Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University of Wellington Students' Newspaper. Volume 31, Number 23. September 17, 1968

Films — A marriage of media

page 8

Films

A marriage of media

To prefer the film of In Cold Blood (Columbia) to the book would be to join an unfashionable minority. Many, of course, saw the film (but not too many judging by its commercial failure) who hadn't read the book. The film will, I hope, cause more to read it. The preference of film for book arises not so much from the difference in talents of Truman Capote and Richard Brooks, but from a preference of media in such a case, Capote spent seven years researching, interviewing and writing his book. It is impeccably written, fully detailed, and skilfully presented. His thinking was further elaborated in an interview in the March, 1968, issue of Playboy. In this interview Capote presents much of the more scientific background material used for examining motivation, the psychological and emotional states of the murderers.

The film-maker has a vastly different task from the writer in recreating the tragic events. He must contract detail and event, at the same time dramatise episodes into a coherent narrative. Brook's screenplay is a complex structure which is wholly honest to Capote except for his creation of Jensen, described as a writer for a weekly. Many people, mistakenly, have immediately assumed that this is intended to be Capote himself. However, no matter how much Jensen's presence may be similar to Canote's, his viewpoint and purpose in the film is totally different. Jensen introduces some factual and interpretative background contained in the book, notably the Menninger Clinic paper on "Murder Without Apparent Motive", but one cannot imagine that Jensen went away from the hanging scene to write In Cold Blood. His interpolations in the film provide a basis for the audience to examine for themselves the inevitable conflicts between the particular case and the necessity for police disregard of psychological niceties, and the tragedy in its more general terms as a study for the benefit of society at large through scientific investigation. Jensen also holds the dramatic key to many scenes which are necessary to the film. In a book these are both unnecessary and irrelevant.

Perry … psychopath

Perry … psychopath

Brooks's screenplay is woven around three basic divisions. The first part is the introduction of Perry (Robert Blake) and Dick (Scott Wilson) and their rendezvous in Kansas City. Dick has planned the crime and wants to use Perry's homicidal drive to carry it out. These brisk episodes are intercut with the bourgeois quietitude of the Clutter family in Holcomb, 400 miles away. This counterpointing of both atmosphere time is done with the control and authority that continues throughout the film. The latent violence and tension of the men is contrasted with the domestieitv of the relaxed household. Finally they meet on a dark, still night.

Next morning the bodies are discovered, the police investigations underway, and the killers back at their homes. The cross- and inter-cutting now concerns Pern' and Dick, on one side, and the police. Linking events actions, time and locales form the basis for the narrative Pern throws a can off a bridge; cut to police dragging the river for clues. News bulletins serve a similar purpose The killers now head for Mexico following a dud cheque spree. In Mexico their means are not improved. The murders had proved financially unproductive and further murder for gain seemed the only future course of action. Perry dreams of Captain Cortes's sunken treasure; Dickdecides on the return to the US. Meanwhile a prisoner, who knew of the plans to rob the Clutters while Perry and Dick were behind, informs the police of their identity. The police interview their respective fathers; more background is unearthed. It remains to find them. This is done through the tracing of their stolen car. The gradual police dragnet tightens while Perry and Dick, unaware, jaunt back to Vegas. In one episode they pick up an old man and a boy who collect the refund money on bottles tossed from cars into the desert. They are spotted while in Vegas and arrested.

The final part concerns the crime and its prosecution. Extensive interrogation bv the police yields an account of what took place at Clutter home. In a taut, brilliantly executed (no pun) sequence the brutal murders are perpetrated. This is followed by a short speech from the Prosecuting Attorney during the trial. There is no speech from the defence—there doesn't need to be one. The five years in death row and the hanging are sufficient.

Brooks sticks very closely to Capote's interpretation, which is all he could do under the circumstances, We see Perry as a psychopath of dangerous potentialities— a killer without passion or remorse. He is haunted by his red for his father; both Mr Clutter and the hangman become the father at some time. When in Mexico, while Dick is in bed with a whore. Pern' sees his father beat up his mother who had turned to prostitution. He sees his father with a shotgun (unloaded) when he cuts Mr Clutter's throat. He said later to the police that the murder had nothing to do with the Clutters—he did it both because Dick had failed in his claim of the "perfect score" and because of his father-fixation. According to the Capote interview Perry himself reached this conclusion: he identified Clutter, an authority figure, with the father he loved-hated and he unleashed all his inner compulsive resestmut in the act of violence. The Menninger Clinic used Perry as a case studv; they found that his backgronnd was similar to that of manv other such murderers—a childhood marked by parental brutality, rejection, insecurity. The point was also made of his feelings of physical superiority and sexual inadequacy. The spark came when Dick attempted to rape the Clutter girl. Yet afterward Perry stated: "I didn't want to harm the man. I thought he was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up to the time I cut his throat".

Dick had little of the psychosis of Perry. He wasn't capable of solo murder, and knew it; he had the cunning and slickness of a petty thief and con-man whose real kicks came from cheque bouncing. Although he had to force Perry to do everything, he would have been unable to do it without Perry's succumbing to his persuasive words. (The use of endearments by Dick was no indication of a homosexual liaison; although Perry had homosexual tendencies they were nothing to do with Dick.) Several times Perry disclosed his concern for losing control: he couldn't stand Dick's apparent lack of inhibition, especially sexually, and he feared himself. When he learned that bowel control ceases after death he is afraid of crapping himself. Dick, however, fears little of this. His smart-alecking continues throughout the interrogations, his time in jail, and to his death. His final words smack of his desire to leave an indelible mark: "I'm going to a place that is better than this world ever was."

Perry in jail turns back to his books and his art. His end is the one on which Brooks concentrates. His final words to the chaplain are spoken while rain water running down the window is reflected on his face as if layers of skin were melting away. The final image of the fatal drop is slowed down to a langrously swinging body. Compare this ending with that of Bonnie and Clyde where slow motion was also used. The artifice of the latter is exposed when faced with the more brutal reality of an execution by "we the people". In the interview Capote states that he is not against capital punishment per se, but protests the brutalising effect of lengthy legal processes. We see little of this in the film, but we are made aware of it in the last image.

Dick … smart-alec

Dick … smart-alec

The opinion in the first paragraph must now be more fully stated. The book and film are highly supplementary. But the superiority of film in the treatment of "non-fiction" becomes apparent in consideration that In Cold Blood cannot be the work of one imagination. The film is highly dependent on Brooks's skill as a film-maker, but he also has many others working with him: actors, technicians and so on. Capote had only himself. This is the inherent weakness of the book. It necessarily lacks the feat of imagination that makes fiction literature. The film performs a different function. It combines detachment, objectivity while simultaneously restricting our vision, forcing us to comprehend subjectively. Point of view shots abound when motivation and emotion are paramount. It is the camera over which the black hood is placed. Here we see the illusion and reality which Perry himself couldn't distinguish, working as the basis of cinema.

A final word of credit. Although it should have been reviewed in an earlier Salient in its first season (the holidays intervened on our publishing schedule), its return recently has enabled a fuller evaluation. It would be a pity if those who didn't have the opportunity the first time missed it the second time. It is probably the best serious film from America we have seen this year. Brooks's direction and screenplay demonstrates that he can extend both his style and subject-matter after his excellent The Professionals last year. What it lacked in seriousness it made up for in excitement, and. no doubt made more than enough money to subsidise In Cold Blood. Brooks is not a film-maker of great originality, but he a true professional, and this is what In Cold Blood needed.

Brooks's selection of Blake and Wilson for the two central roles is faultless. Both are relatively unknown: you may remember the chase sequence in In The Heat Of the Night across the bridge—well that was Wilson being chased. Old hands take up the remainder of the major parts with John Forsythe as Alvin Dewey and Paul Stewart as Jensen; Jeff Corey and Will Ceer (both were in Seconds) also impressed. Many of the other actors were chosen on location. Conrad Hall's photography in black-and-white by Technicolor is superb, the best he has done. and that is good; and Quincy Jones's insistent, although often melodramatic, music suitably applicable.

• • •

Will Penny (Paramount) is a western with enough originality that makes the species an everlasting and interesting one. Will (Charlton Heston) is too near fifty has had drifting employment throughout his life, and has ended up as a line rider on a cattle drive. He is to remain in the ranges throughout the winter to oversee the stock. His features are craggy, worn and unclean; he is illiterate; his women few and far between. The ads said something about joining the great ones—in heaven maybe, but not in cinema history. For Will Penny is as forgettable as it is momentarily enjoyable. In his first western for some time Heston brings some authority to his role but little convincing. After years in the saddle we know he can shoot a man down like that; we know we can also count on Preacher Quint-types (yet again Donald Pleasence giving it all) who begrudge a little killing, but only when they get hurt. Will only wants to live out the winter undisturbed among the snowclad hills (and our grateful thanks once more to Lucien Ballard on camera) unhaunted by the Spectre agent. Will is left for dead (resurrection/ vengeance theme), lives, and is reluctantly but truly cared for by Joan Hackett—a welcome appearance since her debut in The Group, Joan has all the attraction of Janice Rule but retains all the traditional feminine virtues. Heston undergoes another Warlord recuperation, and just as conjugal bliss may be added to seasonality and mutuality, Preacher Quint arrives for Christmas. Things come to a fairly brisk and unsentimental ending after that.

Writer-director Tom Gries, a newcomer to the big stuff, has not worked out his material carefully enough. His film must be compared to Killer on a Horse, to the former's disadvantage. Burt Kennedy may be an older hand, but why couldn't someone at least learn from him. Lapses are forgiveable when the entirety is under control, but Will Penny comes too close to the cliff. A pity, for twas honest and intentional enough, even though the spurs were chewed.