Posted by Eric Emin Wood on October 13th, 2006

“You know what I’d love?” my friend asked as we made our way to a screening of Infamous. “Another five movies starring Truman Capote. Seriously, I hope they do one every year!”

Sam begged me not to start my review of Infamous – a second take on Capote’s years spent writing In Cold Blood – with the obvious question, and indeed I haven’t. He said nothing about the third paragraph, however.

WHY?

Why did this movie get green-lit? Why, if it was green-lit after Capote came out, did it remain green-lit? Why, if it was already in production, did they not just halt production? And why, if the production was already finished, did they not give it a couple years on the shelf?

The questions are headache-inducing, and we may never know the answers. The primary reason, I suspect, is that Infamous is based on a book by George Plimpton, while Capote was based on a book by Gerald Clarke. Both, I suspect, believed they alone had the “right” take on Capote’s approach to his famous material, and since both were optioned, both movies felt they had a right to be produced.

But unlike Capote, this doesn’t feel like the unvarnished, sepia-toned truth. And while it might be unfair to say it, it bears saying: star Toby Jones (who more closely resembles Truman) doesn’t hold a candle to Philip Seymour Hoffman.

For a while, however, the movie does a fairly good job justifying its existence. Its initial approach to the material is simple: make everyone wittier. The first hour or so is a bona fide comedy, In Cold Blood by way of Oscar Wilde (Receptionist: “May I ask who’s calling?” Truman: “Truman Capote.” Receptionist: “I’m sorry, the sheriff’s office doesn’t take calls from strange women.” Truman: “Who are you calling strange?”). Barely anything can be said by any of the characters (especially Truman) without cutting through someone (“He unzipped his fly and showed me his manhood, and I said, ‘sir, I couldn’t possibly sign that, but if you’d like, I can initial it.’”). Even when the movie descends into more dramatic territory, this wordplay occasionally rears its head (Truman: “To Kill A Mockingbird was based on reality, and you dressed that up nicely.” Harper Lee: “Yeah, because it was my novel.” Truman: “So’s this.” Harper Lee: “Enjoy writing your book, Truman.” Truman: “Thanks. It’ll be my sixth.”) For a while, the audience I saw it with was in stitches.

Two other elements bear mentioning; unlike the earlier film, Infamous keeps its lens fully focused on Truman. Whereas Capote worked both as a portrait of the author and as a dramatization of In Cold Blood (it basically re-told the story, but included Capote), Infamous is really about… Capote. Also, for the first and last twenty minutes or so, the movie cuts away to documentary-style interviews about its subject. They’re occasionally effective (many are funny), but they’re also jarring, and in the last twenty minutes it feels like the director’s hitting us with a massive five-iron over the head. Much of the movie is spent showing us how Truman secured his interviews, and in key scenes like when Dick Hickock and Perry Smith are arrested, we learn the news as Truman did. When we see the killers for the first time, it’s alongside him. Even in the second half of the movie, the story of In Cold Blood remains incidental to Truman’s attempts to remain chummy with his high-society dames, and there are hints that he won’t (just as in real life, he didn’t).

Unlike Capote, which had a recognizable actor at the centre and featured players who became less recognizable from there, Infamous begins with a less famous face and brings in more recognizable people. Specifically, you’ll see Sandra Bullock as Harper Lee (who gives a good performance but never really inhabits the character the way Catherine Keener did), Sigourney Weaver as one of Truman’s society friends (she’s considerably more successful), Jeff Daniels as Alvin Dewey (ditto), Daniel Craig (who’s excellent) as Perry Smith, and Gwyneth Paltrow in an inexplicable cameo as jazz great Peggy Lee (she sings well, but doesn’t inhabit her role either).

It’s kinda sad, really, how for the most part Infamous is as well acted and presented as Capote. I’d almost recommend it – except the last 20 minutes descend into shameless melodrama. The relationship between Capote and Smith, so expertly presented in Capote, is given a completely different (and far less believable) spin. Strange as it sounds, Jones makes the character too human – and in real life Capote was far too measured to ever let himself be seen as human. You end up feeling sorry for, rather than horrified by, him. The movie’s argument is that yes, Capote profited off these people, but dammit, he loved them. Personally, I doubt it. Having read Capote’s text it’s obvious he considered himself a cut above his characters, especially Dick Hickock and including Perry Smith. He felt sorry for Perry, but not so much that while being dragged to death row, Perry would have kissed his cheek. (Or, if he did, you should hate Capote all the more, not feel sorry for him.)

In the end, Infamous simply does not justify spending the money to see another take on the same story.

2.5*/5*

Tags: capote