Infamous Was Far Superior

Rating: 6/10 (29 November 2007)

I had rated Capote 8/10... until I saw Infamous. Had to come back and change it to 6/10. It is natural to compare the films. In fact its invited by implication due to their release dates and subject.
I don't think its harsh to challenge the cast portrayals, especially since we did have another film to compare it to. If one saw both films, what a chance to see a "remake", made at the same time? We got to see TWO CASTS, perform almost the same material. Maybe the timing of the releases wasn't so great on several levels, but hey - if they'd been released a couple of years apart, somebody would complain then too.
As for Hoffman, of whom I have always been a fan, I found his performance almost cardboard. Toby Jones, however, was electric. Hoffman's Capote was driven solely by his desire(s) - to change the way people wrote and read. There is tenderness for Smith, but it is only as a subject for his work. Showing interest and human compassion is not the same as tenderness, heavily handled (and handed) in Capote. And though Jones' Capote was similarly motivated, HIS Capote seems to actually evolve during the film. True, people don't always evolve in a story, or in real-life. But don't motives change as a situation evolves? Situations have to evolve or we get bored and stop watching - if they get made into films at all. Douglas McGrath's screenplay was also far superior.
To be nominated for an Oscar is a tremendous honor, but frankly I thought Hoffman's performance in Boogie Nights was more deserving of an Academy Award than Capote (and though not a great flick, check out his performance in Flawless, with DeNiro) - both nuanced AND deep "...almost the same material", but it wasn't the same material. Infamous was gritty and moving - when we hear the Clutter women screaming before the blasts, I thought, "oh my god, all that screaming and then NOTHING." Even though I knew the gunshots were coming, I actually started when I finally heard them. The reactions I had to Capote were simply "gut" - the reactions to Infamous were physical and mental. The word that keeps coming to me about Capote as a film is "safe". The acting, writing and directing.
I just ordered the book, "In Cold Blood" online and I have to read it. Because the stories in the films WERE the same. The difference, as always, is in the details. None of us will ever know how it truly played out, we only know what information was shared. Shared information can change during retelling.
Perry Smith was obviously a very troubled person. And like all of us, he wanted people to think he was smart. And he did try, harder than most it seems, to educate himself in some ways. Someone doesn't need to "agree" with a new knowledge or position in order to have their mind opened by something/someone - (re: his reaction to pornography, Capote's writing itself, etc...). But Collins turned him into something pathetic, rather than sympathetic. I'm dying to know if the "baby food" incident really happened. The scene progression in Capote said much about both Truman and Perry, if true.
I like Daniel Craig, and my problems seeing him as Smith in Infamous were purely physical and my own. But basically every other character was more real to me in Infamous than in Capote. Bullock generally leaves me cold, her Lee knew Truman and loved him anyway. Keener's seemed to tolerate and enable him. Chris Cooper is a gem and by far the best performance in Capote.
Truman Capote was and wasn't a caricature of himself. He was already different and memorable, so he made himself different and memorable. He obviously observed people and he got them to share infinitely intimate details with him by sharing some of his own first. The Truman Capote that we saw all those years ago on The Tonight Show (unfortunately, I'm too young to remember him from anywhere else) was represented in full color in Infamous.
He wasn't anywhere in Capote.