Skip over navigation

Infamous

Rated - 3 stars

Infamous

Last year we saw how the feted gay novelist Truman Capote (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) played on the trust of killer Perry Smith to write his masterpiece, In Cold Blood. Infamous, which was shot at the very same time but held back from release, tells exactly the same story, and hits all the same beats. Comparisons may be invidious, but unless you missed Bennett Miller's very fine film, they're absolutely unavoidable.

I guess the first thing to say is that in its own right, this is a pretty good movie. All the same, two Capotes may be one too many, and most people will prefer one over the other. Some well-respected critics (David Thomson, Scott Foundas) have declared themselves Infamous men. You can put me in the other camp, but if the release dates had been reversed, who knows? My biggest problem watching Douglas McGrath's film was that it spells out and coarsens what was implicit in Miller's: notably the sexual attraction between the writer and the killer; Truman's narcissism and debilitating guilt.

Where Infamous deviates from Capote is in its tone, which is more varied, generally wittier and much lighter in the first half. This gives a better sense of the writer as a social gadfly, gossip and celebrity. It also undermines one of Capote's claims for his own reportage: in the Miller film Truman doesn't just boast of his powers of recall, he backs it up too. In McGrath's we see him rewriting Perry Smith's words for literary effect.

Infamous

It's also worth noting that while Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a superbly nuanced performance, the diminutive British actor Toby Jones is a much closer physical match. I liked the way he had a pet name for Jeff Daniels' sheriff Alvin Dewey ('Foxy') and found the idea that he endeared himself to the Deweys by name-dropping Hollywood stars not only funnier but more plausible than the literary snob factor which served the same function in Capote.

All of which is arguably to the good. But McGrath hammers home the obvious when he elects to include mockumentary style testimony from famous people playing (once) famous people: we get Juliet Stevenson as social doyenne Diana Vreeland, Sigourney Weaver as Babe Paley, Peter Bogdanovich as Bennett Cerf, Isabella Rossellini as Marella Agnelli and even Gwyneth Paltrow as a ringer for Peggy Lee.

Infamous

It's an artificial device meant to underline how superficial Truman's New York literary circles really were, but McGrath - who wrote Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway and directed Emma and Nicholas Nickleby - isn't a good enough filmmaker to carry off the transition between such arch stylization and the pathos he shoots for in the second half.

Sandra Bullock is very good as Harper Lee and Daniel Craig as Perry Smith, but when both characters haul Truman over the coals for clawing poetic license into reportage, you have to wonder who exactly McGrath thinks he is to point the finger? As far as I'm aware there is absolutely no published evidence that Capote and Smith exchanged a passionate kiss, for instance, unless one of them is talking, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

Tom Charity
Tom.charty@lovefilm.com

View Details

More information about Infamous »

Critics' Reviews

Dave Calhoun, Time Out

Its less than fortunate and maybe disastrous for its makers that Infamous is the second film on Truman Capote... read more on www.timeout.com

Members' Reviews

Reviews Voted Most Helpful

Rated - 3 starsTruman Capote again

A customer from London, England , 27/12/2006

‘Infamous’ is about the American author Truman Capote and his obsession with the murder of a farming family in Kansas in 1959 which became the inspiration for his masterpiece ‘In Cold Blood’. Does this sound familiar? It was also the subject-matter of the 2005 film ‘Capote’.

It is impossible to watch one without comparing it to the other, but there are differences between the two which make ‘Infamous’ worth watching. ‘Capote’ was realistic and wholly believable. Based on Gerald Clarke’s acclaimed biography, it portrayed Truman Capote as a self-centred and determined man manipulating the killers to gain their trust and therefore the material necessary to write his book. ‘Infamous’ is an altogether lighter and more glamorous affair. It is based on ‘Truman Capote’ by George Plimpton and contains fictional scenes and characters and a sprinkling of humour. Truman is portrayed as a softer and more likeable character who becomes emotionally drawn to one of the killers (Daniel Craig) - including a lingering kiss in his jail cell. Toby Jones gives a strong performance as Capote, complete with high-pitched voice, but the film doesn’t allow him to bring quite the depth of character to the role as Philip Seymour Hoffman was allowed in ‘Capote’. Sandra Bullock is a suitably restrained Nelle Harper Lee, but if you are a Gwynneth Paltrow fan be warned that all she does is sing a song.

  36 out of 42 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 4 starsFantastic

A customer from Milton Keynes , 07/02/2007

I started watching every Daniel Craig film he ever made, after seeing him in Casino Royale, just because he was so good looking but after each film I have become more and more impressed with him as an actor. In every role you believe he is that person and this film is no different. It takes a little while to kick in, giving the background to Trumans life, but it is still very interesting and you are captivated throughout. The relationship between Truman and Perry is very powerful, the kiss touching and believable. You find yourself torn, Perry deserves to be punished but you want him to live. The last few scences are emotive, I was moved to tears. Superbly acted by the whole cast but especially Craig, Jones and Bullock. A must see film. I will be watching it again and again.

  21 out of 28 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 0 starsAbsolutely awful

A customer from Kent , 05/08/2007

With an amazing cast like that - I truly expected something different but what a waste of time!! I normally enjoy movies like this...but certainly wouldnt recommend this one!!!! YAWN...

  15 out of 19 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 4 starsSame wine, new bottle

Savage from London, England [Highly rated reviewer] , 06/09/2007

On its own account, this is a pretty good, impressionistic jog through the critical years of Truman Capote's life, when his immense talent and lambent prose became atrophied and his ego (and the booze) took over. The details of the Clutter killings, and Capote reaction to them are well presented, done with a surprising, sprightly sense of the absurd, while perhaps not quite emphasizing the human aspect as much as one might have wished.

But, of course, it's nearly impossible to take this film simply 'on its own account'. Because, although more starrily cast than Bennett Miller's 'Capote', 'Infamous' had the misfortune to come out six months after the Oscar-winner, and must now live and die by comparisons. Oddly, the two films are so similar that neither really suffers - although Toby Jones' excellent central performance rather shows Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn up as the hollow little impersonation it always was. Conversely, Sandra Bullock's sentimental performance is no match for Catherine Keener's version of Harper Lee. Swings and roundabouts, then.

  12 out of 14 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Most Recent Reviews

Rated - 0 starsAbsolutely awful

A customer from Kent , 05/08/2007

With an amazing cast like that - I truly expected something different but what a waste of time!! I normally enjoy movies like this...but certainly wouldnt recommend this one!!!! YAWN...

  15 out of 19 people found this review helpful

Read all highest rated reviews

Rated - 3 starstruman-dum or truman-dee?

lloyd , 19/10/2007

just like 'capote', 'infamous' focuses on truman capote's writing of 'in cold blood'. both are strong movies played by strong casts, and both shine a light on capote's willingness to succumb to the callous exploitation of subject (as opposed to the 'mere' exploitation of subect). the similiarities between the two movies are absurdly constant throughout, and just a little too uncanny. for some viewers their preference may well be based on the choice of cast but, of the two, 'infamous' is faster paced, somewhat glossier and not so dark. unfortunately, it's also littered with hindsight comments from various characters which interrupt the mood and disrupt the viewer's engagement. for me, it is this, together with 'capote's' greater cinematic texture and stronger focus on the morals of the author, which give 'capote' the edge. 'infamous' is still a good movie, but could be considered 'capote'-lite.

  4 out of 7 people found this review helpful

Read all highest rated reviews


* The Amazon.co.uk prices on our site are updated every 24 hours and may not be up to date at the time you view this page.
To see the current new and "new and used" Amazon.co.uk prices, please click on the Buy button.