"INFAMOUS" (2006) Review

 

"INFAMOUS" (2006) Review

I have heard a lot about the two movie biographies based upon Truman Capote’s experiences, while working on his famous non-fiction novel, "In Cold Blood" – 2005's "CAPOTE" and "INFAMOUS", which hit movie theaters a year after the first film. But this review is about the second film . . . namely 2006's "INFAMOUS". Written and directed by Douglas McGrath, the movie starred Toby Jones as Truman Capote.

To be honest, I did not know what to expect of "INFAMOUS". Since it was the second Capote movie to be released, it failed to garner any prestigious critic awards or nominations – aside from a Independent Spirit Best Supporting Actor nod for Daniel Craig, who played one of the Clutters' murderers, Perry Smith. After watching the movie, I found myself wondering why lead actor Toby Jones had failed to earn his own nomination. The man’s complex portrayal of Capote seemed all at once witty, sharp, manipulative, vulnerable and rather sad. In all, it was a brilliant performance. He seemed to revel in Capote’s legendary flamboyant wit and charm in all its glory. One of Jones’ funniest scenes involved Capote’s snappy repartees to prison inmates shouting lewd propositions at him, during his first visit to the prison where Smith and Dick Hickock were incarcerated. Yet at the same time, Jones also revealed the author’s talent for cold-blooded deception and manipulation, which he used to gain the trust of his New York friends, along with the citizens of Holcomb and the two killers, whose anecdotes he needed to complete his book. This talent for drawing out secrets . . . and disclosing them not only attracted the suspicion of Perry Smith, but also got Capote in hot water with his "swans" in the mid-1970s, thanks to an unpublished manuscript of his book, "Answered Prayers". A few chapters managed to end up in the New York magazine, "Esquire". But what is more interesting about Jones’ performance in the movie is that his experiences in Kansas ended up peeling away Capote’s flamboyant façade, forcing him to face the pain and sorrow created by an unhappy childhood.

Ironically, it was Capote’s encounters with convicted murderer, Perry Smith, which forced the author to face his personal demons. What can I say about Daniel Craig’s performance? Other than the British actor not only deserved his Independent Spirit Award nomination, but like Jones, he also deserved both a Golden Globe and Academy Award nomination. His Perry Smith was a brooding, quiet man who projected vulnerability, intelligence and brutal menace. It was easy to see how Capote and Smith had developed a close relationship. Both shared a taste for intellectual and artistic pursuits that allowed them to hide from unhappy childhoods that included suicidal mothers. Both actors created a dynamic screen chemistry through two contrasting personalities that seemed to share similar childhood experiences. Craig brilliantly projected Smith’s varying personalities in two scenes – one in which he expressed polite distaste at Capote’s gift of pornographic magazines; and in another, his terrifying anger at the "In Cold Blood" title, which led to a threat of rape of the author.

"INFAMOUS" could boast a first-class supporting cast led by Sandra Bullock, who portrayed Capote’s close friend and fellow author, Harper Lee ("To Kill a Mockingbird"). Many critics seemed surprised by Bullock’s excellent portrayal of the warm and wryly amused Alabama author. Apparently, they must have been deluded by some belief that Bullock was only capable of light comedy. But the future Oscar winner was given a chance to showcase her dramatic chops in one "documentary" interview scene in which she expressed Lee’s bitter anger at the public’s demand for an endless supply of entertainment by talented artists. I also enjoyed Jeff Daniels' wry and sardonic portrayal of the Kansas Bureau Investigations officer in charge of the Clutter case, whose family eventually befriended Capote. His performance was highlighted in a favorite scene of mine that featured the development of Capote and Dewey’s friendship over an arm wrestling match.

Lee Pace portrayed Dick Hickock, Smith’s partner and the alleged brains behind the attempt to rob the Clutters. I found his performance rather humorous and gregarious, yet there were times it threatened to be a touch frantic. Since "INFAMOUS" gave the audience a wide glimpse into Capote’s New York lifestyle, the movie also included his circle of "swans", with whom he developed a close relationship until his disclosure of their secrets in the mid-70s. Those "swans" included Babe Paley (Sigourney Weaver) – the wife of CBS baron Bill Paley; Diana Vreeland (Juliet Stevenson), the fashion magazine editor; Slim Keith (Hope Davis), the woman who was married to Howard Hawks and Leland Hayward; and Marella Agnelli (Isabella Rossellini), Italian-American princess who became a furniture designer and tastemaker. Also included in that group were publisher Bennett Cerf (Peter Bogdanovich), novelist and Capote’s rival Gore Vidal (Michael Panes). I was especially amused by Stevenson’s humorous portrayal of the vivacious Vreeland, who seemed proud of her own eccentric nature and appreciative of Capote’s attitude toward it.

Some reviews have criticized McGrath's tendency to switch the movie’s setting between Capote’s glittering New York world and the somber atmosphere of Holcomb, Kansas. I understood why he did it. Both settings seemed like metaphors for the writer’s contrasting psyche during those six years he worked on "In Cold Blood". It started out with a glittering night with Capote and Babe Paley at the El Morocco nightclub (with Gwenyth Paltrow singing a sultry rendition of "What Is This Thing Called Love") and ended with Capote unable to keep the dark memories of Kansas out of his mind. In fact, once Capote had finally set eyes upon Smith, Holcomb's bleak setting slowly threatened to puncture the frivolous façade he had created, whenever he was in New York. The emotional cost from the book and his relationship with Smith resulted in his inability to write his next book – "Answered Prayers", as shown in the movie’s final scene.

The only problems I had with "INFAMOUS" were "documentary" interviews shown during the movie’s first half-hour. Frankly, I believe that the movie could have started out with these interviews, before segueing into the story. And aside from Capote’s tour of the Clutters’ home, I found the sequence featuring his interviews with some of Holcomb’s citizens a little dull and hard to watch. Fortunately, the arrival of Smith and Hickcock ended the dull sequence and from there, my interest in the movie remained constant until the end.

Whether or not one is a fan of the Philip Seymour Hoffman/Bennett Miller film, "CAPOTE", I would recommend "INFAMOUS" . . . or at least give it a chance. In its own way, it is just as fascinating as the 2005 Oscar-winning film.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY (1981) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images of "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY", the 1981 BBC adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel. Directed by Rodney Bennett and adapted by Alexander Baron, the miniseries starred Irene Richards and Tracey Childs:





"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1981) Photo Gallery

"Recapturing the 'Magic' of 'STAR WARS'"

 

I had written this article back in 2018, not long after the release of "SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY":

"RECAPTURING THE 'MAGIC' OF 'STAR WARS'"

When a good number of critics and STAR WARS fans had started talking about how Lucasfilm and the Disney Studios need to recapture the "magic", I could not help but wonder what "magic" to which they were referring. The "magic" of Disney's first film in the franchise, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS"?  "STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII - THE LAST JEDI"?  The six films that George Lucas had produced between 1977 and 2005? Or the "magic" of the franchise’s Original Trilogy?

If these fans and critics were referring to the "magic" of the Original Trilogy, I find this demand rather ironic. And I find it personally ironic, considering that it took me several years to appreciate that particular trilogy after it first came out, long ago. Do I want the "magic" of the Original Trilogy to be repeated? No. Not really. Or should I say . . . not literally. In the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald, "you can’t repeat the past". But a person can move on and experience or create something new in his or her life. And in regard to a movie, a novel or any other works of art . . . a person can create something new, while at the same time, pay homage to a past work of art or form a narrative connection to it.

I am a big fan of the Original Trilogy movies. Even though it took several years for me to appreciate them, I became a big fan of that first trilogy. I am also a big fan of the Prequel Trilogy movies, "ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY" and "SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY". And one of the reasons why I am is that while having a connection to the Original Trilogy from a narrative point of view, those five films managed to offer something new to the franchise.

The Prequel Trilogy had depicted the downfalls of Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader, the Jedi Order, and the Galactic Republic. The trilogy also conveyed how these calamities had led to the emergence of the Galactic Empire and the Sith in the form of Emperor Sheev Palpatine. And the 1999-2005 trilogy did all of this with a great deal of ambiguity that I found more than satisfying. This ambiguity was also on display in stand alone movies like "ROGUE ONE" and "SOLO". "ROGUE ONE" not only told the story of the theft of the Death Star plans; but with a great deal of brutality hardly ever seen in previous movies of the STAR WARS franchise. "SOLO" conveyed the origins of Han Solo, one of the leading characters from the Original Trilogy. Unlike the STAR WARS films before it, "SOLO" gave audiences more than a mere peek into the criminal underworld within the STAR WARS saga. Ironically, the leading protagonists of both stand alone films were not Force sensitive individuals.

The Original Trilogy was not perfect. Neither were the Prequel Trilogy, “ROGUE ONE” and “SOLO”.  I believe that the two trilogies and the two stand alone films had their flaws. But for me, their virtues . . . in which originality happen to be one of them . . . far outweighed their flaws. However, I cannot say the same about the first two films featured in the recent Sequel Trilogy, produced by Lucasfilm and the Disney Studios.

I am willing to give the trilogy points for conveying some originality. None of the three major protagonists is a white male . . . so far. The main antagonist, who is constantly compared to Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader, did not come from an obscure background and/or upbringing. And this same antagonist had killed his evil mentor halfway into the trilogy. Despite these bouts of originality, I am simply not that impressed by this new trilogy. I believe there are too many plot holes and inconsistent characterizations for me to regard it as worthy entertainment. Worse, I feel that the trilogy’s first two films had borrowed just a bit too much from the 1977-1983 movies for me to regard it as truly original. In fact, the Sequel Trilogy’s overall narrative seemed to be a re-hash of the Original Trilogy’s Rebel Alliance-Galactic Empire conflict and the rise of Luke Skywalker as Jedi Knight. And the numerous plot holes make me begin to wonder if the trilogy’s main narrative was ever outlined in advance.

When people talk about recapturing the "magic" of the past . . . or the Original Trilogy, I find myself wondering what exactly do they want. Do they want a re-hash of the Original Trilogy? If so, the Sequel Trilogy seemed to be fulfilling that demand. Or perhaps this demand is centered around having major protagonists who are white males. Who knows? But if these fans and critics are referring to the "spirit" of the 1977-83 trilogy, then I am at a loss. What exactly is this "spirit" or "magic"? I cannot help but wonder if an answer my last question might be riddled with pitfalls. I believe it could easily be perceived in so many ways.

Personally, I simply want a STAR WARS movie that not only connects to any of the previous films in the franchise, but also provide something truly original . . . and well-written. The movie does not have to be perfect. I have yet to see a perfect movie - even one from the STAR WARS franchise. Nor do I expect it to be. But I hope that the franchise’s future movies . . . whether they are parts of a serial or merely a stand alone . . . will be a lot better than the first two Sequel Trilogy films.

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" (1990) Review

 

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" (1990) Review

I just realized something. I have never read Agatha Christie's 1932 novel, "Peril at End House". I find this ironic, considering that I have seen the 1990 television movie adaptation of this novel at least three or four times. One of these days, I will get around to reading Christie's novel and comparing it to the television adaptation. Right now, I am going to focus on the latter. 

Directed by Renny Rye and adapted by Clive Exton, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" is the first full-length television movie aired on "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT". It is also about Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot's efforts to prevent the murder of a young socialite, during his vacation in Cornwall. The movie begins with Poirot and his friend Arthur Hastings arriving at a Cornish seaside resort for their vacation. While conversing with socialite Magdala "Nick" Buckley on the resort's grounds, Poirot notices that someone had fired a bullet into the brim of her floppy hat. Poirot exposes the bullet hole to Nick, who finds it difficult to believe that someone wants to kill her. She points out that aside from her house - End House - has no real assets. Poirot decides to investigate her inner circle, who includes the following:

*Charles Vyse - Nick's cousin and an attorney
*Mr. and Mrs. Croft - an Australian couple that has leased the lodge near End House, who had suggested Nick make a will six months earlier
*Freddie Rice - a close friend of Nick's, who is also an abused wife
*Jim Lazarus - an art dealer in love with Nick
*Commander George Challenger - a Royal Navy officer who is also attracted to Nick

Poirot eventually advises Nick to invite a relative to stay with her for a few weeks. Nick invites her distant cousin Maggie Buckley. Unfortunately, someone kills Maggie, after she makes the mistake of wearing Nick's dress shawl during an evening party. Even worse, the killer eventually achieves his/her goal by sending a box of poisoned chocolates to Nick, while she was recuperating at a local hospital.

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" possessed a certain plot device that Christie had used in several of her novels. I would describe this plot device. But to do so would spoil the rest of the story. It took me years to spot this plot device. And I should be surprised that I have not come across anyone else who has spotted it. And yet . . . I am not. The fact that it took me several years to spot this particular plot device only tells me that Christie has utilized it with great effect in some of her more interesting and well-written mysteries. Thankfully, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" proved to be one of those well-written mysteries.

I must admit that Clive Exton did a pretty damn good job in adapting Christie's novel for the television screen. He stuck very closely to the original novel's plot . . . with a few changes that did no harm to the overall movie. Both Exton and Rye presented a well-paced production to the audiences. They set up the story with Poirot and Hastings' arrival to Cornwall and continued on with without any haste or dragging feet. The only time the movie threatened to put me to sleep occurred between the story's second murder and the revelation of the killer . . . . when the story threatened to ground to a halt. I have one last problem - namely the appearance of Chief Inspector Japp. I realize that Japp did appear in the novel. But his appearance merely dealt with Poirot's request that he investigate the Crofts, whom the Belgian detective suspected of being forgers. The cinematic Japp immediately appeared following Maggie Buckley's death as the main police investigator. And Cornwall is not under Scotland Yard's main jurisdiction. 

The production values for "PERIL AT END HOUSE" proved to be top-notch. Rye shot the film's exterior scenes in Salcombe, Devon; instead of the county of Cornwall. I found that curious. However, both he and cinematographer Peter Bartlett certainly took advantage of the movie's setting with Bartlett's photography of Salcombe's charming, Old World style. This was especially apparent in the movie's opening sequence that featured Poirot and Hasting's arrival by airplane. Actually, production designer Mike Oxley did an excellent job of recreating an English vacation resort in the early 1930s. The production practically reeked of the Art Deco style of that time period. However, I was especially impressed by Linda Mattock's costume designs. I was especially impressed by those costumes worn by actresses Polly Walker, Pauline Moran and Alison Sterling. My only complaints about the movie's visual styles were the actresses' hairstyles. No one seemed capable of re-creating the early 1930s soft bob. The actresses either wore a chignon or in the case of Sterling, a Dutch Boy bob made famous by actress Louise Brooks in the late 1920s.

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" featured some solid performances by the cast. David Suchet gave his usual excellent portrayal of Hercule Poirot. I was especially impressed by the on-screen chemistry he managed to produce with Polly Walker. The latter gave a standout performance as the killer's main target, Madgala "Nick" Buckley. Walker did an excellent job of transforming Nick from the charming "Bright Young Thing" to a wary and frightened woman, who realizes that someone is trying to kill her. Alison Sterling was also excellent as one of Nick's closest friends, "Freddie" Rice. Next to Walker's Nick, Sterling gave an interesting and skillful portrayal of the very complex Freddie. Hugh Fraser, Pauline Moran and Philip Jackson were also excellent as Arthur Hastings, Miss Lemon and Chief Inspector Japp. All three, along with Suchet, managed to re-create their usual magic. The movie also featured solid performances from Paul Geoffrey (whom I found particularly convincing as an early 30s social animal), John Harding, Christopher Baines and Elizabeth Downes. I found the Australian accents utilized by Jeremy Young and Carol Macready, who portrayed the Crofts, rather wince inducing. But since their accents were supposed to be fake in the first place, I guess I had no problems.

For some reason, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" never became a big favorite of mine, despite its acclaim. It is a well done adaptation of Christie's novel. And I found it visually attractive, thanks to the movie's production team. The movie also featured some excellent performances - especially from David Suchet, Polly Walker and Alison Sterling. Naturally, it is not perfect. But that is not the problem. I cannot explain my lack of enthusiasm for "PERIL AT END HOUSE". I can only assume that I found nothing particularly mind blowing or fascinating about its plot. To me, it is simply a good, solid murder mystery that has managed to entertain me on a few occasions. Perhaps . . . that is enough.

"MANHATTAN" Season Two (2015) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from Season Two of the WGN series, "MANHATTAN".  Created by Sam Shaw, the series starred John Benjamin Hickey:

"MANHATTAN" SEASON TWO (2015) Photo Gallery