Truman Capote was a thoroughly unique individual. His books made him a star thus unleashing a social butterfly of the first order. His oddly proper style of dress and high pitched lisping speech made him unmistakable. He was on a practically vertical career path and then he wrote something revolutionary. It ruined him.
In 1959, a family of four was brutally gunned down in their house in Kansas. Capote spotted a tiny article on it in the New York Times and was instantly drawn to the scene. He convinced editor William Shawn (Bob Balaban) of The New Yorker to send him there for a story. His unusual appearance and mannerisms made him stand out like a sore thumb in Kansas. Despite that handicap, he managed to worm his way into the right offices of the right people and quickly had ridiculous access to the case. When the killers were caught, he did the very unusual and got personally involved. A little cash helped get access to the prison beyond what a reporter would usually be allowed. His belief that the public defender had not done a great job led him to acquire a new lawyer for the two, for the sake of filing appeals. Clearly Capote was not much interested in remaining objective. That was what set the stage for writing what he would call the first “non-fiction novel.” It would be called In Cold Blood and make him monstrously famous. He never wrote another novel and eventually died due to complications from alcoholism. The act of writing the book was so damaging to him that it essentially ruined his life, in spite of the wealth it brought.
The film is full of contrasts. Right before we meet Capote for the first time, there is a shot of the immense flat empty Kansas landscape. The emptiness of the shot absolutely dwarfs the idea of any individual person. No sound accompanies the shot, making it almost oppressive. The very next shot is of the New York skyline, with the sounds of a very noisy party over it. Here the impression is completely the opposite, yet somehow the same. It is cluttered, busy and noisy, swarming with people. It could not be any more different from the Kansas shot. But at the same time, it again dwarfs the individual, this time in the vastness of the crowd as opposed to emptiness. The two shots only take a few seconds but they help establish how Capote, the ultimate outsider in Kansas, could get so deeply involved in both the community and the case.
Capote would regularly visit the prison that held Perry Smith and Richard Hickock and spend lengthy stretches of time in their cells, mostly with Smith. He talked about wanting to use the book to humanize the pair. Smith in particular was attracted to the idea. He was an artistic type who seemed much too intelligent to find himself in this position. He clung to the notion of Capote’s lawyer freeing him from prison but the book offered his image a bit of redemption. Both Capote and Smith had been abandoned by their mother at a young age, coming to be raised by relatives. That little bit of similar history helped them forge a bond. As the appeals process dragged on, Capote began to really suffer with the story. Unable to finish the book because the case itself had not reached its conclusion, he hung in limbo. Guilt over how he had convinced Smith to tell him virtually everything built up. He spent longer and longer periods away from the prison, trying escape his emotions.
This movie is built on the shoulders of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. His portrayal of Capote is eerily accurate but the performance is far more than just an impersonation. The odd nature of Capote’s speaking voice could easily become a gimmick that grates on the nerves of viewers but Hoffman manages to dodge that by making it just one element of the character. It is a very physical performance, with Hoffman altering his entire stance, his body language, every trace of himself to become this odd character. The people that Capote encountered in Kansas were initially put off by his manner and appearance but soon felt comfortable discussing all elements of the case with him. Capote was ruthless and efficient when it came to getting what he needed and he would play people, using any edge he could find, to get access. Hoffman manages to convey this as well. At first we fixate on the details of his performance but that fades into the background as the character takes over. His ability to take such a distinctive collection of mannerisms and then make us almost forget them is astounding. The character even goes another level deeper as we have to wonder about what he is doing. Capote changes what he tells people to suit what he thinks they should hear. The most flagrant example is the way he insists that the book has no title when talking to Smith. But we already know he has selected the title In Cold Blood, one that would likely offend Smith and lead him to believe Capote is exploiting him. The movie never shies away from suggesting that Capote is doing just that. He becomes stuck between needing to be close to the killers to understand them well enough to write them as fully developed literary characters and also needing them to lose their appeal so they can be executed and give his book the ending it needs.
Catherine Keener has a great performance as Harper Lee, Capote’s assistant on the initial trip to Kansas. Lee is better known as the author of the great novel To Kill a Mockingbird. In fact, during the course of the movie’s story, she submits and then publishes the book and later invites Capote to the premiere of the film version. Amusingly, all the men, Capote included, continually get the title of the book wrong. They treat her writing as a curiosity, amusing themselves by trivializing her efforts. Lee’s success is an almost perfect mirror to Capote’s slide into depression. Yet again, a contrast is shown between Capote and the world. Interestingly, Keener’s performance is in high contrast to her usual role. This actress usually radiates sex appeal in her work. Here, it is non-existent. Keener actually comes off somewhat, and it stuns me to write this, matronly. It’s great to see an actor working with some unaccustomed material. She acts as the foil to Capote's extravagance; helping us connect with him and know what to make of him.
As I mentioned before, this movie is built on Hoffman’s shoulders. It is primarily a character study and thus doesn’t offer up a lot outside of the central figure. That is it the only major flaw and certainly shouldn’t be one that would stop anyone from being enthralled with the picture. Hoffman’s performance is likely the best of a sparkling career. Expect to see him amongst this year’s Oscar nominees for best actor. Anything less would be an insult to this great actor.
- This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
