Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Capote

Reno said:
Not sure. I already heard people say that they would be put off from reading anything by Capote because the film makes him out to be such an awful man. I went to college with a girl who told me that they liked the music in the film Amadeus, but were now put off from checking out any more music by Mozart because he came across as such a jerk. :rolleyes:


i agree, that's ridiculous. But is it the film maker's responsibility to bear in mind quite how stupid some cinemagoers are? :)
 
Dubversion said:
i agree, that's ridiculous. But is it the film maker's responsibility to bear in mind quite how stupid some cinemagoers are? :)

True and in all honesty writing is a difficult process to get across on screen. It's just that Capote is one of my favourite writers and the fact that he was a deeply flawed person doesn't take away from my enjoyment of his work.
 
Reno said:
True and in all honesty writing is a difficult process to get across on screen. It's just that Capote is one of my favourite writers and the fact that he was a deeply flawed person doesn't take away from my enjoyment of his work.


quite right, that's exactly my take (and it's why i'm so alarmed by Leica's post above).
 
Dubversion said:
(and it's why i'm so alarmed by Leica's post above).

I can see where she's coming from. There are few people on these boards as knowledgeable about film (and art in general) as Leica, so I thoroughly respect her wish not to see the film.
 
Reno said:
I can see where she's coming from. There are few people on these boards as knowledgeable about film (and art in general) as Leica, so I thoroughly respect her wish not to see the film.


i agree about her knowledge, it never fails to impress me, but i do find her attitude to the relationship between the artist and the artist's work a weird one.

probably not fair to discuss it further in her absence
 
For many reasons I don't like to be too personal in my posts here so I will try to respond as best as possible with only the necessary details.

When I was growing up I spent a lot of time looking for books to inspire me, and I hold Capote's books very close to my heart. The first book of his I read was a collection of short stories called "Music for Chameleons". On the cover there was a photograph of Capote taken by Henri Cartier-Bresson. He looks young, tormented, and the huge vegetation surrounding him accentuates his enigmatic expression. I associated the narrator in his stories with this picture. I have an inner image of his voice. His character is embodied by some people I have come to know over the years. I think the film will interfere with my understanding. I also think it would demand from me to betray my younger self, and I want to stay true to myself.

Dubversion, you can call me precious if you like but I have great respect for Capote and I really don't want to know what he was like as a person, and I don't want to know how he went about his private life, apart from the things he said himself about it. This is a different position from defending his representation in the film.

As for the Elvis issue, I object to criticisms of Elvis that portray him as someone helpless - everybody makes choices in their lives and he wasn't any different to anyone else. There is nothing about Elvis that gives the right to take apart his life and put a value on every find.
 
Leica said:
Dubversion, you can call me precious if you like but I have great respect for Capote and I really don't want to know what he was like as a person, and I don't want to know how he went about his private life, apart from the things he said himself about it. This is a different position from defending his representation in the film.
.

I respect that, and to an extent understand it. I've just never personally been too bothered if there's a discrepancy between the value i place on an artist (of whatever type) and what they actually seem to have been like. If anything, i can find them more fascinating if there is some tension between the two. But that's just my take on it..

Leica said:
As for the Elvis issue, I object to criticisms of Elvis that portray him as someone helpless - everybody makes choices in their lives and he wasn't any different to anyone else. There is nothing about Elvis that gives the right to take apart his life and put a value on every find.

But it's a given that an artist of Elvis' stature (which is almost unparalleled) is going to be dissected and examined and contextualised or whatever. I don't believe Elvis was entirely helpless, but I do think in many ways he was. This isn't a criticism of Elvis at all - he was in a unique position, pretty much, and prone to forces of manipulation and control and profiteering almost unheard of before him (even Sinatra or Rudolf Valentino or whoever didn't get put through the mill the way he was). So to say that he was to an extent powerless to save his career from its arguably redundant periods is not to criticism him but to recognise what he was up against. I wouldn't suggest that anybody else at the time would have done any better...
 
Dubversion said:
But it's a given that an artist of Elvis' stature (which is almost unparalleled) is going to be dissected and examined and contextualised or whatever. I don't believe Elvis was entirely helpless, but I do think in many ways he was. This isn't a criticism of Elvis at all - he was in a unique position, pretty much, and prone to forces of manipulation and control and profiteering almost unheard of before him (even Sinatra or Rudolf Valentino or whoever didn't get put through the mill the way he was). So to say that he was to an extent powerless to save his career from its arguably redundant periods is not to criticism him but to recognise what he was up against. I wouldn't suggest that anybody else at the time would have done any better...

I'm going to have to disagree again. What makes you think that his career needed saving from something? This implies that it was doomed, or something equally religious. What if Elvis Presley was perfectly content with his career? What if he was happy to play in Hawaiian films, and to sing every night in Las Vegas. Just because this picture does not conform with the expectations and desires of music biographers, journalists and associated experts, it doesn't mean that is not what he actually wanted to do.
 
Leica said:
I'm going to have to disagree again. What makes you think that his career needed saving from something? This implies that it was doomed, or something equally religious. What if Elvis Presley was perfectly content with his career? What if he was happy to play in Hawaiian films, and to sing every night in Las Vegas. Just because this picture does not conform with the expectations and desires of music biographers, journalists and associated experts, it doesn't mean that is not what he actually wanted to do.


But Leica we've been here before - his unhappiness with the path of his career in the 60s is common knowledge. supported by interviews, testimonies of friends and colleagues etc etc. he REALLY wasn't happy making most of those films, or the underwhelming soundtracks that went with them. Sorry, but this isn't just journalistic conjecture, it's fact.
 
Dubversion said:
But Leica we've been here before - his unhappiness with the path of his career in the 60s is common knowledge. supported by interviews, testimonies of friends and colleagues etc etc. he REALLY wasn't happy making most of those films, or the underwhelming soundtracks that went with them. Sorry, but this isn't just journalistic conjecture, it's fact.
I don't know that he was unhappy. And before you begin quoting interviews and testimonies about how he was missing going to the diner and getting a burger, and forced to work to pay off gambling debts and so on, it seems nearly everyone has an opinion about Elvis' happiness. What is unhappiness anyway? The sweetest image I have of him is sitting in the dark and looking at the stars on the screen in the days when he was working in a movie theatre. I can see him wanting to jump in the screen and be part of it, and he did. All the rest of his short life is his dream coming true. If you consider the effort he put into assuming the role and interpreting the words in his songs, you'll see it there too. Sometimes I think, well what would have happened if Elvis got together with the Stax people, wouldn't it be great if he'd been in a John Ford western. It's only a projection of my wishes. The fact is that he made good stuff and also made mistakes and lived his life and died, and what we have is what he left behind and this must do. His films are part of popular culture and have a life of their own, you may not like them but they signify a lot to plenty of people.
 
Leica said:
I don't know that he was unhappy. And before you begin quoting interviews and testimonies about how he was missing going to the diner and getting a burger, and forced to work to pay off gambling debts and so on, it seems nearly everyone has an opinion about Elvis' happiness. What is unhappiness anyway? The sweetest image I have of him is sitting in the dark and looking at the stars on the screen in the days when he was working in a movie theatre. I can see him wanting to jump in the screen and be part of it, and he did. All the rest of his short life is his dream coming true. If you consider the effort he put into assuming the role and interpreting the words in his songs, you'll see it there too. Sometimes I think, well what would have happened if Elvis got together with the Stax people, wouldn't it be great if he'd been in a John Ford western. It's only a projection of my wishes. The fact is that he made good stuff and also made mistakes and lived his life and died, and what we have is what he left behind and this must do. His films are part of popular culture and have a life of their own, you may not like them but they signify a lot to plenty of people.

we're not going to agree about this, and i respect your opinion and i love Elvis dearly. It's just odd that we can end up at such different perspectives.
 
Dubversion said:
we're not going to agree about this, and i respect your opinion and i love Elvis dearly. It's just odd that we can end up at such different perspectives.
Some contradictions are good, because they are productive. As I've said before, we have a common base and that's what matters, if we didn't I wouldn't be arguing with you. I just don't know why I get so confrontational about this whole thing (I'm sorry). I'm not sure but I think I can't face to hear that he was powerless... it's not how I want to think of him. We all construct our own personal mythologies I guess. Anyhow... it's getting late once more and I've got an early start tomorrow.

"tear it all apart, but love me"
 
Reno said:
Could that be because Tsotsi is just so obviously manipulative and is playing the emotional responses of an uncritical audience like a grand piano ?

Actually I would agree with you on this. Tsotsi really is incredibly manipulative and perhaps artistically Capote is a better film.... but whilst recognising this I still enjoyed watching Tsotsi more than Capote.

That being said, Capote has led to many hours of discussion between myself and my boyfriend very much along the lines of what PieEye was saying in one of her posts and I still can't stop thinking about it. I just think he was out and out manipulative wheres my boyfriend reckons that there was real compassion there too....
 
Apologies for length of this but I watched Capote on the weekend and thought it was great, very very absorbing and extremely moving. All the performances were a credit to the cast and the look and the feel of the movie was perfect.

I don’t really agree that Capote was pictured out’n’out as some manipulative monster, I think the way that the plot unfurled was much more clever and on the ball than that. Remember that Capote said he wanted to make the killers humans again, rather than the monsters that the media would portray them as – and to that point, within the context of the movie, he was successful, as you found yourself becoming sympathetic towards the killers despite their having committed 4 brutal murders, as you saw Capote use deceit and psychological manipulation to unravel the truth behind what had taken place.

But you also saw the struggles and torment within himself very clearly, and the overlay between the professional writer and his inner person who worried that people had him nailed down as soon as they met him, thus leading to his need to place himself at the centre of events to confound this expectation.

***SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT***

Contrast the two scenes of men crying in the film – first, when Perry begins to finally reveal what happened on the night of the killings, we see a tear run down his cheek as he says that he looked at this nice man and realised that this nice man was scared of him as he thought he was going to kill him, and as a result, Perry felt terrible. However, instead of walking away from the situation, it actually unleashes some demonic surge of violence. It is shown as a disassociative event, and completely at odds with the portrayal of the character to date.

Cut to the scene as Capote meets the killers prior to their execution – again, we see tears, this time from the author, as the grim realisation that this isn’t some semi-fictional narrative that is played out on the pages of a book, but two human lives that are about to be ended. On top of this, even though by this point the 2 characters are more than aware that Capote hasn’t been as straight as he could have been with them, they still want him to come along for their last moments. And it crushes him because he does care about Perry, because he does want to feel that he did his best for them, and because he knows that the professional part of him also took advantage of a situation to write a novel that he hopes will change the way that people write in the future. He cannot disassociate himself from these events, in the way that Perry has done and thus the violence of the execution hits him (and you) like a bullet in the head.

The coda of the call from Harper Lee, and the final epitaph re: unanswered prayers, strongly imply his moral dilemmas and mixed-up confusion continuing long after the events portayed – I feel it is far too simplistic to point the finger at Capote as some evil or mendacious man, without digging a bit more into what has gone before. Simply brilliant stuff, well worth viewing.
 
I recently saw this film, and without knowing of capote or his novels, I found it hard to appreciate his literary prowess by watching this film. I could and couldn't identify with his actions. Was capote under any illusions as to perry smith's guilt. Hope is expressed in the first half of the film and then once perry tells him of that night in question, then a period of resignation follows.
I felt empty after watching this. I felt something but I don't know what.
 
Maltin said:
Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance was excellent. His impression of Capote's distinctive voice was sometimes annoying but he was always compelling.

Agreed.
 
What do you mean by happiness or unhappiness? And what makes you think you can judge that someone you don't know possessed it?
 
I thought that Capote was one of those films that I admired more than I actually enjoyed.

I can relate to what muser said about feeling 'empty' after watching it. It was one of those films with no characters (Harper Lee aside) that were particularly likable or that you wanted to see come out on top. The bleak middle-american backdrop seemed to add to that sense of emptiness too.

It also seemed to drag a bit in the middle for me and I found myself losing interest and just waiting for it to finish. I thought it made up for that with the weight of the emotional punch at the end though.
 
I loved this.
I'm a big fan of Phillip Seymour Hoffman due to his uncanny ability to play the most grotesque and unlikable characters (see Happiness, Mr Ripley...) yet NOT make me hate them.

His portrayal of Capote fitted this mould as well - selfindulgent and exploitative, but with something deeper.

I suppose the fact that my father liked it pretty much means it was a great film.
 
Nicsi said:
I loved this. I'm a big fan of Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Me too.

To add to the couple of films you mentioned, I also thoroughly enjoyed his performance in Almost Famous as Lester Bangs.
 
just saw this on monday night (on at the Peckham Multiplex still - 3.99!) ... what a great film... it's not often the credits start to roll and I sit there contemplating things/human nature/life. PSH was excellent (as he often is) and the whole film was gorgeously uncomfortable at points..

this film really stayed with me... makes me want to read In Cold Blood.
 
Back
Top Bottom