475 reviews
Phillip Seymour Hoffman was the kind of actor who, because of his physical appearance and demeanor, rarely was given the opportunity to take on a title role. Here, at last, was a stand out exception to that rule! In Capote, Hoffman was able to show us his true artistic ability. The Result: A well- deserved Oscar as best actor.
It is quite a veritable shame that we will never again be able to see him in any new portrayals! CAPOTE, of course, is a true story, on this occasion, set in the 60's, Truman Capote, an author and human being who was truly extremely unique and most out of the ordinary, albeit, at times, highly conflicted! Characteristics that Hoffman very clearly transmits to us, as viewers, in this truly outstanding biopic!
(8********)...ENJOY! / DISFRUTELA!
It is quite a veritable shame that we will never again be able to see him in any new portrayals! CAPOTE, of course, is a true story, on this occasion, set in the 60's, Truman Capote, an author and human being who was truly extremely unique and most out of the ordinary, albeit, at times, highly conflicted! Characteristics that Hoffman very clearly transmits to us, as viewers, in this truly outstanding biopic!
(8********)...ENJOY! / DISFRUTELA!
- Tony-Kiss-Castillo
- Dec 25, 2021
- Permalink
This is not a biography of Truman Capote, but rather a biography of his last complete major work "In Cold Blood." I read this book as a teenager and thought it brilliant and disturbing. This film does a wonderful job of depicting the moral ambiguity of Capote's work, his egotism, and the life history and inner conflicts which allowed him to create this great work. All the same, the subject matter here is really not explored in the depths it deserves, and the film sometimes loses its focus in the depth and quality of its performances.
Hoffman has already won a number of awards for his performance. I have no qualms about this - he's a great actor and this is a challenging and powerful role played to the hilt. However, I also want to point out the tremendous supporting cast. Catherine Keener and Clifton Collins are both deserving of recognition for their intense portrayals of Harper Lee and Perry Smith.
If you're a fan of Capote, or a fan of In Cold Blood, you will enjoy this, though it isn't really going to show you anything that you were not aware of. If you are the sort who goes to movies you're not necessarily that interested in just because a great performance is involved (like me in this case), you will likely enjoy Capote.
Hoffman has already won a number of awards for his performance. I have no qualms about this - he's a great actor and this is a challenging and powerful role played to the hilt. However, I also want to point out the tremendous supporting cast. Catherine Keener and Clifton Collins are both deserving of recognition for their intense portrayals of Harper Lee and Perry Smith.
If you're a fan of Capote, or a fan of In Cold Blood, you will enjoy this, though it isn't really going to show you anything that you were not aware of. If you are the sort who goes to movies you're not necessarily that interested in just because a great performance is involved (like me in this case), you will likely enjoy Capote.
Director Bennet Miller's "Capote" is a film that shows great intelligence 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.
If you haven't watched the film, perhaps you would like to stop here.
When the film 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 colors 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.
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, Meryl Streep, 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 wasted 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.
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.
If you haven't watched the film, perhaps you would like to stop here.
When the film 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 colors 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.
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, Meryl Streep, 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 wasted 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.
This is a fine character study of Truman Capote whose professional desires collide with his personal desires, as he researches and writes about the 1959 murders of a Kansas family. The film examines how these conflicting desires arose, and how Capote, the person, handled the ordeal once he realized that these desires were mutually exclusive.
Hoffman mimics Capote's posture, voice, facial expressions, and overall mannerisms quite well. It's a great impersonation. But, towards the film's end when Capote has to say goodbye for the last time, Hoffman's portrayal of Capote's grief and helplessness goes well beyond parody. It's an example of genuine acting ability.
Other performances are also good, especially Chris Cooper as Prosecutor Alvin Dewey, and Catherine Keener as Capote's friend, Nelle Harper Lee. In addition to the fine acting, the story itself is gripping, because it is a true story. It's been told before, most convincingly in 1967's "In Cold Blood", from the POV of the killers. That film was photographed in B&W. "Capote", by contrast, is in color. But the colors are all muted, reassuringly so, in view of the subject matter. The tone of "Capote" is solemn and earnest, almost funereal. The pace is slow and deliberate. Music is restrained.
Viewers with little or no interest in the central character may find the first half of the film slow going. It plods along without a lot of tension or suspense. But as the writer bonds with the convicted killer, tension picks up, and then further builds en route to a profound destiny.
My only critique, beyond a slow beginning, pertains to the minimal attention given to era atmosphere. Given that the story takes place in the late 1950s and early to mid-1960s, I would have preferred more cinematic cues of that time period, especially with regard to music, decor, and cultural themes which are curiously absent, aside from obvious props like cars and telephones.
The Clutter killings were, and still are, unsettling and haunting, even after all these years. "Capote" is a high quality film that describes Truman Capote's research into the case, especially as regards the mindset and motivations of the killers, and further examines the effects that Capote's investigation had on him, both as a writer and as a human being with feelings. Though the story is good, Hoffman's wonderful performance is the real reason to see this film.
Hoffman mimics Capote's posture, voice, facial expressions, and overall mannerisms quite well. It's a great impersonation. But, towards the film's end when Capote has to say goodbye for the last time, Hoffman's portrayal of Capote's grief and helplessness goes well beyond parody. It's an example of genuine acting ability.
Other performances are also good, especially Chris Cooper as Prosecutor Alvin Dewey, and Catherine Keener as Capote's friend, Nelle Harper Lee. In addition to the fine acting, the story itself is gripping, because it is a true story. It's been told before, most convincingly in 1967's "In Cold Blood", from the POV of the killers. That film was photographed in B&W. "Capote", by contrast, is in color. But the colors are all muted, reassuringly so, in view of the subject matter. The tone of "Capote" is solemn and earnest, almost funereal. The pace is slow and deliberate. Music is restrained.
Viewers with little or no interest in the central character may find the first half of the film slow going. It plods along without a lot of tension or suspense. But as the writer bonds with the convicted killer, tension picks up, and then further builds en route to a profound destiny.
My only critique, beyond a slow beginning, pertains to the minimal attention given to era atmosphere. Given that the story takes place in the late 1950s and early to mid-1960s, I would have preferred more cinematic cues of that time period, especially with regard to music, decor, and cultural themes which are curiously absent, aside from obvious props like cars and telephones.
The Clutter killings were, and still are, unsettling and haunting, even after all these years. "Capote" is a high quality film that describes Truman Capote's research into the case, especially as regards the mindset and motivations of the killers, and further examines the effects that Capote's investigation had on him, both as a writer and as a human being with feelings. Though the story is good, Hoffman's wonderful performance is the real reason to see this film.
- Lechuguilla
- May 14, 2006
- Permalink
Prior to watching Capote I had very little exposure to the actual works of the writer, I have read Breakfast at Tiffanys and was not bowled over. However I approached the movie with optimism, I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman in movies like The Big Lebowski and was curious to see how a leading role would suit him. My feelings now having seen this movie is that he is and still remains a good supporting actor.
I understand that many feel his portrayal of Truman Capote was spot on and true to every nuance of Truman himself, but there is something about the movie which I feel doesn't do justice to the themes and the man who is being portrayed. The movie hinges on whether you can tolerate Truman Capote as a personality and it is my opinion that this is where the movie fails. Philip Sermour Hoffman portrays Capote as cold and career driven but has the emotional sensitivity to cry at his subjects execution. This alone is not enough to convince me that Capote is as complex and intelligent and perhaps scheming as the movie makes out.
Here is the main conflict of interest in the movie, at no point in the movie did the director sympathise with the murderers, neither did we feel Capote truly sympathise with the two men on death row, yet we are made to believe that Capote was battling with his conscience and by the end of the movie was eventually destroyed as a writer by his inability to come to terms with his actions towards these culprits. I have assumed this was the intended message of the movie but at no point is this battle of wills, or guilt ever portrayed on the screen. What we have is a very physical transformation of an actor into a Capote character that acts in a way that we assume reminds us of the great writer. There is no exploration of the theme of capital punishment, no reflection on the content of his novel 'In cold blood', no volley of ideas between subject and writer, but only a by numbers recount of events and perhaps a feeling of irritation towards Capote as a cowardly, egotistical, lime light hugging snob of the New York elite.
This is not award winning material, this is an average account of an interesting figure during an integral time in his career. Perhaps reading In Cold Blood would add some clarity to the subject but for a movie which seemed to promise so much in premise, it is disheartening that we have to go back to the source to make up our minds.
I understand that many feel his portrayal of Truman Capote was spot on and true to every nuance of Truman himself, but there is something about the movie which I feel doesn't do justice to the themes and the man who is being portrayed. The movie hinges on whether you can tolerate Truman Capote as a personality and it is my opinion that this is where the movie fails. Philip Sermour Hoffman portrays Capote as cold and career driven but has the emotional sensitivity to cry at his subjects execution. This alone is not enough to convince me that Capote is as complex and intelligent and perhaps scheming as the movie makes out.
Here is the main conflict of interest in the movie, at no point in the movie did the director sympathise with the murderers, neither did we feel Capote truly sympathise with the two men on death row, yet we are made to believe that Capote was battling with his conscience and by the end of the movie was eventually destroyed as a writer by his inability to come to terms with his actions towards these culprits. I have assumed this was the intended message of the movie but at no point is this battle of wills, or guilt ever portrayed on the screen. What we have is a very physical transformation of an actor into a Capote character that acts in a way that we assume reminds us of the great writer. There is no exploration of the theme of capital punishment, no reflection on the content of his novel 'In cold blood', no volley of ideas between subject and writer, but only a by numbers recount of events and perhaps a feeling of irritation towards Capote as a cowardly, egotistical, lime light hugging snob of the New York elite.
This is not award winning material, this is an average account of an interesting figure during an integral time in his career. Perhaps reading In Cold Blood would add some clarity to the subject but for a movie which seemed to promise so much in premise, it is disheartening that we have to go back to the source to make up our minds.
I saw Truman Capote dozens of times; he was a staple of the talk show circuit. One of the greatest TV moments was when he called Wilbur Mills a racist in the most subtle way that the Georgia governor took about half a minute to realize what had happened. This man was a firebrand. He never backed down from anything, despite his effeminate ways and small stature. Unfortunately, he word his celebrity on his sleeve and was often overly harsh and full of himself. This is a great movie. The subtle methods he uses to draw out the story from the murderer shows that he would do anything to get a story, even lie to a person with whom he had begun to fall in love. He pictures himself as compassionate at times, but he is often unwilling to go that final mile. It's surprising he was in attendance at the hangings, the events that probably contributed to his death. What a complex man. His canon of American literature is small but he was a master stylist and commentator. See this movie for Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance. It is one of the greatest in cinematic history. We remember Capote. He is Capote!
"Capote" is a curate's egg of a film: it is very good in some parts, not so good in others. It is a complex movie that is somewhat unbalanced by the unquestionably excellent performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman dominates proceedings to such an extent that his performance tends to detract from other aspects of the film.
The film covers a period of 6 years from the very end of the 1950s to the early years of the 1960s. Writer Truman Capote (Hoffman) has already gained literary success and prestige with his book "Breakfast at Tiffany's". Basking in the adulation that has come his way as a result of that work, he becomes interested in a violent murder that has occurred in Kansas in which two young men have seemingly killed an entire family. One of them, Perry Smith (played by Clifton Collins Jr.), is a thoughtful person who is reticent about the precise details of the crime. Capote travels to Kansas with childhood friend, Nelle Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), the writer of the Pulitzer prizewinning novel "To Kill a Mockingbird". They begin research on a book that Capote is planning to write on the murder. (The book is subsequently published under the title "In Cold Blood".) As part of this research, Capote is granted personal access to the two men, who are imprisoned while the court process is under way. His relationship with Smith becomes a very close one as a result of his interviews with him. The film examines the conflict of interests that Capote has to confront: his burgeoning loyalty to, and friendship with, Smith; and his desire to complete his book at all costs and the impact that that has on their relationship and on Capote himself.
The crisis of conscience that Capote faces is portrayed very effectively. The conclusion of the film is extremely moving. And, although Hoffman is undoubtedly the star, the other leading actors are all excellent. There are, however, some problems with the film. In particular, it is at times turgid and very slow-moving. I was extremely bored on a number of occasions. The film also labours its main point, which is that an artist may have to trade humanity for ruthlessness if he or she is ever to get their job done satisfactorily.
So, "Capote" is a reasonably good film, but is certainly not a great one. It has given me the urge to read "In Cold Blood", which I suspect is rather better than this film is. 6/10.
The film covers a period of 6 years from the very end of the 1950s to the early years of the 1960s. Writer Truman Capote (Hoffman) has already gained literary success and prestige with his book "Breakfast at Tiffany's". Basking in the adulation that has come his way as a result of that work, he becomes interested in a violent murder that has occurred in Kansas in which two young men have seemingly killed an entire family. One of them, Perry Smith (played by Clifton Collins Jr.), is a thoughtful person who is reticent about the precise details of the crime. Capote travels to Kansas with childhood friend, Nelle Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), the writer of the Pulitzer prizewinning novel "To Kill a Mockingbird". They begin research on a book that Capote is planning to write on the murder. (The book is subsequently published under the title "In Cold Blood".) As part of this research, Capote is granted personal access to the two men, who are imprisoned while the court process is under way. His relationship with Smith becomes a very close one as a result of his interviews with him. The film examines the conflict of interests that Capote has to confront: his burgeoning loyalty to, and friendship with, Smith; and his desire to complete his book at all costs and the impact that that has on their relationship and on Capote himself.
The crisis of conscience that Capote faces is portrayed very effectively. The conclusion of the film is extremely moving. And, although Hoffman is undoubtedly the star, the other leading actors are all excellent. There are, however, some problems with the film. In particular, it is at times turgid and very slow-moving. I was extremely bored on a number of occasions. The film also labours its main point, which is that an artist may have to trade humanity for ruthlessness if he or she is ever to get their job done satisfactorily.
So, "Capote" is a reasonably good film, but is certainly not a great one. It has given me the urge to read "In Cold Blood", which I suspect is rather better than this film is. 6/10.
- roger-pettit1
- May 20, 2012
- Permalink
Every action has a reaction, and watching "Capote", we can't help but wonder how it ever got made. "Capote" is entrancing, dark, depressing, and quite satisfying. It benefits from Hoffman's perfect performance. He embodies the physical and psychological make up of a man who was the toast of the nation before and after the publication of its classic novel, "In Cold Blood". As a human being, he appeared to be an intelligent, fascinating, and manipulative creature. He could have gotten away with almost anything. Then he found the two criminals behind one of the most heinous crimes of the century and might have gotten to the realization he could also be trapped by their own dark existences.
It is difficult to ascertain what happened to Capote after he developed a relationship with Smith. He grows attracted to the actions and revelations behind this killer, and we never really know what is exactly going on. There are displays of guilt and detachment at different parts in the film. What we do see is that something really affected the man, and it changed his life for good.
The film moves slowly but never loses its audience. Along with Hoffman, a remarkable supporting cast keeps us interests going, and enough is presented to make us want to know more. That will probably be the film's only flaw. It fails to deliver everything it promises. It is a big satisfying tease, but after all, we are left with an endless number of questions. Keener is wonderful as Capote's supporting friend, and in his lover's role, Bruce Greenwood intrigues us as well, with the dubious character that never gives enough information to explain his attraction to a total opposite.
"Capote" is a really good film and should be admire for it achieves. For those who want to explore more in depth what lies behind the protagonists of the movie, there are several books that will give you a more detailed background on their nature. The truth, will however, remain, a big mystery.
It is difficult to ascertain what happened to Capote after he developed a relationship with Smith. He grows attracted to the actions and revelations behind this killer, and we never really know what is exactly going on. There are displays of guilt and detachment at different parts in the film. What we do see is that something really affected the man, and it changed his life for good.
The film moves slowly but never loses its audience. Along with Hoffman, a remarkable supporting cast keeps us interests going, and enough is presented to make us want to know more. That will probably be the film's only flaw. It fails to deliver everything it promises. It is a big satisfying tease, but after all, we are left with an endless number of questions. Keener is wonderful as Capote's supporting friend, and in his lover's role, Bruce Greenwood intrigues us as well, with the dubious character that never gives enough information to explain his attraction to a total opposite.
"Capote" is a really good film and should be admire for it achieves. For those who want to explore more in depth what lies behind the protagonists of the movie, there are several books that will give you a more detailed background on their nature. The truth, will however, remain, a big mystery.
I saw a press screening of this film recently, and was highly impressed by its moving account of the period in Truman Capote's life during which he wrote 'In Cold Blood'. The direction by the relatively unknown Bennett Miller is personal, evocative and affecting, but without being over-dramatic or saccharine. This is helped immensely by Philip Seymour Hoffmann's incredible performance as Capote, as well as solid acting from Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jr., and Chris Cooper. Cooper plays K.B.I. Agent Alvin Dewey with perhaps a bit too much intensity, given his relatively small amount of screen time, but the portrayal nonetheless comes off as heart-felt.
The cinematography by Adam Kimmel is suitably gray and moody, with many evocative views of the flat Kansas plains, but most of the screen time is spent with the camera focused on Hoffmann - all of it time well spent.
While I haven't read the biography by Gerald Clarke on which it's based, the script seems to hit enough salient details to evoke Capote's frame of mind, without inundating the audience with more than would fit in a feature-length film. I suppose one of my only complaints about the film would be that at times the conversations take on a sheen of Hollywood, saying things for dramatic impact that perhaps might not have been said in real life. But then again, I never met Capote, so who knows for sure.
All in all, this was a deeply engrossing film, and one I would highly recommend, especially if you're a fan of Truman Capote.
The cinematography by Adam Kimmel is suitably gray and moody, with many evocative views of the flat Kansas plains, but most of the screen time is spent with the camera focused on Hoffmann - all of it time well spent.
While I haven't read the biography by Gerald Clarke on which it's based, the script seems to hit enough salient details to evoke Capote's frame of mind, without inundating the audience with more than would fit in a feature-length film. I suppose one of my only complaints about the film would be that at times the conversations take on a sheen of Hollywood, saying things for dramatic impact that perhaps might not have been said in real life. But then again, I never met Capote, so who knows for sure.
All in all, this was a deeply engrossing film, and one I would highly recommend, especially if you're a fan of Truman Capote.
- the_entropist
- Sep 6, 2005
- Permalink
Like the non-fiction novel and the Richard Brooks film that was made from it, "In Cold Blood," "Capote" focuses on and sympathizes with two killers at the expense of the four murdered members of the Clutter family. Once the viewer gets beyond this sticking point, however, all three works are outstanding, unforgettable experiences. Unlike the book and the original movie, "Capote" does explore the contradictory feelings that author Truman Capote wrestles with as he researches and writes "In Cold Blood." His feelings for Perry Smith, the more "sensitive" of the two killers, are particularly problematic as Capote becomes emotionally close to Smith and helps the men with legal aide that postpones the executions, while at the same time Capote cannot finish his book until Smith and Hickcock are hanged. Praise for Philip Seymour Hoffman's uncanny performance as Truman Capote cannot be overstated and, come awards time, if he does not collect enough accolades to fill his mantel, indictments for film critics and Academy voters would be in order. Hoffman not only captures the mannerisms and voice of Capote, he inhabits the man's soul and expresses his feelings and emotions without histrionics or the type of caricature that mimics often have made of the notoriously fey writer in the past.
Fortunately, Hoffman's performance is only the jewel in a gilded crown of fine writing, excellent direction, and solid supporting performances. "Capote" will send viewers back to their bookshelves to re-read the book and to their video libraries to re-view the 1967 film. Considering the time that Capote spent with the two convicted murderers, questions arise as to why the Richard Brooks film did not have Truman Capote as a character, but rather presented a bland, nameless investigative writer, who wanders through the proceedings without much purpose. The film is so good and so intriguing that questions such as that, and what happened to the writer that Capote lived with? and did Harper Lee write anything beyond "To Kill a Mockingbird?" and did Capote's presence at the execution lead to his alcoholism, his lack of further writing, and eventually his death, and other questions will send viewers to Google as soon as they get home. "Capote" is an outstanding film and possibly the first of the year to be assured of a place on the "10 Best" lists for 2005.
Fortunately, Hoffman's performance is only the jewel in a gilded crown of fine writing, excellent direction, and solid supporting performances. "Capote" will send viewers back to their bookshelves to re-read the book and to their video libraries to re-view the 1967 film. Considering the time that Capote spent with the two convicted murderers, questions arise as to why the Richard Brooks film did not have Truman Capote as a character, but rather presented a bland, nameless investigative writer, who wanders through the proceedings without much purpose. The film is so good and so intriguing that questions such as that, and what happened to the writer that Capote lived with? and did Harper Lee write anything beyond "To Kill a Mockingbird?" and did Capote's presence at the execution lead to his alcoholism, his lack of further writing, and eventually his death, and other questions will send viewers to Google as soon as they get home. "Capote" is an outstanding film and possibly the first of the year to be assured of a place on the "10 Best" lists for 2005.
- dunmore_ego
- Jul 13, 2011
- Permalink
The easiest role for an actor to play is a historical figure - we have no idea how Julius Caesar really sounded, how he moved his body, punctuated his speech, bit his lip, walked into a room, held his cigarette. The hardest role is the living, or recently deceased, celebrity whom we watched, heard, studied, mimicked and thought we understood. JFK, Martin Luther King, Ray Charles, and, above all, the inventor of self referential celebrity, Truman Capote (with apology to Andy Warhol and, of course, Noel Coward)..
After exploding to meteoric fame with his novella Breakfast at Tiffany's, Capote became the New York café society's darling, heir to Coward's gay-man-child-bon-vivant. He drank and held court with the best of New York, which just also happened to be the nexus of television in the early 60s. Before long Capote was the quintessential modern celebrity, famous for being famous. And he did it all before our eyes.
Philip Seymour Hoffman does not so much play Capote as become him. And not just in mannerism, no mean feat, but in personality, because we are convinced that Hoffman feels what Capote felt, cries over the lies, accepts his moral failings. For a short story writer-raconteur from New Orleans, Capote found himself at the center of a nationally enthralling multiple homicide, facing the ultimate journalist's Faustian dilemma: if he perpetrates a lie for the sake of exposing the truth, is he ever worthy of redemption? Capote, in the end, concluded that he wasn't; he never wrote another book. He descended into drunkenness and died a lonely soul. This is not the stuff of Holly Golightly.
I saw this picture at the Toronto Film Festival with Hoffman, Catherine Keener and director Bennett Miller in attendance. Though they had seen it many many times before, it was obvious even they were moved by it and by our reaction. As we stood and applauded them, we turned to one another, glowing in the realization that we had witnessed an amazing performance.
We knew Truman Capote. We watched him live on television. Truman Capote was (we imagined) our friend. Mr. Hoffman, you are Truman Capote.
After exploding to meteoric fame with his novella Breakfast at Tiffany's, Capote became the New York café society's darling, heir to Coward's gay-man-child-bon-vivant. He drank and held court with the best of New York, which just also happened to be the nexus of television in the early 60s. Before long Capote was the quintessential modern celebrity, famous for being famous. And he did it all before our eyes.
Philip Seymour Hoffman does not so much play Capote as become him. And not just in mannerism, no mean feat, but in personality, because we are convinced that Hoffman feels what Capote felt, cries over the lies, accepts his moral failings. For a short story writer-raconteur from New Orleans, Capote found himself at the center of a nationally enthralling multiple homicide, facing the ultimate journalist's Faustian dilemma: if he perpetrates a lie for the sake of exposing the truth, is he ever worthy of redemption? Capote, in the end, concluded that he wasn't; he never wrote another book. He descended into drunkenness and died a lonely soul. This is not the stuff of Holly Golightly.
I saw this picture at the Toronto Film Festival with Hoffman, Catherine Keener and director Bennett Miller in attendance. Though they had seen it many many times before, it was obvious even they were moved by it and by our reaction. As we stood and applauded them, we turned to one another, glowing in the realization that we had witnessed an amazing performance.
We knew Truman Capote. We watched him live on television. Truman Capote was (we imagined) our friend. Mr. Hoffman, you are Truman Capote.
Capote was an opportunist, a graverobber, a disloyal friend and an alcoholic sleaze. He was also over rated.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman did an amazing job of capturing this annoying, repulsive and self loathing person.
I laughed so hard reading the one and two star reviews. Yes, Capote did sound like that.
Capote resented beauty, love and talent since he was devoid of all those characteristics.
He exploited the Cutter tragedy for his own fame, then he focused the book on the two killers and not the victims. He then refused to give Harper Lee proper credit for all her hard work.
Later in life, when he had nothing else going for him, he wrote an expose of his friends using information told to him in confidence.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman did an amazing job of capturing this annoying, repulsive and self loathing person.
I laughed so hard reading the one and two star reviews. Yes, Capote did sound like that.
Capote resented beauty, love and talent since he was devoid of all those characteristics.
He exploited the Cutter tragedy for his own fame, then he focused the book on the two killers and not the victims. He then refused to give Harper Lee proper credit for all her hard work.
Later in life, when he had nothing else going for him, he wrote an expose of his friends using information told to him in confidence.
Bennett Miller's biopic about author Truman Capote and based on the Arthur Clarke biography of the same name. The film focuses on Capote's time spent researching the killing of a family in Kansas at the end of the 50's which would later be the subject of Capote's classic "non-fiction" novel In Cold Blood, which quickly rocketed the young writer to super-stardom. The film's structure is a bit perplexing; a film could easily be made from a number of segments in Capote's fascinating life and this version chooses to elaborate on the 10 years he spent on this particular work, which is essentially the middle of his life. This period certainly yields a lot of interesting material, yet I feel that those who have not read Clarke's biography may feel a little lost as there is very little context included. The most awesome facet of the film is Phillip Seymour Hoffman's incredible impersonation of Capote; he managed to capture all of the complexity and vulnerability of Capote's character, and the film is very interesting in revealing how the young writer's efforts on this project may have ultimately destroyed him.
The film is very engaging and often disturbing. However, a few inaccuracies are worth mentioning. The film seems to depict Capote as being uncaring and disinterested in Dick, the less intelligent of the two killers, yet the biography makes it clear that Capote devoted a great deal of attention to both killers as they awaited execution, despite his clear affection for Perry. Also, the film indicates that In Cold Blood's reception was universal acclaim; quite the contrary, many mainstream reviewers and writers such as Norman Mailer denied the book's literary merits. And thirdly, the title card at the end of the film states that In Cold Blood made Truman Capote the most famous writer in America (which is disputable), and that he never finished another book, which is blatantly false. Capote published Music for Chameleons in 1980, a collection of short stories clearly conceived as a complete book. Despite these problems, Capote is a very compelling film, and Hoffman's performance is one of his best yet.
The film is very engaging and often disturbing. However, a few inaccuracies are worth mentioning. The film seems to depict Capote as being uncaring and disinterested in Dick, the less intelligent of the two killers, yet the biography makes it clear that Capote devoted a great deal of attention to both killers as they awaited execution, despite his clear affection for Perry. Also, the film indicates that In Cold Blood's reception was universal acclaim; quite the contrary, many mainstream reviewers and writers such as Norman Mailer denied the book's literary merits. And thirdly, the title card at the end of the film states that In Cold Blood made Truman Capote the most famous writer in America (which is disputable), and that he never finished another book, which is blatantly false. Capote published Music for Chameleons in 1980, a collection of short stories clearly conceived as a complete book. Despite these problems, Capote is a very compelling film, and Hoffman's performance is one of his best yet.
"Capote" is a film with undeniable assets: it's got the best performance by an American actor in the last decade and some of the wittiest dialog in an American film in recent years. Philip Seymour Hoffman's once-in-a-lifetime performance is simply jaw-dropping (and he's aware of it): it's a triumph of vocal and body work, with a huge range (mentally and emotionally), but above all it sparkles with supremely intelligent acting in portraying the lizard man with the 215-point I.Q. and the 1,000,000-point ego.
The film focuses entirely on the circumstances concerning the genesis of Truman Capote's masterpiece "In Cold Blood" (the title that had, of course, a double meaning, as it described both the set of mind of the 1959 Kansas harrowing criminals and of Capote himself in his Machiavellian saga to finally complete his book). The film concentrates on Capote's transformation from lightweight literary wunderkind and jet-set wit to trend-setting, seriously talented writer, depicting the Faustian/Mephistophelian process he goes through as he realizes that, in order to produce his ground-breaking "non-fiction novel" -- which helped consolidate American media's fascination with violence, death and crime -- he has to sink deeply in muddy waters of manipulation, adulation, mendacity, bribery, omission, ultimately having to face the ugliest side of himself, like a modern Dorian Gray. In "Capote", the horrifying Kansas crime, the murderers and the circumstances that led to their execution are the background scenery allowing the filmmakers to question the author's autistic egotism, gargantuan ambition and tortuous, perverse morality (just in case anyone forgets: Capote's novel benefited who, again?)
If "Capote" ultimately impacts less than it could/should, director Bennett Miller is probably to blame. Visually, it's bland and unexciting: it's a real shame to see such an unimaginative handling of such potentially thrilling material. "Capote" has some of the dullest courtroom scenes in movie history (and the competition is high, as we know). And what about those gigantic, paralyzed close-ups? And that static, lifeless camera? The audience goes to see the film pretty much aware that Capote's (and the screenwriter's) wit and Hoffman's performance are the core of it, and no one was asking for an action movie, but did it have to look so bland? Maybe Miller just lacks mileage (this is only his second film); or maybe he's simply not visually oriented, maybe he's an actors' director. Despite the fascinating subject, a great performance and above-average dialog, Miller's "Capote" disappointingly looks like a TV movie.
Apart from those (not trifle) objections, "Capote" is recommended for all of us who thought wit, subtlety and acting excellence had all but disappeared from American films. PS: Richard Brooks' irregular but visually striking 1967 version of "In Cold Blood" is a complementary companion to this one.
The film focuses entirely on the circumstances concerning the genesis of Truman Capote's masterpiece "In Cold Blood" (the title that had, of course, a double meaning, as it described both the set of mind of the 1959 Kansas harrowing criminals and of Capote himself in his Machiavellian saga to finally complete his book). The film concentrates on Capote's transformation from lightweight literary wunderkind and jet-set wit to trend-setting, seriously talented writer, depicting the Faustian/Mephistophelian process he goes through as he realizes that, in order to produce his ground-breaking "non-fiction novel" -- which helped consolidate American media's fascination with violence, death and crime -- he has to sink deeply in muddy waters of manipulation, adulation, mendacity, bribery, omission, ultimately having to face the ugliest side of himself, like a modern Dorian Gray. In "Capote", the horrifying Kansas crime, the murderers and the circumstances that led to their execution are the background scenery allowing the filmmakers to question the author's autistic egotism, gargantuan ambition and tortuous, perverse morality (just in case anyone forgets: Capote's novel benefited who, again?)
If "Capote" ultimately impacts less than it could/should, director Bennett Miller is probably to blame. Visually, it's bland and unexciting: it's a real shame to see such an unimaginative handling of such potentially thrilling material. "Capote" has some of the dullest courtroom scenes in movie history (and the competition is high, as we know). And what about those gigantic, paralyzed close-ups? And that static, lifeless camera? The audience goes to see the film pretty much aware that Capote's (and the screenwriter's) wit and Hoffman's performance are the core of it, and no one was asking for an action movie, but did it have to look so bland? Maybe Miller just lacks mileage (this is only his second film); or maybe he's simply not visually oriented, maybe he's an actors' director. Despite the fascinating subject, a great performance and above-average dialog, Miller's "Capote" disappointingly looks like a TV movie.
Apart from those (not trifle) objections, "Capote" is recommended for all of us who thought wit, subtlety and acting excellence had all but disappeared from American films. PS: Richard Brooks' irregular but visually striking 1967 version of "In Cold Blood" is a complementary companion to this one.
Brilliant portrayals are chilling. Philip Seymour Hoffman's invocation of the essence of Truman Capote is mesmerizing. I suspect that most of the readers on websites such as these may not have stored memories of Capote in the 60's. An unlikely media darling, I vividly recall his flaunting gay affectations and cosmopolitan barbs. Hoffman's detailed and incisive performance implores, "And the Oscar goes to........"
Beyond his performance is a riveting and eerie story directed with flawless craft and impressive restraint. It is a film that left me sitting and discussing its nuances and its depth, until the theater's lights flickered to oust me. The film surrounds the time when Capote wrote "In Cold Blood," a book nearly everyone read in the late 60's, its title seeming obvious. This latest movie inserts Capote into the original crimes that inspired "In Cold Blood" and challenges us to revisit that title.
Beyond his performance is a riveting and eerie story directed with flawless craft and impressive restraint. It is a film that left me sitting and discussing its nuances and its depth, until the theater's lights flickered to oust me. The film surrounds the time when Capote wrote "In Cold Blood," a book nearly everyone read in the late 60's, its title seeming obvious. This latest movie inserts Capote into the original crimes that inspired "In Cold Blood" and challenges us to revisit that title.
Selecting the final segment in the life of author Truman Capote, the film "Capote", delves into the inner and certainly troubled soul of the American Novelist. The film itself, is a somber reflection of the price Capote paid to write what appears to be his most poignant work. The introduction of the book and the movie itself invites the audience into the real life drama of the Kansas family who were brutally murdered by two killers named Richard Hickock (Mark Pellegrino) and Perry Smith (Clifton Collins) in 1963. Along the way, one observes how adroitly, the writer is able to weave his tapestry between truth and fiction to achieve his ultimate goal. With the help of an assortment of great actors, such as Bruce Greenwood (Jack Dunphy) and Chris Cooper, Alvin Dewey) the film exhibits the enormous talent, and human flaws which made Capote a household word. Like an excellent novel, the movie is slow to build, but eventually achieves a touching tribute to the man.
- thinker1691
- Apr 22, 2006
- Permalink
This moving film lives and breathes on the powerful shoulders of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's stunning performance in the title role. Hoffman captures all of the unique physical characteristics that made Capote such a familiar public figure in his lifetime and invests them with a humanity that is almost unbearably poignant. The film focuses on Capote's research on the book "In Cold Blood" and the personal journey that his relationship and identification with killer Perry Smith became (Capote says at one point that it was like they grew up in the same house, and he went out the front door while Perry went out the back), a compelling and complicated relationship that this uncompromising film presents in moving detail. But what truly makes it a unique work of art is the brilliant work of Hoffman - always an interesting actor - whose performance as Truman Capote should elevate him to the pantheon of film giants.
Famed New Yorker writer/socialite Truman Capote (played beyond comprehension by the seemingly always wonderful Philip Seymour Hoffman) gets interested in a killing of a Kansas farm family in late 1959 and decides to go down south with childhood friend Catherine Keener in tow to write a book about the happenings. And of course that novel is "In Cold Blood". However, the project ends up being massively difficult on many levels for the titled character. The two young men who committed the grisly crime (Clifton Collins, Jr. in a dynamite role and Mark Pellegrino) are strangely fascinating and even somewhat sympathetic to Capote and ultimately he develops an understanding relationship due to the facts that they are underlings of society and he can relate because of his homosexuality. "Capote" is memorable most because of Hoffman. In fact he is better than the film itself. The picture is so low budgeted that it has an odd feel to it. The movie only runs 98 minutes, but lots happens. However, it feels like there are missing pieces as the final product jumps through scenes with little rime or reason. Collins, Jr. (who was as memorable as anyone in "Traffic" five years ago) gives ample support and substance to the flick, but the other co-stars seem like they cannot handle Hoffman's in-your-face part and the production's sometimes sporadic flow. Relative new director Bennett Miller certainly does craft a highly unique viewing experience with screenwriter Dan Futterman's adapted script. Thought-provoking and somewhat elusive, while not excellent "Capote" does make a case for being the bravest and most memorable film of 2005. 4 stars out of 5.
Of course the Oscar for P.S. Hoffman was more than well deserved. If you had the chance watching this movie, before the academy awards were held, you kind of "knew" that he would get it. Why? Because the first time he speaks (and if you've seen him act or in an interview before) you realise that he had become Truman Capote, this wasn't P.S. Hoffman anymore!
And even if I didn't know much about Truman, I'm pretty sure this is as accurate as it could get to a depiction of this man. The struggle in him is displayed with such genius by Hoffman, that you can't imagine anybody else playing this role (although I've read that there is a comedy about Truman out, but I haven't watched that one yet).
But there are other fantastic actors on display here too, as you can see in the cast list. I'm only going to mention Clifton Collins Jr.. He could have a break-out in the next few years (a big one I mean), he would've deserved one. First movies I watched with him, he called himself Clifton Gonzalez Gonzalez (another stand out role, is his turn in One Eight Seven - 187).
This movie is "quiet" and long at places, so that is a let's say final warning for people who are not into this kind of movies! ;o)
And even if I didn't know much about Truman, I'm pretty sure this is as accurate as it could get to a depiction of this man. The struggle in him is displayed with such genius by Hoffman, that you can't imagine anybody else playing this role (although I've read that there is a comedy about Truman out, but I haven't watched that one yet).
But there are other fantastic actors on display here too, as you can see in the cast list. I'm only going to mention Clifton Collins Jr.. He could have a break-out in the next few years (a big one I mean), he would've deserved one. First movies I watched with him, he called himself Clifton Gonzalez Gonzalez (another stand out role, is his turn in One Eight Seven - 187).
This movie is "quiet" and long at places, so that is a let's say final warning for people who are not into this kind of movies! ;o)
- imaginarytruths
- Sep 30, 2005
- Permalink
It's 1959. New Yorker writer Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) hears about the horrifying murders in Kansas. He and his research assistant Nelle Harper Lee (Catherine Keener) go to write about the crime. Harper Lee gets published. They befriend lead detective Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper). Then Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Dick Hickock (Mark Pellegrino) are arrested. As Truman digs into the story, he decides to write a new kind of book "In Cold Blood".
It's an amazing performance from PSH which is only rivaled by a close second from CCJ. Catherine Keener is solid and it's a bit of a shock for novices like me to find Harper Lee working for Capote at that time. It's not a terribly dramatic story but it is a great showcase for the actors. It's worthy Oscar win for PSH.
It's an amazing performance from PSH which is only rivaled by a close second from CCJ. Catherine Keener is solid and it's a bit of a shock for novices like me to find Harper Lee working for Capote at that time. It's not a terribly dramatic story but it is a great showcase for the actors. It's worthy Oscar win for PSH.
- SnoopyStyle
- Aug 21, 2015
- Permalink
Beautifully told, masterfully performed, harrowing, amusing, cruel, moving. A sensational achievement. I sat there disturbed and transfixed. Witnessing the impossible. Truman Capote with the mask, without the mask. The same man, different men, all men, no man. The creature at work, thinking of work, planning his work, working his work, wheeling an dealing. Living his life, life as work, work as life. An ego bigger than his talent and all talent and no ego. Feeling without feeling. Cunning, innocent, blasphemous, a child, a monumental son of a bitch. Philip Seymour Hoffman surprising us again. Charles Laughton I thought. What a thought! Charles Laughton 2005. That kind of talent that kind of boldness and brains. Everything and everyone in "Capote" seem to be. To be totally. I've never seen a photograph of Harper Lee but I imagine her just like Catherine Keener. The film is a miracle of sorts. I can't wait to see it again.
- marcosaguado
- Nov 22, 2005
- Permalink
I read the book "In Cold Blood" a couple years ago and it was one of the most fascinating books I ever read, I also thought that this Truman Capote must have been one strange character. So, when I heard about "Capote" I jumped at the rentals to find out more about this fascinating man. The story is just incredibly interesting and I could see why this film was nominated for so much.
The one true award I totally agreed with was Phillip's Oscar, he was just incredible as Truman. You believed his strangeness, sensitivity, and was just so incredibly full of life and compassion. I would highly recommend "Capote", it's without a doubt one of the best pictures of 2005. I think Truman would be proud.
7/10
The one true award I totally agreed with was Phillip's Oscar, he was just incredible as Truman. You believed his strangeness, sensitivity, and was just so incredibly full of life and compassion. I would highly recommend "Capote", it's without a doubt one of the best pictures of 2005. I think Truman would be proud.
7/10
- Smells_Like_Cheese
- Mar 23, 2006
- Permalink
Hated this movie
Saw it because of the high rating in the paper (5 stars) thought must be an awesome movie.
In actual fact I hated this drab, hated the story, hated everything about it and wish I had never seen it
The acting on the other hand is superb
Still hated it
- Chicho1982
- Jul 21, 2018
- Permalink