Good film

Rating: 7/10 (9 September 2008)

The only reason to make a film about someone as controversially repugnant as Truman Capote would be to illuminate his greatest quality- his superb prose writing. At his best, Capote was one of last century's greatest wordsmiths. Instead, the current film, Capote, focuses on the lesser things the man was known for- his showmanship, sensationalism, and homosexuality- although in that last category what is shown is tame and watered down. Now, I'm not saying that a full fledged swordfight between Philip Seymour Hoffman (who plays Capote) and Bruce Greenwood (who plays his lover Jack Dunphy) was necessary, but since the film focuses on the six years Capote was researching and writing his 1965 non-fiction novel In Cold Blood, because of his homoerotic attraction for one of the two killers the book follows, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins, Jr.), it would have illuminated something more about the man. Of course, what creative processes were behind Capote's creation of what he termed 'a whole new form of writing'- the 'non-fiction novel'- would have been even better.
That said, these elements, which are the fault of the screenplay by Dan Futterman, adapted from Gerald Clarke's biography Capote, are the only things that keep this good film from greatness. All the rest of it, including the direction by Bennett Miller, is superb, starting with Hoffman's stab at the icon. This is not a hagiography, and the film makes several wise choices, of which showing Capote's flaws is one. Another excellent choice is to not do a cradle to grave biopic. By focusing only on a few year period it allows us a look at a pivotal point in the character's life. But why, then, not go deeper into the creative processes of the artist? Why not try to provide some insight into why this meek, little man would be so attracted to an amoral thug? Manifestly, there is nothing left to get at with the November 15th, 1959, Holcomb, Kansas murders of the Clutter clan by Smith and Dick Hickock (Mark Pellegrino). As with Leopold and Loeb, before them, and any number of spree killers after them, they are relative ciphers. So, why Capote's need to 'understand' them, especially Smith, if not the homo-eroticism? Unless the whole point of the film is to show us Capote as a vampire, waiting for the pair's execution so he could have a good ending for his book.
Yet, there was so much more to be mined- Capote's relationship with Jack Dunphy- both as a lover and artist. Considering that Dunphy was not in a league with Capote as a writer would have made their dynamic all the more interesting, as well giving the criminally underrated Greenwood (so good in the cult TV series Nowhere Man and as JFK in the Kevin Costner film Thirteen Days) a chance to show his considerable acting chops in a major role, in an arts house film. Another waste was the whole presence of Capote's childhood friend, Catherine Keener's (Nelle) Harper Lee character, despite her solid portrayal, especially considering her own one hit wonder, To Kill A Mockingbird, was big right at this timeÂ…. A final point, though, and that is with the title of the film. Given the wise decision to not go cradle to grave, why such an all-encompassing title? Why not something more specific and germane to what is on screen? As with much else in the film, such as Hoffman's over-hyped, but solid, performance, it is these little niggles and wrong turns that make so much of what the film does right go wrong enough to just miss being something truly great.