![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have joined Netflix--no telling where this will lead. Last week, pre-Netflix, I kind of David Leaned myself out. I watched Brief Encounter, This Happy Breed and Lawrence of Arabia. I feel like I deserve a medal. Anyway, I had gone to the video store to rent Capote on DVD and it turned out the place had gone out of business.
I really loved this movie. I think I've spoken before about how difficult it seems to be for people to portray writers in film and on TV. All artists are really a challenge because it's almost impossible to show that mysterious moment of "making art." With writers, unfortunately, what people often resort to is just showing an episode of a TV show and then having the person announce that they are going to write the episode we've just seen as a book. We're supposed to infer from that that it will be a success. Really it seems to completely bypass what it means to be a writer. This movie really struck me as an "actor" movie, because it was so interested in the way these people worked. That in turn made the story work.
Capote really does it well. I can't even explain how...it's just real. For me more than some, maybe. I never talk about my 9-5 job on lj, and I'm not going to here, but I will say that what I do is pretty much what Capote is doing in In Cold Blood. I could go into dozens of way in which it's different but basically it's the same. So it was let's just say very interesting watching Truman Capote doing a lot of the things that I do at work--though one of the biggest differences is that he's a lot more ruthless.
I don't know if that gives me any better perspective on it, but I just loved how the movie was so ambiguous about the way they presented what Capote was doing. You see him manipulating people by sharing things about himself, and he's both honest and dishonest at the same time. He is genuinely connecting to people and telling the truth about himself, but at the same time you know that he's aware of which things he's going to share and why. At one point Capote describes himself and murderer Perry Smith by saying it's like they grew up in the same house but at some point Perry got up and walked out the back and Truman walked out the front. I think it's tempting to want to make it about a real connection between these two, that the reason Capote was so tied to this guy was because of those similarities, but it's not that simple. It's true they do connect on this level; they do have a lot of things in common. But the reason they connect is at least partially because Truman has willed himself to connect. He has to be "one" with Perry to write about him. He's intentionally building that connection up in himself to write about it.
There's just this great question at the center of lies and the truth. For instance, at one point Dewey is speaking to Capote about the book and Truman reveals the title will be In Cold Blood. He's telling Dewey this because he knows it will make him more likely to give him the information he needs. In Cold Blood implies, he knows, that he is taking the pov that the crime is heinous and he's going to write about it that way, sympathizing with the victims. Dewey asks him if the title refers to the crime or what Capote himself is doing. He insists it's the former, but of course it's also the latter. It's a lot of things. Just after this scene Capote lies to Perry Smith and claims he doesn't know the title of the book. The two scenes are great just for how they highlight how brilliant that title is. Personally, I always thought the title was intentionally tricky. The phrase "in cold blood" is used to describe a murder to reduce it to something simple, and I always took it as a title to be a bit ironic. It refers to the superficial view of the crime that Capote is going to challenge. Only he can't explain that to Perry Smith, or rather, he doesn't want to get sidetracked explaining it, so he just lies. It's not Perry's business what he's going to call his story.
The movie is just great about making its point in a way that's both blatant and natural. There are a few moments in the film where other characters will express some disapproval over what he's doing, and those scenes are very realistic-I'm sure these things happened. Yet their view does not seem to be the movie's view. It can't be, because at the center of it all is the book. The book was worth it, and we wouldn't have it if Truman Capote wasn't who he was and didn't do what he did. Somehow I feel like at the center of the movie is that understanding of art and the art scene. It shows up in everything, not just the research but in the bitchy New York society scenes and especially the small moments between Truman and Harper Lee and Jack Dunphy. Within the story of this book we've also got Harper Lee's success with "Killing the Bird"--nobody can get the title right. In the commentary the director says that they tried to never have the movie twist itself into knots to provide information. I think the only time we see the title is when Truman goes to the premiere of the film, and the ticket includes the title, To Kill A Mockingbird. (This of course also goes for Capote's alcoholism--you won't see this much alcohol drunk outside a Thin Manmovie.) The jealousy plays on a number of levels since on one hand you see Truman performing for society crowds, but on the other hand you (or at least I) could feel the fear and envy of Jack Dunphy when Truman tells him Harper has sold her book. Because of that you can't help but feel Truman's conflict as he just can't feel badly about Dick and Perry being executed until he knows it's going to happen because he needs them to be executed. If they don't, he just won't have a good story. There's no use denying it and Capote, as a writer, can't not make that his priority. Once the story is safe he can be sympathetic. He can be honestly grief-stricken about the execution and honestly relieved about it, and that's what makes it powerful.
Beside the issue of art, I think it also brings up what's so scary about this kind of book for so many. Dewey, when he asks if "in cold blood" refers to the fact that Capote is still visiting these killers and has even gotten them a lawyer, is basically accusing Capote of betraying the "good people" by caring about the bad guys. His insistance on seeing the killers as just as human as the victims is threatening, and that goes beyond art, I think, and into the way people see the world.
I really loved this movie. I think I've spoken before about how difficult it seems to be for people to portray writers in film and on TV. All artists are really a challenge because it's almost impossible to show that mysterious moment of "making art." With writers, unfortunately, what people often resort to is just showing an episode of a TV show and then having the person announce that they are going to write the episode we've just seen as a book. We're supposed to infer from that that it will be a success. Really it seems to completely bypass what it means to be a writer. This movie really struck me as an "actor" movie, because it was so interested in the way these people worked. That in turn made the story work.
Capote really does it well. I can't even explain how...it's just real. For me more than some, maybe. I never talk about my 9-5 job on lj, and I'm not going to here, but I will say that what I do is pretty much what Capote is doing in In Cold Blood. I could go into dozens of way in which it's different but basically it's the same. So it was let's just say very interesting watching Truman Capote doing a lot of the things that I do at work--though one of the biggest differences is that he's a lot more ruthless.
I don't know if that gives me any better perspective on it, but I just loved how the movie was so ambiguous about the way they presented what Capote was doing. You see him manipulating people by sharing things about himself, and he's both honest and dishonest at the same time. He is genuinely connecting to people and telling the truth about himself, but at the same time you know that he's aware of which things he's going to share and why. At one point Capote describes himself and murderer Perry Smith by saying it's like they grew up in the same house but at some point Perry got up and walked out the back and Truman walked out the front. I think it's tempting to want to make it about a real connection between these two, that the reason Capote was so tied to this guy was because of those similarities, but it's not that simple. It's true they do connect on this level; they do have a lot of things in common. But the reason they connect is at least partially because Truman has willed himself to connect. He has to be "one" with Perry to write about him. He's intentionally building that connection up in himself to write about it.
There's just this great question at the center of lies and the truth. For instance, at one point Dewey is speaking to Capote about the book and Truman reveals the title will be In Cold Blood. He's telling Dewey this because he knows it will make him more likely to give him the information he needs. In Cold Blood implies, he knows, that he is taking the pov that the crime is heinous and he's going to write about it that way, sympathizing with the victims. Dewey asks him if the title refers to the crime or what Capote himself is doing. He insists it's the former, but of course it's also the latter. It's a lot of things. Just after this scene Capote lies to Perry Smith and claims he doesn't know the title of the book. The two scenes are great just for how they highlight how brilliant that title is. Personally, I always thought the title was intentionally tricky. The phrase "in cold blood" is used to describe a murder to reduce it to something simple, and I always took it as a title to be a bit ironic. It refers to the superficial view of the crime that Capote is going to challenge. Only he can't explain that to Perry Smith, or rather, he doesn't want to get sidetracked explaining it, so he just lies. It's not Perry's business what he's going to call his story.
The movie is just great about making its point in a way that's both blatant and natural. There are a few moments in the film where other characters will express some disapproval over what he's doing, and those scenes are very realistic-I'm sure these things happened. Yet their view does not seem to be the movie's view. It can't be, because at the center of it all is the book. The book was worth it, and we wouldn't have it if Truman Capote wasn't who he was and didn't do what he did. Somehow I feel like at the center of the movie is that understanding of art and the art scene. It shows up in everything, not just the research but in the bitchy New York society scenes and especially the small moments between Truman and Harper Lee and Jack Dunphy. Within the story of this book we've also got Harper Lee's success with "Killing the Bird"--nobody can get the title right. In the commentary the director says that they tried to never have the movie twist itself into knots to provide information. I think the only time we see the title is when Truman goes to the premiere of the film, and the ticket includes the title, To Kill A Mockingbird. (This of course also goes for Capote's alcoholism--you won't see this much alcohol drunk outside a Thin Manmovie.) The jealousy plays on a number of levels since on one hand you see Truman performing for society crowds, but on the other hand you (or at least I) could feel the fear and envy of Jack Dunphy when Truman tells him Harper has sold her book. Because of that you can't help but feel Truman's conflict as he just can't feel badly about Dick and Perry being executed until he knows it's going to happen because he needs them to be executed. If they don't, he just won't have a good story. There's no use denying it and Capote, as a writer, can't not make that his priority. Once the story is safe he can be sympathetic. He can be honestly grief-stricken about the execution and honestly relieved about it, and that's what makes it powerful.
Beside the issue of art, I think it also brings up what's so scary about this kind of book for so many. Dewey, when he asks if "in cold blood" refers to the fact that Capote is still visiting these killers and has even gotten them a lawyer, is basically accusing Capote of betraying the "good people" by caring about the bad guys. His insistance on seeing the killers as just as human as the victims is threatening, and that goes beyond art, I think, and into the way people see the world.
Tags: