Capote or Infamous?

I found Infamous to be the better movie. Capote is very depressing (at least to me) and very one dimensional with its subject matter, although to be fair, Capote is only about the writing of In Cold Blood. Infamous gives a more rounded view of Truman Capote, the writing of In Cold Blood, and his life in Manhattan. I also found Toby Jones' Truman much more believable and very much as I remembered the real life man from the 1960's and 1970's late night talk show visits.

I liked "Capote" better.

I just watched "Infamous," and it was just a little too gay for my taste.

Infamous.

I loved Capote when I saw it in the theater. At first, it seemed like Hoffman was in an SNL kit "doing" Capote, but as the film progressed, Hoffman's performance became far more intricate. The conclusion was absolutely gut-wrenching.

In infamous, however, Jones really communicates how, though short and squeaky voiced, Truman was able to engage others and help them see through such things, while at the same time revealing Truman's many flaws. The film as a whole is a much richer tapestry which allows the other cast members to shine as well (though not all of them did). The interview segments seemed a bit out of place, but they did add more depth to the audience's overall understanding of the subject matter, and ultimately did nothing to damage my opinion of the film.

Capote seemed to be all about Hoffman, and none of the other actors seemed to be allowed to challenge his character. It was taylor-made for an Oscar nom. I also agree that if Infamous were to have been released first, Hoffman would not have won. As for the film ion general, I've seen the dark lighting and delicate piano playing thing before. Nothing too inventive there.

Finally, someone upthread mentioned that Jones' performance was more "mimicry" and that Hoffman added more to it. I first heard the whole mimicry vs. acting argument from Josh Hartnett when Blackhawk Down was released, and I think that this concept is just typical, self-centered actor bullsh!t. Basically, what they're saying is that the true person they are playing doesn't serve them well enough, so they have to add to it or, in the case of Josh, completely go their own way with it. I think it's a bit disrespectful. There's no real penalty when you're playing a no-name soldier, but try going your own way with it when playing JFK or someone like that and see where it gets you.

Sorry, but that issue always triggers my rant mechanism. Both performances were fantastic, but I prefer Infamous as an overall film.

Definitely Capote! There is something exploitative, cold and chilling in the way Capote comes across in Capote, which is a trait of most brilliant writers. It was very subtly conveyed, and Hoffman's was a great performance. Infamous is much more pleasing, easy, and sympathetic overall, with the unneccessary all-star cast - it was so distracting to see Gwyneth Paltrow, Isabella Rossellini, Seagourney Weaver, you remember them, but not the characters they played. That really makes Infamous suck. Capote was also much better in terms of cinematography - the cold, grey, desolation of an American small town really hits home.

Both films are great, but Capote is more one-dimensional; Infamous shows the lively, happy, funny side of Truman and his high-society life, as well as the dark side, and is honest about his flamboyantness, which was greatly toned down in Capote; it's also more direct about his gayness. Infamous takes you on an emotional trip, starting with Truman's cheery and fashionable New York life and ending with Truman as a broken man, where Capote is more one-note in tone.

I can remember as a kid seeing Truman Capote on TV and thinking, Jesus, what planet is this guy from? In this respect, I was a very disappointed by Hoffman's performance (and wardrobe), so obviously intended to make TC someone mainstream audiences could feel comfortable with; the real guy was just so much more over the top.

Capote is also totally built around Hoffman and one feels as if one is watching him act, whereas Toby Jones simply is Truman Capote; the way he stands, gestures, talks, he seems to unselfconsciously inhabit the character instead of screaming "Look at me, I'm acting."

Also, Capote focuses excessively on the conceit that Truman could somehow have waved a magic wand and gotten their sentences commuted; they were guilty and the whole state was out for their blood, so I didn't find that believable. It's like the filmakers were so in love with the cleverness and moral ambiguity of that idea that they didn't bother to think about its plausibility.

That said, it's kind of like the debate over The Illusionist vs. The Prestige. They're two different movies. I thought they were both excellent, but while I enjoyed Capote, I wasn't much moved by it; I was moved to tears by Infamous, and probably by the very things some other viewers may have said "didn't work" for them.

I'm not going to compare the two, because they are different. I thought that the extent to which Hoffman was lauded for his mimicking of Capote was way overblown--I can do better. But his movie was quite good, regardless.

So was Infamous. I liked the semi-documentary structure, the interplay between Toby and Daniel Craig (an excellent actor) and (sorry I forget the actress's name who played Nelle.

Don't try to play one of the movies off against the other. They are very different, and each is worth watching.

I liked both versions of the same accounts.
Both were very, very well done and while Capote might have been closer to the facts, as a movie, I found both very worthwile to be watched.

I feel asleep during Capote; however, I watched Infamous straight through twice in a single afternoon. FWIW.

Si es Goya, tiene que ser bueno!