| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 10:16:33
Infamous
It is strange in the extreme that this has been made so soon after Capote. However, it is very good. I haven't seen Capote, but cannot imagine that it is better. Toby Jones is much more physically suited to the role that Philip Seymour Hoffman. Daniel Craig is also excellent in it. |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 06:57:44
Greetings from Sundance. Capote was better. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 14:41:50
Good point about Truman bending the truth to suit his ends, but that is more in his embellishing what Smith may or may not have said and did to give his book more dramatic weight, not in the basic descriptions of the lead players. Perry Smith was small and wiry half Native American. Compare Craig a usually blonde Brit to the Mexican Collins in "Capote" and Robert Blake an Italian American in the film of "In Cold Blood" and you see where I'm coming from in terms of the physical discrepancy. He's also described as a quiet, shy and introverted person, a bundle of nerves, constantly pained, prone to anger and self loathing. I don't believe that Craig nailed that at all although he did a good performance as someone else.
I think the more powerfully the murders are portrayed the better - what they did was shocking and largely motiveless - you should be appalled by their lack of morality, which makes the ultimate turn around in your opinion when you see their execution starker. Because Capote, and both film makers I assume, were finally concerned with how wrong the death penalty is in any instance.
Talking about bending the truth to support your drama there's no evidence at all that Smith was interested in Capote sexually (or that he was homosexual at all), which is fairly explicitly suggested in this version, or that he attacked and threatened to rape him. Capote obviously never wrote about any of that, but I'd bet that if anything Capote said about Smith was a lie it was that the man was besotted with him and attacked him in his cell. Given that, then this film plays fast and loose with the truth as much as Truman did. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 14:16:49
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Daniel Craig, again good performance, is actually totally miscast as Perry Smith - he's physically wrong and misses the primary characteristics that Capote details at length in the novel - Craig plays a thug, albeit with intellectual leanings, which he does well in every film he's in.
Yes, I have no idea what Perry Smith was really like. But you should also bear in mind that the film is not an adaptation of In Cold Blood, although I'm sure it was a major source. A premise of the film is also that Capote wanted to present people somewhat differently from the truth; it therefore has to present the characters differently (even though this attempt at the truth may be inaccurate too). Also, I don't think Smith is presented as a thug. As for the murders, they're murders. I have no need for them to be any more powerful. You're right about the talking heads and the other minor points, but I didn't find any of that too bad. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 14:07:33
I've seen both and I can say without hesitation that Capote is a better film. Toby Jones is a perfect fit for Truman, you're right, and does a great job but in my opinion is not in the same league as an actor as Hoffman. Daniel Craig, again good performance, is actually totally miscast as Perry Smith - he's physically wrong and misses the primary characteristics that Capote details at length in the novel - Craig plays a thug, albeit with intellectual leanings, which he does well in every film he's in. I read that he was at least the third actor to be offered after Mark Wahlberg and Mark Ruffalo turned it down. You can't get better than Clifton Collins in Capote though - it's like he leapt straight out of the book. ACtually, no one in the film betters the earlier film - Catherine Keener is all over Sandra Bullock, Chris Cooper over Jeff Daniels.
Don't get me wrong though - I liked Infamous, it did a good job at telling the same story - in fact it does the comedy and the frivilous society set scenes much better, but that isn't the meat of the story; the murders are no where near as powerfully shot. And some of the filming techniques stink - the lazy talking heads concept lays on thick the meat of the character that we should be seeing in the performance, and Smith's letters played to camera are horrible as well. Don't get me started on the endless comments on Harper Lee's difficult second book -"Gee! Isn't it tough writing a follow up to a best seller, Truman!" - mentioning it once was a nice nod; drumming it home stank of "do you get it? do you get it?".
It probably would have done a lot better if it had come first, but as a comparison it falls short in nearly every aspect.
My advice - read "In Cold Blood" it's a work of genius that neither film actually reaches the same level of. |
| Ali |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 10:44:26
You're a strange, strange man, my friend.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 10:32:48
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
Just to save you the suspense, Capote is better.
I doubt it (from the trailer and the fact that Jones is a better fit), but I don't plan to ever watch it, so there isn't any suspense. |
| Ali |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 10:28:38
Just to save you the suspense, Capote is better. I wonder if there'll be a third and final Truman Capote film; you know, to echo The Lord of the Rings. |
|
|
