Capote VS Infamous
-
DianneBellmont — 13 years ago(January 13, 2013 05:58 PM)
I saw Infamous first, then Capote a half hour later. As much as I adore Hoffman and admire his work as an actor, I preferred Infamous.
Capote was plodding and didn't keep my attention. The script, music and sets were far superior with Infamous.
As a side note, I adore Sandy Bullock, but I think Catherine Keener nailed the part of Nelle Harper Lee in Capote.
*The Manitou is in and will take your calls now. -
-
rdeschene — 16 years ago(March 22, 2010 07:06 AM)
Having watched "Capote" again last night, and "Infamous" a week ago, I feel that "Capote" is the better film, from an artistic standpoint. Nearly every aspect of it is perfect. But I also felt that, as brilliant as Philip Seymour Hoffman was in this role, and as much as he completely transformed himself, I didn't find it completely believable that people would have been as enthralled by him as they were. I thought that Toby Jones did a better job of getting that charisma across.
But, having said that, I think the respective points of boths films were different. "Capote" seemed to be about showing the inner downward spiral created by Capote's decision to manipulate Perry to get his story, and to pretend that he'd done all he could to keep them from being executed, when in reality he'd done nothing of the sort. It appears that decision was, in the end, Capote's own undoing. On the other hand, "Infamous" seemed more about the craft of writing, and what a writer like Capote did in his relationships with people to tweak and bend the truth to suit his own desired narrative. He seemed to be more of a compulsive liar here than the master manipulator "Capote" made him out to be. "Infamous"'s telling of the story, too, had disastrous consequences for Capote, as he found himself caught in a relationship with Perry over which he seemed to have very little control (very different from how "Capote" presented it).
After watching "Infamous" last week, my initial feeling was that I liked it better, if only because the performances were a bit more accessible, the writing had more of a natural (if predictable) narrative flow. It's hard not to contrast the two films, given how closely together they came, but they are two remarkably different presentations of essentially the same story . . . just as two different eyewitnesses will often present two very different recollections of what they saw.
As amazing an actor as he is, Hoffman has a way of making his characters seem insular and emotionally isolated from others, whereas Jones was more convincing to me in his interactions with others. He seemed far more emotionally engaged, and engaging . . . even if half of what he said was pure fiction. But I found myself believing more that people could fall for what he said, than I did with Hoffman's portrayal.
It's hard not to contrast the two performances of Nelle Harper Lee. Again, very different takes on the same character. Catherine Keener is more hard as nails; she has a quiet dignity, yet also has a wild streak of humor and fierce determination that give her the most moral authority of anyone in the film. Sandra Bullock, on the other hand, was a pleasant surprise. For once, I didn't feel like I was watching Sandra Bullock, but a character. Through her character, she perfectly articulates the anguish that comes with being a writer. It's a side of the craft that few understand . . . even those who have been there. Her deft sensitivity also shines through in her attempts to understand and explain her friendship with Capote. Interesting echo from the story: I found myself wishing she could have been my friend.
Daniel Craig's portrayal of Perry Smith was absolutely riveting (as was that of Clifton Collins, though in a much quieter, more subtle way). I found Perry's growing trust in Capote quite believable in "Infamous" because the foundation for it was more compelling, somehow. It made sense to me, again, even if the details presented are complete fiction. I guess that's the point of trying to understand Truman Capote; how much of what we know of the man is fact, how much fiction? How much of his writing is truth, how much of it spun from his imagination? I doubt that there will ever be a definitive answer to that question. Both films have a different take on that. In "Infamous," it's the developing relationship, and how that forces Capote to change his game plan, that is the focus, whereas in "Capote," it's how Capote manipulates Perry to get what he wants.
In the end, both films are superb wonderings of what drove Capote to be the way he was. -
Vergilya — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 05:48 AM)
I still say it's Infamous. I don't know which one is closer to the truth or which one better represents Truman for who he really was. From the way the story is told Infamous is more enjoyable and the development of the characters are beautifully captured. Capote is a little more bland and dry and doesn't really get into the heart and soul of the characters. I would have preferred Toby Jones to win the Oscar, but then again - That's Hollywood.
-
gioconda — 15 years ago(August 07, 2010 11:54 PM)
I hung out w/Truman Capote several times.
Nearly impossible to describe. So over the top, brilliant, brave, unacceptably intoxicated, outspoken, ruthlessly witty & hilarious. Loved his special cache & "in" w/wives of the uber rich & famous, as he dragged a grizzly butch Irishman around everywhere, whom he adored, hard-drinking married truck driver & father of 7 kids. What a couple. Truman wore huge white and pastel women's straw hats w/giant sashes & gigantic sunglasses. At 4' 11" the impression was an elfish insect in drag.
Toby Jones' portrayal of him is more like the actual person than PSH.
Both "Infamous" & Capote" are worth a look. Both lead actors are brilliant. I was disappointed in the female leads. Sandra Bullock & Catherine Keener were both so-so, particularly Sandra's attempt at a Southern accent. Both sets of killers in the two films were very good. Daniel Craig stood out as Perry.
However, the most spine-tingling portrayal of Perry is Robert Blake in the original "In Cold Blood". Mindboggling & indelible. Check it out. -
mimosa_mirabella — 15 years ago(September 12, 2010 06:42 AM)
Infamous is the better movie. Toby Jones was amazing.
http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory] -
Bozo275 — 15 years ago(February 03, 2011 10:15 PM)
You know what Hoffman thought Truman Capote should be? And you know for a fact that Toby Jones what was Capote was like?
The ideas presented in In Cold Blood and the book Capote both present this idea that Capote, as an idea is fluid, open to interpretation. Capote, by most records, was not an overwhelming evil man. Phillip Seymour Hoffman does not portray him as an evil man, just unfeeling, and disconnected.
Capote was far more darker than Infamous, and for this I give it the thumbs up. The filming is elegant, dark and yet minimalist. A great piece of cinematography, and I think Bennet Miller, the director is owed far more credit than he recieves. Capote's tone far better suits the tone of In Cold Blood, and this is why Infamous did not strike me as a particularly suitable tone.
Both Jones and Bullock are far too light for such a subject.
Capote all the way! -
Nightrider2 — 14 years ago(November 26, 2011 09:51 AM)
I liked Capote much better. While Toby Jones resembled real author there was something unpleasant about his portrayal. Hoffman seemed more genuine. Clifton Collins Jr. also did a terrific job as Perry Smith. Daniel Craig was all wrong as Smith, plus Infamous was overstuffed with famous actors which was extremely distracting.It was like big show piece. On the other hand Capote was a quiet, stylish character study. It was simply a better film.
http://www.youtube.com/user/viclis11?feature=mhee -
brahma-3 — 13 years ago(May 15, 2012 06:02 AM)
Disregarding the factor of which one you've seen first - affecting the view of the second - preference may come down to a simple thing: what were you sit down for.
Capote is the more well-rounded, better executed Hollywood drama with a more filmic delivery and an outstanding Seymour Hoffman, those who went in for the cinematic experience as a whole, will prefer the 2005 version. Infamous on the other hand is smaller scale, more personal and more analysis than tell-of-tale with an equally impressive Toby Jones, those who went in for the Truman Capote story, will prefer the 2006 version.
I'm in the latter category. I thought Jones was the slightly more convincing Capote but much better was Craig's Perry over Collins Jr's, mostly because of the more personal take on their relationship. The side-characters aren't standout in either film although Infamous gave Alvin a little more time since In Cold Blood is a tale of two. Again up to preference, but I found the character humor of Jones quite fitting as Capote was probably just as absurd upon arrival, and the gossip scenes gave me a better idea just how much his personal and social life was mixed. I also didn't mind Infamous being more 'TV' than 'cinema', after all the novel itself is more about the horrific reality than literature itself - but then again, I agree with those who say Capote is the better executed movie, I just prefer Infamous for the more personal story. -
Ambrosia-I — 13 years ago(September 09, 2012 12:36 PM)
I have to say that Toby Jones's portrayal seemed more natural to me. When I listen to Hoffman, the voice seems put on. He's worked hard to get Capote's voice and mannerisms, but I can see the wheels turning. I was entirely convinced by Toby Jones. The timbre of his voice and his effeminacy seemed unforced and completely natural. It was a tour de force performance laced with tragedy and humour.
I was also impressed by Sandra Bullock in a way I never have been before. I thought Daniel Craig was excellent as Perry. "Infamous" may not have been better on an intellectual level, but it affected me a great deal more emotionally. -
digitalbookworm5678 — 13 years ago(January 17, 2013 10:21 PM)
Just watched both back to back. Both great films
Toby Jones played the flamboyant Capote that I remember seeing on talk shows when I was growing up.
P. Seymour Hoffman played a more sedate, serious Capote except for a couple of short scenes.
Katherine Keener (Love her) played a more outspoken Harper Lee than I remember ever seeing in documentaries.
Sandra Bullock played the stern, always composed Harper Lee (she was asked to play Harper Lee in Capote also).
Capote was made to be a PSH vehicle. Better Cinematography.
Infamous had a well rounded cast. Much more characterization.
Infamous 8 / Capote 7
What decided me on Infamous being better? The huge list of goofs listed for Capote.(shot in 36 days)
Can't buy underwear balls don't fit. -