Capote failed to sweep a lamen off his feet

Rating: 3/10 (13 November 2005)

Beautiful cinematography. This is the most prominent thing I took from Capote. From the first frame I was captivated by the imagery. Being a filmmaker myself I was stunned by the beautiful camera work and lush Kansas landscapes.
We now go from what I thought deserved those three stars and delve into the seven missing stars and what I felt didn't deserve them. Keeping in mind that I went into this film a lamen, completely unaware of its contents, who Capote was, and what I was about to see. (and if you try to use that as a defense for this film, I'd only regurgitate storytelling 101 -that any good story should appeal to and inform those who aren't familiar with the subject matter, or else why tell a story at all? I didn't have to be a machinist to enjoy "The Machinist", I shouldn't have to be a Capote fan to enjoy his story) My first annoyance occurred in the first scene featuring Phillip Seymore Hoffman in the city telling jokes. I noticed a directing style that reminded me of Dylan Kidd ala Rodger Dodger. A sort of shaky hand-held camera-work with sparse cutting and focusing on certain things in the background from time to time. I thought it suited Rodger Dodger because it was constant and served the narrative. Capote? Not exactly considering the cinematography ended up seeming random by the end. Indeed it distracted me a bit considering that the previous cinematography in the beginning was so well done and would have satisfied me if it had continued consistently.
From the first moment, PCH's performance distracted me. I kept finding myself concentrating on his acting. To be honest, I thought the voice he used was utterly ridiculous and forced at times. But as I watched it, I had a feeling folks would be praising it as the best acting of the year. I thought the emotion he could well up was extraordinary, but the voice seemed forced to me, be it a right on duplicate of the original Capote's voice or not. And I also feel that he was straining to get the caricature down so much that we lost some of the humanity in his performance. I think he's a great actor, but no human being could act competently through all those layers of mannerisms and that unnatural voice.
I thought this film failed at placing me anywhere but vaguely in the same room with Capote at random times and intervals. I felt as though I wasn't seeing the pivotal moments, but that I was seeing random in-betweens. Only at a few key moments did I feel as though I was in Capotes shoes. The film failed to put me in Kansas where the family was murdered for more than that brief instance toward the beginning. It failed to put me in that cell on death row for more than a second or two. I never felt "in" on the decision making process at any point and I basically felt as though I was following Capote around for a while and waiting for new information the rest of the time. As time went on I began to just feel as though I was witnessing events presented to me randomly as the big decisions had been cut out. I got a very distinct disconnected feeling. Of course feeling in his shoes is a subjective thing, but I felt as though no one but die-hard Capote fans would be able to feel as though they were truly along for the ride.
I believe this film wasted the majority of its time. From a storytelling standpoint it seemed to drag at every stage, a lot of its time spend on dead air, irrelevant conversations, and repetition of already known facts from said conversations. Not enough information was divulged in the given time-frame. We as an audience should have known the reasons for Capote going to Kansas in the first place to write this book -all in great detail, the relationship with Bruce Greenwood's character(they wasted this actor in my opinion, but I say so as a fan), and basically have gotten some kind of resolution other than the text given before the credits. I never really got what Capote or any supporting characters were like on a personal level. Maybe to see his life fall apart at the end? That would have made this waiting pay off.
Other than beautiful city/landscapes, this film from a directorial standpoint lacked anything exceedingly interesting. Basically it consisted of harsh cuts and a few fades to black. I found that most of the angles were just ordinary 'get the job done' kinda shots, maybe some interesting camera movement here or there, but nothing truly engrossing. I was constantly able to realize "Hey, I'm watching a movie... and it's pretty boring." In all, I thought the same story could have been told 100% better in the same time-frame. More information, more convincing characters, faster dialog, and a faster pacing altogether could have done this film well. Did this great story really need any/all that? Well, in the end, every element of this story has been told before. FCH has played a flamboyantly gay character very similar to Capote in another film called "Flawless". Killers on deathrow telling their story to one lucky journalist with a lot in common with them -is certainly well worn territory, "Killer: A Journal of Murder" for one. And families of four have been slain in a much more gripping fashion to be sure, in more films than I care to mention.
I'm left wanting more information; more about every character in this film. There was certainly time enough for double the info we got, and it would have served to better flesh out whats really what and who's really who and why.