My wife and I caught Capote last night in our hotel

[SeattleUte]

We both enjoyed "Capote" partly because we had both read "In Cold Blood," and liked it a lot, and so seeing the tale of its writing was interesting. We agreed that the lead actor who played Capote made the movie. Some of the best scenes were him at parties in New York entertaining his toney friends with his conversation. He had Capote's wierd gayesque mannerisms down pat. The movie failed in various respects, however. First, the more sympathetic of the killers, Perry Smith, was not drawn very well. For example, they tried to paint him as sensitive and intelligent by having him utter big words and use fancy syntax, but little else.

Thus, the central conflict in the story--Capote's personal affection, perhaps infatuation for Smith, who had to die to give Captote's story closure and strengthen his book--wasn't really credible. Also, whereas Capote, in the book, paints a lovely and powerful portrait of the admirable victims, thus enhancing the tension created by his somewhat sympathetic portrayal of Smith, the movie pays scant attention to the victims. Thus, also in this manner much of the dramatic effect intended by the attempt to make Smith somewhat likeable is lost.

Not a classic, but definitely a movie with strengths that is worth seeing if you're interested in the subject matter, which I am. You might also read the lengthy New Yorker article on Capote's writing of "In Cold Blood" that came out late last year.

If you haven't read "In Cold Blood" I highly recommend it. Capote wrote it as a "non-fiction novel" (stylizing some of the dialogue from true facts but otherwise purportedly remaining true to the facts), so it's either the best true crime book or probably the best crime novel ever written, depending on how you look at the book. He invented the genre, which Norman Mailer followed with "The Executioner's Song."

Interesting that two movies are up for best picture this year with gay characters as the leads.