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!
373 Reviews
Cold Manipulation
aharmas9 October 2005
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.
Mesmerizing Performance in Complex, Contradictory Film
dglink28 October 2005
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.
In cold blood
jotix1007 October 2005
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.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman Shines in a Chilling, Cold Blooded Performance
Tony-Kiss-Castillo26 December 2021
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!
Hoffman's Terrific Performance
Lechuguilla15 May 2006
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.
The Manipulation Of A Master Manipulator
marcosaguado23 November 2005
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.
Mr. Hoffman, you are Truman Capote.
mklein-427 September 2005
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.
Humanizing Capote
madbeast11 September 2005
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.
Philip Seymour Capote
bkoganbing19 March 2006
I finally got to see the Best Actor performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman as the late writer and icon Truman Capote. It's based on the biography published in the Eighties entitled Capote by Gerald Clarke.
The only part of the book the film deals with is the creation and completion of Capote's landmark docunovel In Cold Blood. And the film is remarkably faithful to the details described in the book. In 1959 in his Brooklyn Heights apartment, Truman Capote read about the slaying of a Kansas family named Clutter in some small town called Holcomb. He decides to go west and investigate every aspect of this gruesome tragedy. That includes numerous interviews with both the suspects that are eventually caught, tried, and convicted.
With one of them, Perry Smith, Capote forms a strange relationship as he tries to get the real story about what happened in that Kansas farm house that night in 1959 by the only two left who can tell it. And Smith who is flattered by all the attention this celebrity is giving him. It's sad, but Perry Smith becomes almost a celebrity by reflection at a time when he's facing execution. Clifton Collins, Jr. plays Smith and it's a subtle piece of acting he does. We see a lost little boy in those scenes with Capote in prison, but we also never forget this man is a stone cold killer who went to this farm house in the mistaken belief that Mr. Clutter had squirreled away a large sum of cash because he didn't trust banks.
Not as foolish as you might think. In the generation before during the Depression when banks did fail, a lot of people lost their faith in financial institutions. In fact an uncle and aunt of mine had that happen to them before they passed on the last decade.
But the film belongs to Philip Seymour Hoffman. I first saw Hoffman on screen playing Scotty G in Boogie Nights. It was also a gay character, but light years from the sophisticated and glamorous Truman Capote. Scotty G was the backward kid who crushes out big time on Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights. Hoffman is an player of extraordinary range to successfully essay both Capote and Scotty G.
This was an extraordinary year in the Academy Awards with nominations going to performers who played real life people. Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, George Clooney as Edward R. Murrow, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote. And every one of them gave a performance that made me think I was seeing old film clips of their characters.
I recommend the film. As a story it can stand on its own. But I also recommend highly the book by Gerald Clarke. For those of you liked the film and like Philip Seymour Hoffman in the part, the biography Capote is a fascinating read, a glimpse into gay America, both pre and post the Stonewall Riots. And it's a good social history of the times.
The only part of the book the film deals with is the creation and completion of Capote's landmark docunovel In Cold Blood. And the film is remarkably faithful to the details described in the book. In 1959 in his Brooklyn Heights apartment, Truman Capote read about the slaying of a Kansas family named Clutter in some small town called Holcomb. He decides to go west and investigate every aspect of this gruesome tragedy. That includes numerous interviews with both the suspects that are eventually caught, tried, and convicted.
With one of them, Perry Smith, Capote forms a strange relationship as he tries to get the real story about what happened in that Kansas farm house that night in 1959 by the only two left who can tell it. And Smith who is flattered by all the attention this celebrity is giving him. It's sad, but Perry Smith becomes almost a celebrity by reflection at a time when he's facing execution. Clifton Collins, Jr. plays Smith and it's a subtle piece of acting he does. We see a lost little boy in those scenes with Capote in prison, but we also never forget this man is a stone cold killer who went to this farm house in the mistaken belief that Mr. Clutter had squirreled away a large sum of cash because he didn't trust banks.
Not as foolish as you might think. In the generation before during the Depression when banks did fail, a lot of people lost their faith in financial institutions. In fact an uncle and aunt of mine had that happen to them before they passed on the last decade.
But the film belongs to Philip Seymour Hoffman. I first saw Hoffman on screen playing Scotty G in Boogie Nights. It was also a gay character, but light years from the sophisticated and glamorous Truman Capote. Scotty G was the backward kid who crushes out big time on Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights. Hoffman is an player of extraordinary range to successfully essay both Capote and Scotty G.
This was an extraordinary year in the Academy Awards with nominations going to performers who played real life people. Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, George Clooney as Edward R. Murrow, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote. And every one of them gave a performance that made me think I was seeing old film clips of their characters.
I recommend the film. As a story it can stand on its own. But I also recommend highly the book by Gerald Clarke. For those of you liked the film and like Philip Seymour Hoffman in the part, the biography Capote is a fascinating read, a glimpse into gay America, both pre and post the Stonewall Riots. And it's a good social history of the times.
2 Capote, or NOT 2 Capote???, That Is The Question...
screenwriter-1430 September 2005
CAPOTE, first of all, is a well written film by the talented Dan Futterman, whose performance in URBANIA we will always remember, and for Philip Seymour Hoffman, this is his "Golden Globe and Oscar Award" all in one. From the first scene, Hoffman creates the essence of the acid tongued, tremendously talented, yet damaged, Truman Capote.
Having read IN COLD BLOOD when it first came out, CAPOTE really captures on the screen the horror of what took place on that Kansas farm and the cinematography, costumes and locations are wonderful to behold. Miss Keener's performance is such a subtle and intelligent contrast to the hysteria of Capote, and his perfect foil.
In the scenes with Perry Smith, they are haunting and disturbing, as if it feels like two cobras are circling one another, waiting for the first one to strike. And in this context, I ask, "2 Capote, or NOT 2 Capote?, that is the question", because both are on the take-Smith to use Capote for obtaining a pardon, Capote, to nail the story that will gain him the adulation he so adores. And then, Capote slides downhill, while Perry rots in prison.
CAPOTE captures the essence of the 1950's, the horror of a brutal killing in the vast farmlands of Kansas, and delivers a knock out performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman. If only IN COLD BLOOD had not seemed like a manipulation by a writer out for glory at the expense of a prisoner who believed in him.
Having read IN COLD BLOOD when it first came out, CAPOTE really captures on the screen the horror of what took place on that Kansas farm and the cinematography, costumes and locations are wonderful to behold. Miss Keener's performance is such a subtle and intelligent contrast to the hysteria of Capote, and his perfect foil.
In the scenes with Perry Smith, they are haunting and disturbing, as if it feels like two cobras are circling one another, waiting for the first one to strike. And in this context, I ask, "2 Capote, or NOT 2 Capote?, that is the question", because both are on the take-Smith to use Capote for obtaining a pardon, Capote, to nail the story that will gain him the adulation he so adores. And then, Capote slides downhill, while Perry rots in prison.
CAPOTE captures the essence of the 1950's, the horror of a brutal killing in the vast farmlands of Kansas, and delivers a knock out performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman. If only IN COLD BLOOD had not seemed like a manipulation by a writer out for glory at the expense of a prisoner who believed in him.
A good film about a bad person
mls418217 April 2023
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.
Spellbinding performances
mstomaso25 February 2006
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.
Not in Kansas anymore.
southdavid16 August 2021
After 10 months of waiting for it to show up on a streamer that I already paid for, or on free TV, I eventually gave up and purchased a charity shop DVD of "Capote" in order to carry on questing for my 2006 Oscar highlights badge. So far, I've really not enjoyed "Crash" or "Brokeback Mountain" and given that I usually don't like biopics, I wasn't holding out much hope for "Capote" - it was, however, better than I anticipated.
Following a well-publicised murder in the Kansas town of Holcomb, famed writer Truman Capote (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) heads to the location to write an article about the case. The article would expand to becoming a book, taking several years to write and with its writer forming relationships with a number of key participants in the story, including the pair convicted for it. Upon it's release "In Cold Blood" was a sensation, but it's writing had a profound effect on its author.
It's hard not to start with the overwhelming sense of sadness that Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who won the Best Actor Oscar for this turn, is no longer with us. Aside from the obvious personal loss to his family, it's the years of performances that we would never see from a chameleonic actor who was only 46 at the time he died that is the biggest loss. His impression of Truman Capote is very good, to say the least, but it's more than the voice. It's the vulnerability as he talks to one of the other great performances of the film, Clifton Collins, who plays Perry Smith, one of the murderers.
I enjoyed the film more the longer that it went on. Whilst it might have felt more natural to spend time with the trial period, "Capote" instead focuses more on the act of writing and Capote's relationships with his partner, Jack Dunphy played by Bruce Greenwood, and with Harper Lee, played by Catherine Keener, Capote's childhood friend and research assistant on "In Cold Blood" who would find success with "To Kill A Mockingbird" to rival Capote's own. His ongoing relationship with Perry Smith though becomes the films heart and the duelling concept that his execution will be the conclusion of the book, which Capote desperately craves, but that on a personal level he has bonded with Perry over their awful childhoods.
Whilst I'd accept its too slow moving to regularly revisit, the performances, as well as some stellar cinematography make "Capote" the one bright light in the 2006 Oscars so far.
Following a well-publicised murder in the Kansas town of Holcomb, famed writer Truman Capote (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) heads to the location to write an article about the case. The article would expand to becoming a book, taking several years to write and with its writer forming relationships with a number of key participants in the story, including the pair convicted for it. Upon it's release "In Cold Blood" was a sensation, but it's writing had a profound effect on its author.
It's hard not to start with the overwhelming sense of sadness that Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who won the Best Actor Oscar for this turn, is no longer with us. Aside from the obvious personal loss to his family, it's the years of performances that we would never see from a chameleonic actor who was only 46 at the time he died that is the biggest loss. His impression of Truman Capote is very good, to say the least, but it's more than the voice. It's the vulnerability as he talks to one of the other great performances of the film, Clifton Collins, who plays Perry Smith, one of the murderers.
I enjoyed the film more the longer that it went on. Whilst it might have felt more natural to spend time with the trial period, "Capote" instead focuses more on the act of writing and Capote's relationships with his partner, Jack Dunphy played by Bruce Greenwood, and with Harper Lee, played by Catherine Keener, Capote's childhood friend and research assistant on "In Cold Blood" who would find success with "To Kill A Mockingbird" to rival Capote's own. His ongoing relationship with Perry Smith though becomes the films heart and the duelling concept that his execution will be the conclusion of the book, which Capote desperately craves, but that on a personal level he has bonded with Perry over their awful childhoods.
Whilst I'd accept its too slow moving to regularly revisit, the performances, as well as some stellar cinematography make "Capote" the one bright light in the 2006 Oscars so far.
Conjuring Capote
ilene2 October 2005
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.
Stillborn, self-important Oscar bait
fertilecelluloid4 February 2006
This is one dreary, inert, self-important bore. When the only thing that suddenly gives a film life is a hanging, you know the venture is botched. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote as a narcissistic, tic-ridden, self-indulgent, cartoon-voiced, insect-like caricature. Why he is this way is never explained and we get scant background information. The script focuses on Capote's writing of 'In Cold Blood' and his attachment to the damaged brothers who murdered a family of four. The acclaimed writer of 'To Kill A Mockingbird', Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), accompanies Capote in his initial inquires into the crime, and her presence immediately suggests a far more interesting subject for a biopic. Unfortunately, Lee is quickly sidelined in favor of endless scenes of Capote bemoaning his pained existence. Watching him is like watching Dr. Smith from 'Lost in Space' complain about his "delicate back" to anybody who will listen for two hours. The difference, however, is that Smith was fun to watch while Capote is not. The film's precious self-importance kills it, as does director Bennett Miller's reluctance to add any kind of shading. Like the morose piano score, the film is a one note wonder, providing no contrast, no emotional coloring, and no intimate drama. If Capote really was this irritating, why make a film about him and expect audiences to watch it? Though the supporting roles are well performed (Chris Cooper is his usual stalwart self), they serve such little dramatic purpose because, ultimately, it's all about Capote(!) Director Bennett and screenwriter Dan Futterman fail to emotionally engage their intended audience because they were clearly overwhelmed by the cultural baggage of Capote's "legend". Their product is stillborn Oscar bait...and is more evidence that one great genre pic has more "truth" in it than a dozen piles of oh-so-sincere crap like this.
8/10
Analog_Devotee19 March 2022
Pretty phenomenal stuff here. Fascinating insight/behind-the-curtain-look into one of the most popular books ever written, with others of equal importance as backdrops. Hoffman was truly an amazing actor, and this role proves it more than any other.
Outstanding performance, witty dialog but visually unimaginative -- it will play better on TV
debblyst27 February 2006
"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.
A Slow But Chilling Portrayal of The Toll It Took To Understand the Horror
noralee31 October 2005
"Capote" opens up as a ghostly recreation. Trepidation and dread haunt the screen from the glimpses of the crime scene, deep in the heartland (Manitoba beautifully standing in for Kansas) where we gradually become aware of violence frozen in isolation, recalling that this crime helped set up the template for portrayals of horror.
The sudden shift to Truman Capote's milieu in New York City is a jarring juxtaposition but is equally spooky because with Philip Seymour Hoffman's brilliantly uncanny portrayal we are literally seeing an apparition. While it is a bit frustrating at first as we get almost no insight into what attracted Capote to the story, especially as we see the details of him getting organized, embarking on a long train ride into his heart of darkness and being initially brushed off by the locals, but the pay off eventually comes, if very slowly.
There's initial jokes on the puffed-up dandy in anti-wonderland who owes a great debt to his old Southern friend the soon to be noted novelist Harper Lee (a no nonsense Catherine Keener) for regularly puncturing his pretenses and briskly bridging the cultural gap so he can begin worming his way into the community's trust (and getting condescended to in return about her book and the movie adaptation and dryly dismissed by his lover as more "manly" than he is).
I didn't start to take seriously that the point of the film was "In Cold Blood"s effect on him until we see him sneak into the funeral home and start to psychologically absorb the murders and challenge folks to take him seriously despite his way of talking and affected mannerisms.
A key transitional scene is almost bizarre when Capote's fame does help him here, as the wife of Chris Cooper's solid, clear-eyed, suspicious sheriff, Amy Ryan in a very atypical for her '50's housewife role, gushes over the writer in their midst (even though his books had been banned from the local library) and brokers credibility to get him crucial, exclusive contact with the still not charmed investigators and, suddenly, with one of the murderers. Amidst perfect recreations of the late '50's, we see Capote learn to manipulate his fame to get him further access, that is a harbinger of celebrity journalists to come.
The film then shifts to an extended "Dead Man Walking" chapter, as Capote enters into a symbiotic relationship with Perry Smith, seductively and captivatingly played by Clifton Collins Jr, particularly in the build up to trying to understand the actual crime. We see Capote begin to develop a new kind of journalism even before he writes a word as he gets personally involved in the physical, mental and legal health of the murderers -- all for the benefit of his book. Key actions of his recall the cynical reporter in Billy Wilder's acerbic "Ace in the Hole (The Big Carnival)," first released eight years before these events, as we see Capote intentionally lie, manipulatively get involved and selectively let out bits and pieces of his own past to get others to trust and confide in him. His life itself becomes a nonfiction novel.
But the last chapter of the film goes into unique territory, as we see the two worlds Capote has been experiencing collide in his head and take a toll on his relationships, productivity and health. The completion of the book has a relentless parallel with the cycles of justice and legal revenge with no spiritual release, just a book release, and self-aggrandizement, even as he invents a new form of personal reportage to great acclaim. The film searingly emphasizes the internal haunting Capote experiences, with his photographic recall, by leaving out that he did continue the public appearance of his wild ways, as 1966 was also the year of his notorious black and white masquerade ball.
The atmospheric music heightens the spooky feeling that there's more happening below the surface and helps keep us thinking.
The cinematography is exquisite throughout.
The sudden shift to Truman Capote's milieu in New York City is a jarring juxtaposition but is equally spooky because with Philip Seymour Hoffman's brilliantly uncanny portrayal we are literally seeing an apparition. While it is a bit frustrating at first as we get almost no insight into what attracted Capote to the story, especially as we see the details of him getting organized, embarking on a long train ride into his heart of darkness and being initially brushed off by the locals, but the pay off eventually comes, if very slowly.
There's initial jokes on the puffed-up dandy in anti-wonderland who owes a great debt to his old Southern friend the soon to be noted novelist Harper Lee (a no nonsense Catherine Keener) for regularly puncturing his pretenses and briskly bridging the cultural gap so he can begin worming his way into the community's trust (and getting condescended to in return about her book and the movie adaptation and dryly dismissed by his lover as more "manly" than he is).
I didn't start to take seriously that the point of the film was "In Cold Blood"s effect on him until we see him sneak into the funeral home and start to psychologically absorb the murders and challenge folks to take him seriously despite his way of talking and affected mannerisms.
A key transitional scene is almost bizarre when Capote's fame does help him here, as the wife of Chris Cooper's solid, clear-eyed, suspicious sheriff, Amy Ryan in a very atypical for her '50's housewife role, gushes over the writer in their midst (even though his books had been banned from the local library) and brokers credibility to get him crucial, exclusive contact with the still not charmed investigators and, suddenly, with one of the murderers. Amidst perfect recreations of the late '50's, we see Capote learn to manipulate his fame to get him further access, that is a harbinger of celebrity journalists to come.
The film then shifts to an extended "Dead Man Walking" chapter, as Capote enters into a symbiotic relationship with Perry Smith, seductively and captivatingly played by Clifton Collins Jr, particularly in the build up to trying to understand the actual crime. We see Capote begin to develop a new kind of journalism even before he writes a word as he gets personally involved in the physical, mental and legal health of the murderers -- all for the benefit of his book. Key actions of his recall the cynical reporter in Billy Wilder's acerbic "Ace in the Hole (The Big Carnival)," first released eight years before these events, as we see Capote intentionally lie, manipulatively get involved and selectively let out bits and pieces of his own past to get others to trust and confide in him. His life itself becomes a nonfiction novel.
But the last chapter of the film goes into unique territory, as we see the two worlds Capote has been experiencing collide in his head and take a toll on his relationships, productivity and health. The completion of the book has a relentless parallel with the cycles of justice and legal revenge with no spiritual release, just a book release, and self-aggrandizement, even as he invents a new form of personal reportage to great acclaim. The film searingly emphasizes the internal haunting Capote experiences, with his photographic recall, by leaving out that he did continue the public appearance of his wild ways, as 1966 was also the year of his notorious black and white masquerade ball.
The atmospheric music heightens the spooky feeling that there's more happening below the surface and helps keep us thinking.
The cinematography is exquisite throughout.
Grandstanding piffle
dfranzen7010 February 2006
To begin with, how you feel about Capote the movie will depend almost entirely on how you feel about Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of him. Some will find his highly mannered performance to be highly grating, while others will note that that's how the real Capote looked and sounded.
I fall into the former group. I just couldn't stomach Hoffmann's high-pitched whine. I also didn't care for the breakneck editing, or even the long, tiresome shots of nothing in particular happening. I felt the movie was pretty poorly put together, to be quite frank about it.
Although it's a biography of the writer, the film covers the time Capote spent researching and writing his magnum opus, In Cold Blood, from his assignment by The New Yorker to cover the legal proceedings to the final publication of his "nonfiction novel," several years later. The focus is on Capote's relationship with the murderers of the title, particularly Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). Capote figures if he gets close to Smith and Dick Hickock, he'll get information he can use in his book. Is he using the killers, or does he really care for him? You wouldn't know from a movie whose script has Capote constantly talking about himself, no matter what the topic is. What, you killed four people in their beds? Pshaw, you should hear about my upbringing. And on it goes.
As I said, Hoffman's performance is quite mannered - some might say flamboyant - and there will no doubt be plenty of you out there who will think he was spot on, quite a show, and all that. And there will be plenty others who think about five minutes of hearing him "talk Capote" would be about four minutes too long.
So on to the others in the cast. Catherine Keener, who's been so great in movies like Being John Malkovich and The Interpreter, acts circles around Hoffman. Yes, circles. Keener plays novelist Harper Lee, she of To Kill a Mockingbird fame, and she absolutely disappears into the role - with two exceptions, her dazzling, dancing eyes. Keener is superb, clearly deserving of her Oscar nomination. Lee has a pretty good idea of what Capote's all about, as does his lover, Jack Dunphy (Bruce Greenwood). Chris Cooper is along as the sheriff in charge of the case, and Bob Balaban is Capote's publisher.
There's far too much focus on the Wonder That Is Truman Capote for a film that insists on covering only one period in his life. Capote is manipulative, egotistical, and constantly condescending. Not an appealing guy, to be sure. And that's fine, but we never really get a sense of what he was about, just how this one event affected him.
Interminable and overwrought, Capote is not worthy of its many accolades.
I fall into the former group. I just couldn't stomach Hoffmann's high-pitched whine. I also didn't care for the breakneck editing, or even the long, tiresome shots of nothing in particular happening. I felt the movie was pretty poorly put together, to be quite frank about it.
Although it's a biography of the writer, the film covers the time Capote spent researching and writing his magnum opus, In Cold Blood, from his assignment by The New Yorker to cover the legal proceedings to the final publication of his "nonfiction novel," several years later. The focus is on Capote's relationship with the murderers of the title, particularly Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). Capote figures if he gets close to Smith and Dick Hickock, he'll get information he can use in his book. Is he using the killers, or does he really care for him? You wouldn't know from a movie whose script has Capote constantly talking about himself, no matter what the topic is. What, you killed four people in their beds? Pshaw, you should hear about my upbringing. And on it goes.
As I said, Hoffman's performance is quite mannered - some might say flamboyant - and there will no doubt be plenty of you out there who will think he was spot on, quite a show, and all that. And there will be plenty others who think about five minutes of hearing him "talk Capote" would be about four minutes too long.
So on to the others in the cast. Catherine Keener, who's been so great in movies like Being John Malkovich and The Interpreter, acts circles around Hoffman. Yes, circles. Keener plays novelist Harper Lee, she of To Kill a Mockingbird fame, and she absolutely disappears into the role - with two exceptions, her dazzling, dancing eyes. Keener is superb, clearly deserving of her Oscar nomination. Lee has a pretty good idea of what Capote's all about, as does his lover, Jack Dunphy (Bruce Greenwood). Chris Cooper is along as the sheriff in charge of the case, and Bob Balaban is Capote's publisher.
There's far too much focus on the Wonder That Is Truman Capote for a film that insists on covering only one period in his life. Capote is manipulative, egotistical, and constantly condescending. Not an appealing guy, to be sure. And that's fine, but we never really get a sense of what he was about, just how this one event affected him.
Interminable and overwrought, Capote is not worthy of its many accolades.
Some what disjointed
Davidon8012 August 2006
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.
How Truman Capote wrote IN COLD BLOOD
jaybob1 October 2005
This is not a full biography of the very flamboyant authors life,rather it tells of the 6 years it took him to write the story of 2 young men who killed an entire family in Kansas. in 1959.
Capote was a reporter for the New Yorker magazine & thought there may have been a human interest story.
The film concentrates on the relationship with one of the killers, & the devastating affect it had om Capote's life. The film is well written directed & well made.
The most important reason to see this film is because of the actor PHILIP SEYMOUR Hoffman who not only portrays him, HE BECOMES HIM.
I am not the only one predicting the following.
Next March at the Kodak Theatre Mr Hoffman will receive the Oscar as outstanding male actor.
There are no ifs ands or buts on this, He is that great.
It may also get other nominations as well.
My only gripe is one I have in many new films, that is the sound, I & most others had trouble in making out some dialogue when the actors spoke very low. They use this Dolby sound system forgetting that most people do not have perfect hearing.
If you wish to see a superb performance see this, OH it has an R rating, I do not see why, There was no nudity, no sex, you do see some fairly fast pictures of the murder scene (in black & white), hardly any objectionable language, This should have been at most a PG 13 film.
my rating is *** 1/2 (0ut of 4*) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9
Capote was a reporter for the New Yorker magazine & thought there may have been a human interest story.
The film concentrates on the relationship with one of the killers, & the devastating affect it had om Capote's life. The film is well written directed & well made.
The most important reason to see this film is because of the actor PHILIP SEYMOUR Hoffman who not only portrays him, HE BECOMES HIM.
I am not the only one predicting the following.
Next March at the Kodak Theatre Mr Hoffman will receive the Oscar as outstanding male actor.
There are no ifs ands or buts on this, He is that great.
It may also get other nominations as well.
My only gripe is one I have in many new films, that is the sound, I & most others had trouble in making out some dialogue when the actors spoke very low. They use this Dolby sound system forgetting that most people do not have perfect hearing.
If you wish to see a superb performance see this, OH it has an R rating, I do not see why, There was no nudity, no sex, you do see some fairly fast pictures of the murder scene (in black & white), hardly any objectionable language, This should have been at most a PG 13 film.
my rating is *** 1/2 (0ut of 4*) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9
An absorbing film with a stunning performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Derek23731 December 2005
It's pretty rare to find yourself facing a screen, watching a film for the first time, and knowing without a single conceivable doubt that you are witnessing precious moments that are sure to define an actor's entire career. I felt this when watching Phillip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of Truman Capote. It is undeniably his best performance ever, and will be nearly impossible to top. He deserves an Oscar for this and his chances of winning are already more than excellent.
Capote is a movie that just keeps getting better with each passing minute. Dan Futterman, a friend of Hoffman's, wrote the movie, which is one reason why he expressed an interest in playing Capote. He has also said that another reason, the main reason he wanted to do it, even above the challenge of playing this eccentric and fascinating character, was that the story was just so good. As a movie fan I initially saw it for Hoffman's performance, and for the first half hour that's all I really needed, but as the plot continued I found my self drawn in deeper and deeper. It's really an absorbing film with intriguing characters and superb acting.
In a nutshell, I came for the acting, but I stayed for the story. Capote is one of 2005's highlights.
My rating: 10/10
Capote is a movie that just keeps getting better with each passing minute. Dan Futterman, a friend of Hoffman's, wrote the movie, which is one reason why he expressed an interest in playing Capote. He has also said that another reason, the main reason he wanted to do it, even above the challenge of playing this eccentric and fascinating character, was that the story was just so good. As a movie fan I initially saw it for Hoffman's performance, and for the first half hour that's all I really needed, but as the plot continued I found my self drawn in deeper and deeper. It's really an absorbing film with intriguing characters and superb acting.
In a nutshell, I came for the acting, but I stayed for the story. Capote is one of 2005's highlights.
My rating: 10/10
Always Be Tru.
tfrizzell10 February 2006
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.
great performances
SnoopyStyle22 August 2015
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews