Interview. Douglas McGrath.

"Since multiple literary lives are the norm in book publishing, why not in the movies?" asks AO Scott in the New York Times. "There is no reason to choose between Bennett Miller's Capote, which came out almost exactly a year ago, and Douglas McGrath's Infamous, which opens today... [B]oth stand out above the biopic pack. Infamous, the picture under consideration here, based on [George] Plimpton's book, is well worth your attention. It is quick-witted, stylish and well acted.... No wonder [Truman Capote] has proved so attractive to filmmakers and ambitious actors: he was, supremely and enigmatically, his own invention, and now he's theirs to reinvent."

The comparisons, of course, are inevitable, but in her talk with Douglas McGrath at the main site, Hannah Eaves leaves those questions for others and instead focuses on the implications of the director's original title for his film, "Every Word is True."

Updated through 10/16.

Related: Scott Foundas in the LA Weekly: "As many have noted, Infamous is almost certain to play to a smaller audience than Capote, the market for screen biographies of gay 20th-century literary icons having already been effectively tapped out. But the makers of Infamous should rest assured that even under less competitive circumstances, they wouldn't have had to worry about having a hit on their hands. Theirs is the better Capote film, yes, but also the less easily digestible one, the more eccentric one and - yes - the gayer one.... [I]t's the one closest in spirit to Capote himself, the fabulist whose very conception of In Cold Blood as a 'nonfiction novel' stemmed from the wisdom that reality is rarely as tantalizing as fantasy."

"I can't deny that Infamous has dramaturgical strengths, whether or not it gets the facts right," writes Jonathan Rosenbaum in the Chicago Reader. "As a statement against capital punishment, the final execution sequence is devastating. And as a portrait of Capote's New York jet-set milieu, the movie offers loads of cruel fun, though it could have been even more critical.... Ultimately, as a cautionary tale about fictionalized journalism, it's a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black."

"The sense in which the movie really shines is in its portrait of milieus," writes the Austin Chronicle's Marjorie Baumgarten.

In the Stranger, Andrew Wright discovers that "Infamous quickly establishes its own rhythm, shuffling with ease between an amusing look at New York social butterflyism and the darker, sardonic Kansas segments, aided by stellar performances from Daniel Craig and Jeff Daniels. Even better still - somewhat surprisingly - is Sandra Bullock as Harper Lee, whose unpushy, Southern-fried minimalism proves an ideal sounding board for the flamboyance of the main character."

The Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan finds "the picture gives off a tone of arch stylization that plays as artificial, overwrought and off-putting."

"[I]f the tragedy in Capote was austere, here it's sentimental," writes Andy Klein in the LA CityBeat.

For the AV Club's Tasha Robinson, "it's impossible to avoid seeing it in light of its Oscar-winning predecessor, and as the less-timely runner-up, it can only come off badly by comparison."

Earlier: Kristin M Jones in Film Comment and "Venice. Infamous."

Updates, 10/14: "[M]ore Answered Prayers than In Cold Blood, writes writes Jim Emerson. "That in itself is fine, and for the first half hour or so of "Infamous" I found myself thinking: "Why not?'" But: "In the end, Infamous turns out to be the third-best movie built around the murders of the Clutter family of Holcomb, Kan, in 1959."

"What a rotten, rotten movie," growls Ray Pride at Movie City Indie. "Infamous reeks of curdled cosmopolitanism, with the co-writer of Bullets over Broadway taking a succession of eccentric potshots at his protagonist. McGrath's got a callous, jaded eye for the complicated writer and a patrician disdain for the motley on parade in his fourth feature. (Call it 'Bullets over Holcomb.')"

"Infamous is not only a much more searching take, but also at times a more visually imaginative one, too," counters Kenji Fujishima at the House Next Door. "[F]or all its unwieldy qualities, Infamous is ultimately the richer movie."

In the NYT, Ginia Bellafonte talks with McGrath and Sigourney Weaver about "The Lighter Side of Capote, and the Ladies He Lunched With."

Update, 10/16: "In coming up with a game plan to sell Infamous, the handful of executives at Warner Independent, which is part of Warner Brothers Entertainment, walked a fine line between two conflicting strategies: piggybacking on the success of Capote and emphasizing the differences between the two films," writes Jeremy W Peters in the New York Times. "So commercials for Infamous flick at Capote, telling audiences that 'There's more to the story than you know.'"

Posted by dwhudson at October 13, 2006 5:54 AM