Infamous Reviews

[Big Magilla]

Damien - a great review, but you might want to correct a few typos. Catherine Keener was dull as dishwater, not a dishwasher. It was Daniel Craig, not Clarke, and Jeff Daniels, not Jack Daniels.

[Damien]

“Infamous,” which I sw today, is far superior to “Capote” in every conceivable way, starting with the performances of the lead actors. Whereas Phillip Seymour Hoffman strained mightily to impersonate and fit into Truman Capote’s persona – so much so that he gave the writer the off-putting and inappropriate appearance of being continuously constipated – Toby Jones simply IS Truman Capote. With Hoffman, one was always aware of an actor playing a part, but Jones’s performance is absolutely seamless. And Jones also succeeds in what was Hoffman’s worst failing: he conveys Truman Capote’s charm and charisma, and enables us to comprehend the attraction he had for people, despite his undeniably odd demeanor. Jones is often very, very funny – Hoffman was not even vaguely amusing.

As for the movies themselves, I was surprised at just how closely the two track each other, covering so many of the same incidents. Despite that, they are a world apart. “Capote” was a very self-conscious and pompous picture, failing in its attempt to say something about the relationship between muse and artist. It was stodgy as hell, and the director (I can’t remember the guy’s name) treated it all as if he were making an Important Statement – a Stanley Kramer for the new millennium. Everything about the film just slogged along, and the final put-down – a supposed revelatory moment – of Capote by Harper Lee was a complete putdown. It was a tunnel vision portrait of Truman Capote – an unhappy and unpleasant man supposedly learning about real life and real people for the first time, and the filmmakers' attitude toward their title character made it seemd as if they likened him to an unpleasant smell encountered upon entering a room.

Doug McGrath, on the other hand marvelously creates an ambience for “Infamous” that mirrors Truman Capote’s world: “Infamous” is often great fun, and it marvelously replicates mid-century New York City High Society, as a brittle, devastatingly witty and stylish place, but one also imbued with a self-awareness of sadness, and that was apparently Capote’s persona, too.

“Capote” ignored the fun side of this bon vivant, and the New York scenes in the earlier film were as dreary as those set in Kansas. In the earlier film, the writer is presented as a troubled, unpleasant man; here he is much more complex: a creative person who’s demanding and presumptuous, but also loving, loyal, gentle, vulnerable. And the relationship between Capote and Perry Smith is much more adult and multi-layered here. In “Capote” it was all very sentimental, what with Clifton Collins’s puppy dog persona. Daniel Craig on the other hand is off-putting and scary as hell. Here, Truman’s attraction to him reads as an irresistible fascination with evil -- the interaction between the two men in “Infamous” is very complex, with a back-and-forth, yin and yang of master/servant, top and bottom; in “Capote” it was a sappy rendering of a sad sack looking for love and approval by a dominant figure who was merely exploiting the other.

Oh, “Infamous” deals with that exploitation – which was the entire subject of “Capote” - but because it does so in the midst of other betrayals and manipulations, the ultimate impact that Truman's own actions ultimately have on him become devastating to the viewer.

Chris Cooper is a much more interesting and nuanced actor than Jeff Daniels, but in every other case, the “Infamous” cast is far superior to “Capote”’s. (And mention must be made of how “Capote” failed at something essential to the narrative, something at which “Infamous” succeeds wonderfully: showing how the unique and admittedly bizarre figure that Truman Capote was was able to ingratiate himself with the good people of small town Kansas.)

Catherine Keener’s Harper Lee was dull as dishwasher, a schoolmarm of whom one couldn’t conceive as a person with whom Capote would be friends with. The memorably lively Bullock, on the other hand, also provides the moral gravitas called for, be she additionally creates a character who has a sense of fun and mischief and curiosity – she indeed seems like she’s Mary Badham of “To Kill A Mockingbird” all grown up. Juliet Stevenson and Sigourney Weaver create portraits of Diana Vreeland and Babe Paley that are both larger than life but also, subtly, completely human. And the wonderful stage actor, John Benjamin Hickey, conveys all the frustration it must have been to be Jack Dunphy. Finally, the opening scene in which Gwynneth Paltrow’s ersatz Peggy Lee, breaks down while singing “What Is This Thing Called Love?” beautifully crystalizes the film’s main theme. T

hat Hoffman won an Oscar and “Capote” scored multiple nominations while “Infamous” will likely – with the possible exception of Sandra Bullock – be ignored, is all one has to know about how the Oscars are worthless as any true kind of gauge of actual quality. It’s all in extraneous factors, such as when a picture is released. “Capote” was snide and had a completely unearned sense of moral superiority. “”Infamous” is compassionate and wise, and sorrowful without its sadness ever being worn on its sleeve.

[VanHelsing]

Rex Reed claims that "they gave the Oscar to the wrong Truman Capote". You can read his positive review HERE.

[Anon]

Armond White prefers this to Capote, which he disliked intensely:

It is rare for a new movie to correct conventional wisdom, but Infamous—the new biopic about writer Truman Capote—does just that. Director/screenwriter Douglas McGrath observes a literary celebrity’s life with fidelity to history and with genuine compassion. This sane, generous, very entertaining perspective also sets the movie universe back on course. And if there is any justice in that universe, Infamous will eclipse last year’s obnoxious Philip Seymour Hoffman vehicle.

Full article here

Wow, that's some real hate for last year's Capote (or, more to the point, Hoffman).

It's bad enough that I was disappointed to see Hoffman take the Oscar at Ledger's expense, but to now argue, as Armond White does, that this performance was tinged with homophobia, that's all I need to hear to intensify my resentment.

[VanHelsing]

Penelope, I LOVE you!

Glad you liked her performance. Come to think of it, if (a BIG one) she does get nominated, she has a strong chance of winning cause I don't see the point of nominating two actresses playing a real-life character back to back and then make them lose. So, either she gets nominated and win OR she does not get nominated at all. I feel VERY sad to say this but I'm betting on the latter. The film's poor box-office take won't help either.

And yes, While You Were Sleeping was THE film that made me fell in love with Sandy. She was absolutely charming in that one.

[Penelope]

Infamous is like two movies that occasionally but never entirely gel: Truman Capote the social gadfly and Truman Capote the author of In Cold Blood. The film is stronger on the former and frustratingly weak on the latter, particularly due to the unfortunate miscasting of Daniel Craig, who tries, but is physically and emotionally all wrong for the role of Perry Smith.

Toby Jones is certainly more physically right for Capote than was Philip Seymour Hoffman, and he's much more comfortable with the witty repartee. But there were shadings to Hoffman's performance that aren't present in Jones' performance.

I will say this, however: if Catherine Keener can get a nomination for being a non-entity as Harper Lee, then Sandra Bullock absolutely should win for being such a exquisitely yet subtly vibrant Lee. Over the years, I've had a very mixed reaction to Bullock--I honestly felt she was nomination-worthy in While You Were Sleeping, appreciated her warm, generous presence in Speed and Miss Congiality, thanked her for making Forces of Nature endurable, but cringed with her shrill, excruciating turns in Two Weeks Notice and Crash. Infamous allows her to finally merge her warmth with a richly detailed characterization, sustaining her comic charm with dramatic heft. She has a final monologue that is devastating on so many emotional levels. It's an absolutely marvelous performance and I do hope it's remembered.

[Sonic Youth]

Poor Infamous.

Reading the reviews for Infamous, I can't help but feel sorry for it. Most of the reviews are good, but all the headlines allude to the first "Capote". And many of the reviews come to the same conlusion:

"It's a stellar cast, but you can't help but lament the bad timing." - USA Today

[dws1982]

Armond White prefers this to Capote, which he disliked intensely:

It is rare for a new movie to correct conventional wisdom, but Infamous—the new biopic about writer Truman Capote—does just that. Director/screenwriter Douglas McGrath observes a literary celebrity’s life with fidelity to history and with genuine compassion. This sane, generous, very entertaining perspective also sets the movie universe back on course. And if there is any justice in that universe, Infamous will eclipse last year’s obnoxious Philip Seymour Hoffman vehicle.

Full article here

[Penelope]

Have you read W. Somerset Maugham's novel, Reza? I've not seen the Garbo version, but the book is a fantastic read. That said, my gut tells me the remake is going to bomb anyway.

[Reza]

Jones may still be nominated but for supporting in The Painted Veil. I've heard that Warner Independent is positioning the film as its Oscar contender.

I don't understand why The Painted Veil is being considered as an ''Oscar'' film? It was a pretty turgid subject even back in the 1930s. Is Warner Independent so hard up for choices this year?

[VanHelsing]

Jones may still be nominated but for supporting in The Painted Veil. I've heard that Warner Independent is positioning the film as its Oscar contender.

[99-1100896887]

With so many good or expectedly good performances this year, my feeling is that Jones will be overlooked. "Infamous" may be very good and indeed a favourite among intellectuals such as "Capote" never was(certainly not Hoffman's performance), but it's a been-there done-that-last-year .

[VanHelsing]

Awww, you did that for Hawke? Guess we all have our own favorites and of course we wish the best for them. Even for those actors whom we don't like, we should at least give credit where it's due. As much as I would like to see Bullock nominated, the fact that Keener has been nominated last year always reminds me to stay realistic. But it's definitely good to know that some critics are taking notice of her work now. Better late than never.

Speaking of Hawke, I believe his directorial effort, The Hottest State, did receive some critical acclaim when it premiered at Venice. Have you seen it, Damien? Has any distributor snap it up yet? If it's released this year (which seems unlikely), it might be a late-entry contender.

[Damien]

Oh, thank you so much dws1982!

I immediately "ran" to the 3rd paragraph and read it for like, 3 times?! I'm sooooooo elated! LOL!

Gonna read the whole review after posting this. Thanks once again for posting this. Truly appreciate it.

Van I love seeing your happiness at Sandra's reviews, and I'm now rooting for an Oscar nomination for her.

It's very much akin to the way I track Ethan Hawke's reviews and the miracle of his 2001 nomination.

[VanHelsing]

Oh, thank you so much dws1982!

I immediately "ran" to the 3rd paragraph and read it for like, 3 times?! I'm sooooooo elated! LOL!

Gonna read the whole review after posting this. Thanks once again for posting this. Truly appreciate it.