When Capote Walked the Line

An article reflecting my thoughts after watching ‘Capote’ and ‘Walk the Line’. These two films are connected in my mind, not just because they are both biographies, but also because their heroes seem to share a lot..
More tears are shed over answered than unanswered prayers..
This is what Truman Capote wrote in the preface of his last, unfinished book. Dying from complications of alcoholism and not being able to finish another book after the tremendous success of his non-fictional book ‘’In Cold Blood’’, Capote seems to know what he was talking about when writing about the consequences of realizing our dreams. Of course he was not the only one. American authors dealt a lot with the unbearable and often destructive insistence of people to conquer the American Dream. The ‘’from-rugs-to-riches’’ philosophy, so inherent in the American conscience, created ‘’The Great Gatsby’’, the ‘’Death of a Salesman’’ and ‘’Moby Dick’’ (the pillars of the American Literature for most, and definitely three of the most canonized books ever) While I was watching recently ‘Capote’, I couldn’t help thinking of another film that I watched a few days earlier and in my mind its echo joined the images of ‘Capote’.
-And what’s with the black, Johnny? It’s like going to a funeral.
-Maybe I am…
Johnny Cash’s life would sooner or later become a film. It included fame, success, love, drugs, rebirth..do you see Ron Howard coming? Fortunately, Ron Howard did not direct ‘Walk the Line’. Now, not that he is a bad director. It is just that he has this obsession with success stories and with greater-than-life heroes that always find their happy ending. Cinderella men. Like a recipe, he mixes all the correct elements and he has the guaranteed success. Luckily for some of us who cannot be easily carried away, there is a Russell Crowe who refuses to enter the limited space of Howard’s predetermined route and creates three-dimensional characters. Like Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix is one of these few precious actors who have the ability to explode the screen only with their eyes. (And that makes us see the ‘Gladiator’ with a fresh look) There is one scene where the director James Mangold bridges effectively the gap between Cash’s childhood and his early twenties. In the final scene of Cash as a boy, we see him lying in the bed, rejected once again by his father and bearing an imposed guilt for his elder brother tragic end, gazing into the void with a heart-breaking look that only kids can have. And the next thing you know is Joaquin Phoenix, in the exact same position and with the same look in his eyes before he sets off for the army. It is in this moment when we are allowed an insight into Johnny Cash, when we suspect that this man will always carry a sad and insecure child in him. I have to be honest. Before the film, I didn’t know a lot about Johnny Cash; I haven’t even seen a picture of him. And I know that the Johnny Cash in ‘Walk the Line’ is not the real one but rather a glimpse of him. It is the Johnny Cash that James Mangold and Joaquin Phoenix have perceived and decided to portray. But isn’t this the case with every biopic? Fair enough. James Mangold doesn’t always avoid the traps of a Ron Howard attitude towards his material but there are instances where his passion can be seen. I particularly cherish his choice of beginning the film with the concert at Folsom Prison, building a tension with the music and the clapping and rhythmical tapping of the prisoners, a tension that rises as everybody is waiting for Johnny Cash’s appearance on the stage but not reaching a crescendo; it is canalized to the rest of the film until the moment that the concert actually takes place. ‘Hello, I am Johnny Cash’ he will say and the audience will cheer his name. But in our minds, a previous image will stay: The image of Cash’s first appearance to the public, almost hiding behind his guitar and with the half-smile that only Phoenix’s scarred upper lip can produce in his face, shyly saying the same words. Cash was an alcoholic and a drug addict in the first stage of his success, maybe because it was too big, too soon and he was unprepared for it. He managed to overcome it though and to realize that he should stop being a captive of an image if he wanted to have a chance to happiness. The film shows how he handled these issues and celebrates his love with June Carter Cash. Even this love story would run the risk of becoming another epic, conventional romance if it wasn’t for the almost tangible alliance between Reese Witherspoon and Joaquin Phoenix. If there is one line that reveals the essence of Johnny Cash and would be enough to gain my respect for him, it would be the following: When his record company manager tries to dissuade him from singing at Folsom Prison with the argument that his fans were gospel people who wouldn’t like him to sing for murderers and rapists, Cash’s answer was ‘Then they are not Christians’
Ever since I was a child, folks have thought they had me pegged, because of the way I am, the way I talk. And they’re always wrong.
Truman Capote had a difficult childhood, abandoned first by his father and later by his mother and growing up with his aunt in a suffocating South. Feelings of rejection accompanied him all his life. Sounds a bit like Johnny Cash? Maybe. Capote also had a strange way of talking and he was homosexual. So how come to find him at the center of attention of the upper New York artistic society, confident, shining, admired by everyone? It is because Capote learned quickly that in order to survive and to become someone you have to create a self for yourself, a persona to project and underneath it to bury all your insecurities. That is why, when Truman Capote stood in front of a jam-packed New York Hall to read extracts from his, then unfinished, book ‘In Cold Blood’ and said ‘Hello, I am Truman Capote’, what the audience could see was a confident, mesmerizing person who put everyone under his spell with the power of his writing. When I saw that scene, the echo of Johnny Cash’s first performance was in my head, not because of their contrast but instead, because of their similarity. Because, we, viewers, were allowed to see what the audience of this hall could not see in Capote. The well buried but not extinguished insecurity of him, the old demons that Capote controlled. How do we see that? Through Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s eyes, via his one quick move of stabilizing his glasses before starting to read. Oh, the power of the amazing actors to cast us under their spell! The film, to the director’s praise, does not turn Capote into a saint. It indeed reveal a cynic, egocentric and self-absorbed creature who did not hesitate even to accelerate the death of the two murderers in order to be able to finish his book. But it is due to Phillip Seymour Hoffman that you are left to wonder until the very end about the motives and the real feelings of Capote towards Perry Smith. No easy answers. People are neither monsters nor angels in this film. Capote knew with the certainty of his literary genius that ‘In Cold Blood’ would be the book that would establish him as the pioneer among his cotemporaries. He also suspected that this book would initiate a new period for literature and he proved right; non-fictional literature became a rising new genre adopted by more and more writers. Too difficult to resist this destiny, especially for a person like him, who craved for perfection and recognition. Taking advantage of a human being’s feelings and history didn’t seem a big sacrifice to him but this was his mistake. When he realized that Perry Smith had broken his well built wall and entered his soul, it was late. He had to watch him die and when the hanged body swung in front of his eyes, it was also the persona of Capote that swung with it. But without this persona, Truman could not be what he was. No more finished books, as if he was trying to make up for the finished one. It was when Capote was forced to face the fact that apart from not being honest with the others, he was never honest with himself. Nell Harper Lee-with the quiet force of Catherine Kinear’s performance- was the one to carry this bitter message to him.
-I couldn’t have done anything to save them.
-Maybe not, Truman. But the truth is, you didn’t want to.

The Time Left

’’Le temps qui reste’’ has been successfully rendered as ‘’Time to Leave’’ and nothing is lost in translation because the question remains...how do you spend the time left when you know you are dying in 3 months?
Francois Ozon had the perfect script for a melodrama at best or a tear-jerker at worst. Romain (Melvil Poupaud), a young, handsome (very handsome) Paris fashion photographer collapses in a shoot and at the hospital he learns he has terminal cancer. So, we are to see how he’ll spend his last months. Dilemma no.1: Fight or succumb? With less than 5% possibilities of the chemo working, he decides against it. The doctor sounds disappointed: ‘’you are young; I’d rather you gave your fight.’’ Dilemma no.2: To tell or not to tell? And if ‘’to tell’’, to whom? Romain’s relationships with his family are distorted. He decides to tell no one except his grandmother (Jeanne Moreau) and that because ‘’you are like me, you will die soon’’. Speaking of honesty...We can understand why he has drifted apart from his parents but the aggressive behaviour towards his sister is never explained. However, he keeps having flash backs from their happy childhood and this makes you wonder even more why now he can’t stand his sister’s presence. ‘’It’s not you’’ he tells her on the phone ‘’it’s me’’. But this is all you’ll get as an explanation.
The less time is left, the more he remembers himself as a child. Is it a regression to happier, more innocent times? Probably. I read in the majority of reviews for this film that Romain tries to reconcile with his family and lover before he dies. Well, I didn’t see that, except if you think that a ruined dinner, a quick hug, a cruel break up and an uneasy telephone conversation are signs of reconciliation. My impression is that Romain realised his true feelings for his family and lover but did not share his ‘’knowledge’’ with them. He just captured those feelings in the photographs he took of them. As for his ‘’act of charity’’ to the childless couple, it may seem a bit out of the blue but it is quite understood in the course of the film.
So, to return in my first comment, Ozon had the material for a tear jerker melodrama. But for those familiar with his films (The Swimming Pool, 5x2) it was hardly a surprise that the film offered no easy, cheap emotion. It was true and original. But in the end, you’ll probably find yourselves with tears, if not for Romain, but for the lyric beauty of the last scene. Romain never seemed more peaceful.

The Guilt of a Constant Gardener

When movies take their social role seriously, two things can happen: Either end up being didactic and boring or touch an inner chord of the audience. Now, most of us will agree about under which category ‘The Constant Gardener’ falls.
‘But I have no home. Tessa was my home’
For those who are still looking for the motivation behind Ralph’s Fiennes actions, the reason for his transformation from a quiet person to an enraged ‘Sherlock Holmes’, from a quiet gardener to a constant one, these are the words to explain everything. Love. Guilt. Regret. And then justice.
This film may very well be a cry against the big pharmaceutical companies that exploit the Third World population under the cover of charity but what makes it work is the fact that is driven by love. Fernando Meirelles whose ‘’City of God’’ shaked audiences all over the world a couple of years ago, keeps the political tones high: you see how corporation evil is everywhere, controlling politicians and media, protected by the vast amount of money it can invest. Attempts like these of Rachel’s Weisz character to put a limit in the cruel utilization of the African people by these companies are condemned to failure. How can one person succeed in such a suicide mission? But she was an activist, a fighter and a dreamer, not giving up; so, she has to die.
Ralph Fiennes loved her. He had started to doubt her love for him and so did we, since in the film we are presented with his point of view. But after she dies, he finds out how much she loved him. Tragic irony. The more he dives into her research, the more he thinks about her and scenes from their marriage fill the screen with warmth and tenderness, making her absence and his loneliness even greater. Of course, Ralph Fiennes is appalled by what he discovers: The Africans are used as guinea pigs for a new medicine; if they refuse, they are refused their free medication for HIV. Not much of a choice, right? And this is just the beginning of the revelations. But I insist that his mission is fuelled by his wish to complete his wife’s project and this way to cleanse himself from the guilt because he questioned her motives, and above all her love.
I won’t spoil the ending; I will just say that there is a small ray of light although in real life I am afraid there is no light in the end of the tunnel. Because now Evil has no face, it is not a person, it is a corporation. It is like the hydra; you chop off one head and two take its place. Ralph’s Fiennes face in the end agrees with my idea, I think...
PS: I know that Oscars are not really important. But Ralph Fiennes’ absence from the Best Actor nominations is just scandalous. One of the most human, original, heart breaking performances ever. No need to shout, his eyes were silently screaming. Oh, boy.

The King

Fortunately, in ‘The Da Vinci Code’ cinema season, there are films like James’ Marsh debut, ‘The King’, that have the power of confronting the audience by raising questions with no easy or ready-made answers.
Get right with God. Be prepared to meet him.
William Hurt’s voice and presence is imposing, his authority unquestioned, his faith unshakeable. Or at least this is how it seems. But by now, my true cinephiles, you should now that almost never things are the way they seem to be on the surface. Deep down, people hide secrets. So, what’s new? you are going to ask. Why is ‘The King’ a special film and not just another revenge story?
Is it because it involves incest? Or because it deals with the limits of faith and forgiveness? Yes and no; Milo Addica, screenwriter of films like ‘Monster’s Ball’ and ‘Birth’ and James Marsh in his debut are not afraid to take the knife to the bone. The place is Texas and I suppose we all know that this is one of the most conservative states. The hero is Elvis, a half Mexican young man who ,after leaving the Navy, goes to find his father. Son of a prostitute, Elvis, is not accepted by his father, now a minister of a church with a well respected life and family. Elvis represents his sinful past from which he has long now been cleansed. His rejection of Elvis sets off an unbelievably cruel revenge plan.
You sense early in the film that something bad is going to happen. Around the middle of the film, an unexpected act of violence confirms your suspicions. But you go on feeling uneasy, tense. You know that something bigger, more horrible will follow and the more this is postponed, the more anxious you get. Thus, in the chilling finale you are partly relieved that at last the tension is released but mostly shocked by what Elvis does.
A lot of people see this story as a parable. It certainly works this way but for me it is even deeper. It is a comment to religious fanaticism, to hypocrisy, to lost innocence and the possibility of being regained. Elvis puts the biggest challenge in front of his father. Is there ever a possibility of true forgiveness after such a monstrous act of revenge?
Congratulations on the casting. William Hurt is an amazing actor and in this film he proves it once again. Laura Harring, for those remembering her fatal beauty in ‘Mulholland Drive’, is unrecognizable as the tragic figure of the mother.Paul Dano is surprisingly complex. But the big surprise comes from Pell James who is the face of innocence as the sixteen year old daughter, seduced by her half-brother. It is an acting seminar watching her.
The King is Gael Garcia Bernal. His Elvis is creepy but sympathetic at the same time. It is certainly a great script and a great part for an actor but nevertheless, Bernal has the quality, talent and instinct to support it. Watch this Mexican guy: From ‘’Y tu mama tambien’’ to ‘’Amores Perros’’, from ‘’Bad Education’’ to ‘’Motorcycle Diaries’’ and from ‘’The King’’ to ‘’Babel’’, he is an evolving talent and a volcano burning the big screen.

Filmic Great Expectations

For all those who do not feel excited when they see their favourite book adapted into a film, here comes a short article that tries to spot the reasons for this attitude.
Recently I was reading an article in The Times by Iain Finlayson that examined the way that films can influence our reading of books. He suggests that there are “readers” and there are “viewers”. Viewers will read the book only after having seen the film and so they will adopt the director’s “look” upon it. I totally agree with Finlayson’s view but I can’t help thinking how books influence the way we watch films.
When you are a bookworm and at the same time a movie buff people easily assume that every time a film based on a book comes out, you will rush to the nearest cinema, sit comfortably and spend two hours in a state of bliss for seeing your favorite paper characters in flesh and blood. But that’s not the whole picture.
I believe that we, readers, are most of the times confined to our personal perspective and interpretation of a book and this often prevents us from appreciating its filmic adaptation. We judge the film according to our literary –great (?) – expectations and I think that you will agree with me if I say that these expectations are rarely outranked. And, my dear readers, this is not the director’s fault –or at least, not always-.
It is generally acclaimed that every reading of a book is a rewriting. To put it simply, although all of us may read the same book, we will perceive different meanings from it. Our upbringing, our experiences, our taste and aesthetic shape our interpretation of the text. And, since what you actually see when reading a book is a number of words, your imagination is free to run wild and create a whole new world, a literary reality, as a setting. You can place your characters in your neighborhood or somewhere you’ve never been before and it doesn’t matter because they are where you want them to be. It is this sense of control that we enjoy as readers and it is this control that we are deprived of as viewers. Now it is the director who decides where the characters move, what they wear, what they say and how they look. Most of the times, this can be really frustrating.
Book adaptations are very popular in cinema because they offer a good narrative (a truly original script seldom appears nowadays) and a big potential audience. Of course, the director and the producer need to bear in mind some factors that may determine their film’s reception by this potential audience and therefore its career in the box office. The majority of the readers want to see what they have read and not the director’s interpretation of the book. That is why, when Alfonso Kuarón’s Great Expectations came out, the audience seemed at least perplexed. Most of them expected to see a Victorian setting and were confronted with a modern one making the change too severe for the readers. The casting of the film helped the movie but most of Dickens classic fans found it a failure. Usually, a faithful representation of the book works with the audience unless it’s too academic. James’ Ivory adaptations of books like The Remains of a Day and Room with a View are examples of successful adaptations both for critics and the audience.
Turning a book into a film can be a very demanding and energy-consuming job. Books have so many details; interior monologues, pages of dialogues without action, overwhelming descriptions of places, persons and feelings. But as Michael Cunningham, author of The Hours, puts it:”You can have 10 pages describing the feelings and the frustration of your heroine and these cannot possibly be rendered to a film, but in a movie you have Nicole Kidman looking at a kid as if she’s at the hell’s bottom, Meryl Streep breaking an egg with hollow violence and Julianne Moore crying at the bathroom while talking happily to her husband. And this in a way counterparts numerous pages of narration.” Personally, I consider Stephen Daldry’s film The Hours as an ideal example of how a film can respect the spirit of a book (in this case the spirit of two books since Virginia’s Woolf Mrs. Dalloway haunts The Hours, both the film and the book).
Certainly, a lot of people may disagree with my examples of successful or unsuccessful adaptations but, as I mentioned above, this is natural since my view of a book and a film differs significantly from another’s. We are different people after all. Hence, my admiration for the sympathetic attitude of Anthony Minghella towards Patricia Highsmith’s amoral Mr. Ripley in his Talented Mr. Ripley may not be shared by many of you. Some probably prefer Alain Delon as Mr. Ripley, in Rene Clement Purple Moon (Plein Soleil) but I find Matt Damon ideal, exactly because he is the way I had portrayed Mr. Ripley when I first read the book. Or what can I say for Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings? Only the fact that he managed to film Tolkin’s epic would be enough but I truly believe that he did it in a wonderful way, satisfying most of Tolkin’s fans without sacrificing his personal style.
Nowadays, every best selling book’s fate is to be immediately adapted for the cinema (e. g Code Da Vinci) and therefore, most of us sooner or later will be confronted with what the filmmaker had read. I suggest that we leave our prejudices aside and try to appreciate the film and if possible, judge it not by whether it was a good adaptation but by whether it was a good film. It is really difficult and sometimes several viewings are required before we can achieve this level of objectivity. The more favorite the book, the bigger the chances of hating the film. Maybe we are simply jealous of the director because he/she did professionally what we do as amateurs in our mind. Maybe it is a fact that readers can never be just viewers. But I think it would be a good idea next time not allow to the ‘’reader’’ part of ourselves blur the vision of the viewer that all he asks is to enjoy a well-made film.