But the fact is, you didn't want to.

I read 'In Cold Blood' for a college paper a few years back, and I loved it. It's one of the best books I ever read, and Truman Capote is an incredibly talented author. And I've seen 'In Cold Blood', the black & white classic film based on the book, and it also ranks amongst my favorite classic films. And even though I was fascinated by this film as it followed Capote's life as he wrote the book that defined his career, and the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman was simply one of the finest acting performances ever, overall this film was a big disappointment. The story just went on and on with no real start, middle, or end. Instead, it felt like a bunch of 'a-day-in-the-life-of' scenes rather than a biopic about Capote, which is what I wanted to see.

This film kind of tore me into two different directions where on one hand I marveled at perhaps one of the most brilliant acting performances I have seen by Philip Seymour Hoffman in his role as Truman Capote, and on the other I restlessly craved for a more engaging storyline.

Without a doubt, Truman Capote's works are of literal genius and gripping beyond what any film could ever capture. And though this fact weighs heavily on my views of the film, I feel that overall, the story did not do Capote's life and work justice.