BEFORE: Wrapping up my author chain tonight - which really started with "Misery", though I had a slight interruption for Halloween itself. Again I have to admit that this film centers on a very famous author that I know very little about.
THE PLOT: During his research for his book In Cold Blood, an account of the murder of a Kansas family, Truman Capote develops a close relationship with Perry Smith, one of the killers.
AFTER: Always a banner day when I can cross an Oscar-winning performance off of my list, and there's no question that this movie is a complete showcase for Philip Seymour Hoffman (last seen in "Synecdoche, New York"). But the usual troubles of playing a famous person in a movie apply - how much of the performance should be an imitation, how much should be improvised, and how close should an actor come to reality in his portrayal?
Capote travels to rural Kansas (along with fellow author Harper Lee) with the intent of writing a magazine article about the killing of a family. For whatever reason (the movie is sort of short on details) he decides that the subject deserves to be the basis for a book, one which eventually takes him 4 years to write, as the killers' case drags through the court system. I can sympathize, I know first-hand how a writing project can spiral out of control...
However, after much research and many interviews, Capote drags his feet in starting the actual writing - he claims to have a 94% recall rate when it comes to conversations, so I suppose that explains why we never see him, you know, taking notes or anything. You know what's more boring than a movie about a man writing a book? A movie about a man NOT writing a book, that's what. I stand by the definition of a writer as "someone who writes".
In the end, Capote is deeply affected by the process, and we see how it affects his friendships, and his relationship. (We can assume that the man he lives with is his life-partner, but again, the movie is a bit short on the details...) He is caught in a strange situation - he wants to help the accused killers, but since he's writing the book, technically he's supposed to be impartial. So his forced inaction leads him to deep depression, and eventually alcoholism. I suppose it's possible that the term "drama queen" was coined to describe his plight - maybe at first they called him "King of the Dramatic Form", then realized that title wasn't quite right.
I've been dealing with publicity people for a movie we just opened in L.A., and it's quite obvious that someone dropped the ball, they didn't do what they were supposed to do, and if you don't get your publicity out, people tend to not show up. But if I don't get my work done on time, or I don't show up where I'm supposed to be, you know what? I own up to it. I don't have time for people who get depressed, then lie their way out of these situations or pass the buck. I got my Oscar paperwork in this year two weeks early, for both a short film AND a feature film - if I hadn't, there would have been hell to pay, but I wouldn't have passed the blame on to someone else.
So kudos to Hoffman (does he go by "The Hoff"?), but I've had it with these tortured authors...next topic, please. I suppose it would make sense to watch "Infamous" next, or even the film version of "To Kill a Mockingbird" - but I don't have copies of either movie handy.
Also starring Catherine Keener (last seen in "Death to Smoochy"), Bob Balaban (last seen in "The Majestic"), Chris Cooper (last seen in "Me, Myself & Irene"), Mark Pellegrino (last seen in "The Number 23"), Bruce Greenwood (last seen in "Hollywood Homicide"), Amy Ryan (last seen in "Gone Baby Gone").
RATING: 4 out of 10 martinis
It goes to show that a truly great biographical film choose just _one_ key period in the subject's life, and deftly uses it to explain everything that he went through before then and everything he was after it. You wonder how a certain creative person can produce such interesting work and then, pfft, it's like they stopped caring.
ReplyDeleteTruman Capote epitomized that sort of thing. For the last decades of his life, the only reason you knew he was an author was because that's always how he was introduced on talk shows. At least to subsequent generations like ours, his connection to his work was nonexistent.
I suppose it's similar to what happened with, say, Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Reilly. Growing up, we knew them as those swishy guys who turned up on game shows. A decade or two later I was surprised to learn that they'd had Nathan Lane-level careers on Broadway.
I suppose I don't know enough "facts" about the man to really render a verdict. The movie states, point-blank in on-screen text, that the man never finished another book. While that may be (more or less) accurate, the man continued to write - short stories, novellas, travel pieces, and tell-all pieces that were excerpted in Esquire magazine.
ReplyDeleteWas he connected to his work after writing "In Cold Blood"? Again, I'm not the one to judge. Did he have more interest in hosting parties and appearing on the Merv Griffin show than grinding out another novel?
Perhaps, but it was the 1970's. Everyone wanted to host fabulous parties and appear on Merv.
At least appearing as a regular on "Match Game" was a paying gig, and probably allowed people to maintain their SAG memberships. This film falls just short of implying that Capote never got out of bed again, which we know is not the case.
I'm reminded of Denis Leary's famous rant about seeing Jim Morrison's life portrayed on film in "The Doors". He said the movie should have been 5 minutes long, and gone as follows:
"I'm drunk, I'm nobody. I'm drunk, I'm famous. I'm drunk, I'm dead."
And when Truman Capote died, Gore Vidal (fellow author and long-time rival) described it as "a good career move".
ReplyDelete"In Cold Blood" did seem to mark the end of his career as an important writer. And that seemed to be by choice. Orson Welles, for example, became way more famous for his celebrity than for his work, but the last ten to twenty years of his life are full of ambitious projects that he tried and failed to get launched.
ReplyDeleteThat's just a subjective observation. I should also say that Capote had every right to do whatever the hell he wanted to do. I'm sure some folks haven't gotten over the fact that Steve Martin got bored with standup. Plus, from all indications, Capote was working through some addictions that must have made the work a lot tougher.
But I'm interested in the balance that a famous creative person has to maintain. What word describes his job? He's an Author. If he's lucky and works hard, maybe he gets to be a Famous Author. If he's not careful, he then becomes a Celebrity.
The tail wags the dog. As a writer, fame is useful. It means that when you're researching something, odds are better that people will open doors for you and give you the information you need. It also means that people will sometimes pay you to fly somewhere and give a talk, which means that you can afford to keep working on that project even though you've no idea if it'll sell or not. And when it's finished, it means that there's a better chance that you can sell it.
Fame can be a tool in your career as a writer. I do get the feeling that with Capote, his chosen profession became "Celebrity."
That's why it surprises me when you learn that someone like Charles Nelson Reilly was once a true monster of Broadway. He wouldn't need to explain why his career came down to cheap TV and game show appearances. Maybe he got to a phase of his life where he liked the slower pace of TV, or stage performing just stopped being interesting to him.
It's interesting, though. It's like when you find out that your Dad was a serious artist ten years before you were born.