Film Review (H'wood): Capote (2005) / Book Review: In Cold Blood - Truman Capote (1966)

My guess is that the film inspired at least a few uninitiated readers of Truman Capote, such as yours truly, to become avid readers of his brilliant story-telling capabilities, especially given a glimpse into his eccentricities and clairvoyance in picking a concept. I started this piece within 5 minutes of flipping over the last page of TC's In Cold Blood - the writing of which formed the backdrop for all of the film's screenplay.

The last two words in the book are an uncharacteristic "THE END" and I'm convinced by the film's depiction of his 6 years (1959-65) that TC was thus relieved of his ordeal of writing this story. In Cold Blood was to herald the birth of a genre that TC christened as the 'non-fiction novel'. And after reading it, I'm surprised that we didn't see the genre blossom to its true potential; instead it seems to have degenerated into a bloody mess of gruesome murder reporting - a killenovela. TC himself offers some evidence of why it is a very difficult concept to execute and the film captures this ordeal painstakingly. The other, seemingly worrisome, explanation is that its impossible to stay the course of '100% Truth'. TC claimed in an interview that the story was 100% accurate and opened it up to the scrutiny of the naysayers, who're perpetually on standby. Their investigations thereof seem to find extrapolations of the Truth. I think the findings were bound to be obvious. Capote claims a 94% recall of all conversations in the film, and this was true i.e. that he claimed it. There are many who would vouch for his photographic memory, if a memory could ever be called that. He never took notes and had some assistance from Harper Lee every evening in his hotel room where they recounted the day, one of talking to every character that was remotely related to the killings in Kansas. But, unless one had a recording device, how is one to judge the veracity of a historic account - does the subject of the interview, the non-fictional character, know exactly what he or she uttered, especially under strenuous circumstances. We all know that the same experience is a different memory in every onlooker's mind and so, who is to say, with certainty, what the Truth is or what the Truth was. The truth, according to each person, is what one perceives as reality, guided by one's morality, ingrained knowledge, depth of understanding, emotional state, biases, and psychological makeup of the mind (another brilliant and subtle fictional book, entirely on this subject, is Naguib Mahfuz's Akhenaten: Dweller in Truth).

Informed with this possibility of minor aberrations from the Truth, one can yet marvel at the elements pieced together by the author. He seeks to observe and weave the interplay between fate and chance, family and abandonment, the roles of responsibility and recklessness in a child's upbringing; while also alarming the reader with a chilling account of mass murders, explained eventually by nothing but a single irrational moment.

Capote, the film, is based off the late '80's biography by Gerald Clarke. The simplicity with which the script flirts with each of TC's more humorous idiosyncrasies and then improbably pans in conflicts in his relationships and his artistic integrity is a good example of a tight screenplay and direction. Most of the credit should go to one man though - Philip Seymour Hoffman. In this Oscar-winning role, he is delightful, especially if you've caught the true-life TC, in his TV interviews or the DVD extras, and can admire the screen likeness. Capote was a natural entertainer in person, as rivetting as his books, as he assumes his role of the mantlepiece of every NYC society gig from the fifties through the seventies - from Studio 51 to Cosmopolitan and New Yorker, the latter two being generous beneficiaries of his short stories. It also captures his friendships with Jack Dunphy and Harper Lee and the rest of the film is about his relationship with the book i.e In Cold Blood.

For all of these reasons, the film takes away a lot from the genius of the book itself and focuses on the impact of writing it on the author's life. The book, therefore, continues to surprise you even after knowing the plot upfront while the film leaves you closer to understanding facets of Capote hidden from the public eye. The newspaper story of the killings triggers a whim, a journey through destinations long forgotten in his teens, and in Kansas, he finds this uncharacteristic multiple murder to be a life-changing experience for a small town. Using his charisma and his established name, he manages access to every person and angle of the unfolding drama. He enjoys the hunt, just as the killers perhaps did, in a different sense. But when two improbable characters turn up as the indisputable guilty and the villains of his novel, he's unknowingly sucked into a story that intrigues him, and then torments him, and eventually becomes a life-changing experience for him.

His troubled childhood and that of one of the killers, Perry Smith, kindle compassion in his heart when the death sentence is handed out as a routine matter. Understanding the killers on death row is much needed fodder for his book but the deeper he delves through innumerable prison visits, the more stretched time is, and Capote is reduced to a lesser version of his original self. He never did complete an entire book (numerous, delightful short stories though - one such compilation is Music for Chameleons) until he passed away in 1984. Not having death as a certainty to complete his stories deterred him perhaps.

Truman Capote was obviously no ordinary writer. He was either unusually gifted or destined to write or both. He was an abandoned child, growing up in trailer parks, staying with a relative, and discovering Nelle Harper Lee to be a neighbourhood kid (yes, Lee of To Kill a Mockingbird fame) who was then published before he could reach 20! The film and his books are testament to who he was. Cherish them.