The Truman Show

I've watched several films that have been set in the near past, about 30 or 40 years ago. Good Night and Good Luck was set in the early 50s. 50 Ways to Say Fabulous was set in the 1970s. Capote was set in the 1960s.
Loggerheads was set just 5 years ago, mostly because of laws that applied then, but no longer now.

There are several reasons to set a story in the past. The most obvious reason is that it's historical, and you want to set history at the correct time in history. A second reason is to evoke a period in history. I suspect moviemakers enjoy the idea of recreating a period.

Capote is set from 1960-1965. Unlike Good Night and Good Luck which didn't offer much insight into who Edward Murrow was, Capote does offer some insight into Truman Capote, the gay writer from Alabama, famous for writing Breakfast at Tiffany's before penning the non-fiction account of the murders of Clutter family by Perry Smith and Dick Hickok.

Philip Seymour Hoffman turns in another great performance as Capote. The problem, I suppose, with biopics is the degree of impersonation. You don't have to get it right, per se. People admired Anthony Hopkins playing Richard Nixon, even if the impersonation isn't entirely faithful. It's even easier if no one knows who the person is. Richard Crenna once played Ross Perot, before Perot ran for President. If that film were made today, it would significantly narrow the choices of actors, because people would expect someone that resembled Perot.

The film, in many ways, parallels the story it's trying to tell. Capote is seen as someone who alternately cares for Perry Smith, seeing him as a darker side of himself. Both he and Perry were artists of sorts. Perry drew fairly well, and tried to read and use advanced vocabulary. Capote, of course, was well-known as an author. Both had mothers that were abusive and uncaring to one degree or another. Yet, as portrayed, Capote cared about his book and his own fame more than he cared about Perry. He was willing to like to Perry to get what he wanted, which was a good story.

To that extent, the film also dramatizes events. It was said Capote never wrote again after In Cold Blood, though he did write again, but just once. Other characters in his life are underplayed so Capote gets credit. This includes Harper Lee, who was Capote's best friend since youth. She's described as manly, but you never get a sense of that. Jack Dunphy is shown as, well, Capote's lover? I mean, you know they are friends, and perhaps more than that, but their relationship is never established better than that.

I once watched a horrible, horrible biopic about Dale Earnhardt. Half the dialogue seemed like a reading of Earnhardt's resume of wins. When Capote talks about his own work, at least, he's sounds egotistical. He loves to tell stories and to entertain crowds. He gains pleasure from the fame, and yet, they also want him to deal with the demons that favors the prisoners being executed so he can get a good story. There's some plausibility that he thinks he's writing the novel of the century.

If Capote is good, it's in its quiet portrayals and it's reproduction of the era, in its looks, but it resembles more of a photograph of the era than something really evocative. Again, Chris Cooper is excellent, in a supporting role, who plays the beleagured sheriff that wants to see the prisoners executed.

It's funny what you pay attention to in a film. Capote was a rather diminuitive man. Hoffman is about 5'10", not towering, but not exactly short. They must have played a few camera tricks to make him look short.

As with any film dealing with execution, there's always the issue of capital punishment. On the one hand, they show the grisly killing. On the other, they show the hanging (yeah, I was surprised about that too), and try to give the tension of what it must be like to be hung. Perry's breathing becomes elevated, his head covered in a black cloth, and the reaction of Hoffman reacting to the hanging.

There's supposed to be another Truman Capote film in the works, and that one will cover a longer period of time, especially a few years after this event. This isn't scheduled to come out until next year. It will be interesting to see how that one turns out. This kind of "movies in cluster" happens from time to time. For example, Dangerous Liasions and Valmont cover roughly the same story (based on the same play), though I much prefer the first. Valmont in particular has an ending that doesn't work for me.

Apparently, Milos Forman finds the thought of a woman that gets back together with a guy who seems to have control over her, then dumps him, to be rather emotionally intense, and uses it in this plot. Like Ebert, who recounts this story, I find it puzzling. He attributes it to European sensibility (or nonsensibility).

We'll see if the new Capote movie is any good or not.

I'll have to blog about the monster movie day I had yesterday, watching four consecutive movie offerings in a row. I wasn't exhausted really, so that bodes well for a life reporting at film festivals! :).