Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


October 16, 2008
Infamous (2006)
Should I see it?
No.


Short Review: A bad ending to a good movie is like eating a sub sandwich only to find the final bite has a toenail it in.

Infamous

If you’ve seen Capote, there is no compelling reason to see this film. This aside, there is much to recommend this piece. There is some fine acting and directing and the story itself is inherently interesting. The issue is that the overall point sullies any positive effort made by the production. The film tells the same story as Capote: New York big shot writer/raconteur/human squeak toy, Truman Capote goes into a small Kansas town to report on the events of the murder of the Clutter Family. While investigating the story, Capote gets drawn into writing about the two thugs who brutally murdered the family. It is clear the story behind the story is a riveting human drama.

This film succeeds in a couple of ways. The performances are quite good. After seeing Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote it seemed impossible for anyone else to successfully pull off this strange character. Toby Jones’ portrayal of the impish writer is in many ways superior to Hoffman’s work. Hoffman deserved the Oscar he received for his performance. His rendition of Capote fit his production perfectly and is a brilliant piece of acting. To his credit, Jones’s Truman is one step more real, more human and his physical likeness is striking. It would seem that Jones was born to play this role.

The other strong point of the film is writer/director Douglas McGrath’s polished script. Much of his script is taut and plays to the best parts of the story. The interactions of the Kansas residents and Truman, a flamboyant, gay banshee is priceless. McGrath smartly juxtaposes the elite world of Manhattan and rural Kansas to great effect. Each of the characters, even those with a moment of screen time are, if not fully realized, quite interesting to watch. The writing allows for the actors to act. The fullness of the piece even allows Sandra Bullock to achieve what is easily her best performance as Nell Harper Lee.

In spite of its successes, the film ultimately fails. In the final act a homosexual relationship between Truman and killer Perry Smith (Daniel Craig) develops. I have no idea if this relationship was factual, but it doesn’t matter. The film concentrates so much on this love affair and the complications it forces on the conflicted Capote it overwhelms the story. While this is effectively used to support the climatic scenes where Smith is executed for his crimes, it pulls the focus away from what Capote was doing. In Cold Blood is a brilliant book but it is also a product of Truman Capote serving his (and on a larger scale our) needs by trampling on the tragedy of a dead family. He also used the deaths of the killers to advance his goals. Through his development of the true-crime novel, Truman Capote watered down the immoral behavior of profiting from the dead. The film Capote deals with this issue in the end. This film gives Capote a pass.

In the end of the film Sandra Bullock, as Nell Harper Lee (author of To Kill A Mockingbird) complains that Capote’s final years of drunkenness and stagnant creativity were the result of American culture and not Capote’s guilt. She complains that America isn’t as fancy as a place like France where things more "effervescent" can survive. Our memories are short and we Americans want things now. Are you kidding me? I do not know if these were Lee's words but even so, can someone take Miss Congeniality aside and explain that she’s a part of the sickness not the cure? I know she’s playing a character and I’m sure she’s a nice lady, but that complaint coming out of that actress’s mouth? Sandra Bullock, the star of Speed and Speed 2 complaining on camera that American culture is too hurried? Why not have Paris Hilton on camera bemoan our culture has gotten too flippant?

To bring this to a close, this is a well done film but its lack of moral clarity drains the movie of the potency it could have contained. Proof that there is more to a good movie than solid dialog and quality scenes. You must always have a good point.


Related Review:
In Cold Blood (1967)
Capote (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Talk
The Movie Boy

Labels: , , , , ,


posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 9:00 AM




Share






0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home