Infamous (Douglas McGrath)
The
other movie about Truman Capote writing
In Cold Blood is here. Covering almost the exact same ground as the Oscar-winning
Capote, writer/director Doug McGrath's project went into production shortly after the other but was beaten to the screen by about a year. Because of this the comparisons are inevitable.
Toby Jones stars as Capote. In physicality and voice it is really much, much closer to Truman than Philip Seymour Hoffman's lauded turn. But here's the beginning of the big differences between the two projects: while Jones' transformation is dead-on for a night club comic, Hoffman's portrayal is so much deeper, so much more complex, so much...better. I've seen Capote interviewed over the years on outlets like
"The Tonight Show" and
"The Dick Cavett Show" and in things like
Muder by Death all where he was playing-up his persona to the hilt. And I'm sure that while he was happy to amp that up for public consumption, most of that is just plain really and truly how the man carried himself behind closed doors as well. But the problem for me and
Infamous is Toby Jones' Capote is 100% over-the-top for virtually the entire movie, save a few moments here and there. If Hoffman's
Capote Capote is less accurate in some way because he's more restrained than Truman was in life, in the adaptation he embodies the duality of the man as an artist, the contradictions between his persona and his writing, especially his writing on
In Cold Blood, and in that sense it is extremely realistic. While Hoffman may have inserted more nuance into each scene than the public Truman Capote managed in a decade, the result is a compelling embodiment of his essence, if not an accurate impression. What Toby Jones creates is a terrific impression, but it has none of the duality of the man's inner nature. As Juliet Stevenson's New York fashion socialite quips in
Infamous, Truman wasn't eccentric, he was interesting. Then how odd that the central performance of the film plays chiefly to the eccentricities and doesn't have a clue how to artfully integrate the interesting parts.
The structure of
Infamous is a bit different than
Capote in that it spends more time in New York, looking at the most famous side of Capote: the witty, campy gadfly of the rich and famous. Because there aren't really many layers to peel back here, Toby's Capote is well suited for the comic one-liners and casual betrayals of confidence as he gossips around midtown Manhattan with a verve that charms even those he's gossiping about. And if
Infamous had been about that part of Truman's life, or even that part post-
In Cold Blood, Jones' performance and the movie might have had some fun and possibly even found something to say. While it spends more time on the New York scenes than
Capote, from there we do go to Kansas where Truman must ingratiate himself with the locals and County Sheriff Alvin Dewey (Jeff Daniels). With childhood friend Nell Harper Lee (Sandra Bullock) by his side, he eventually manages to win the small town over. When the killers are caught, Capote's piece takes on extra dimensions, including interviews with the killers and the bond he forms with Perry Smith (the new 007, Daniel Craig).
But much like Toby Jones' performance, the script and direction as well as the other performances have no subtltly or artistry to them. Frankly it looks and plays like a TV-movie, and I mean that in the pejorative. Which isn't to say
Infamous is unaware of the deeper more complex issues of the story, it just doesn't present them well. Rather than showing the complexities on screen through performance and tone, the filmmakers have to resort to simply stating them out loud in dialogue. It's all telling and little showing, which is emotionally uninvolving and pretty amaturish. The best example of this weakness is the Capote/Perry relationship. While Truman's sexual attraction to Smith is a powerful element of
Capote, it isn't on display in a simple overt fashion.
Infamous has them caress and kiss and make the whole thing sorid and trite. Whether or not those two men ever acted upon their urges in a physical way is something only they know for sure, but by portraying it on screen it really trivializes the feelings and replaces them with a bit of man-on-man action. It's a cheap, easy and ultimately far less effective approach to the material.
And that happens over and over again throughout
Infamous, with the big and small issues and characters. I think it's pretty clearly inferior to Bennett Miller and Dan Futterman's
Capote in every single way, but even if that great film didn't already exist
Infamous would still seem hollow and schlocky. In comparison it's downright awful.
GRADE: D