When does the fictionalizing of a true story by Hollywood become the equivalent of the James Frey fiasco, the writer of the best-selling, Oprah-hawked, A Million Little Pieces? For years we’ve known that writers of screenplays will insert little fictions into a story to help it along, to gloss over a sticking point or just make it more entertaining. For the most part, we’ve come to accept these venalities and allow Hollywood a little leeway, but now comes news of the gross mischaracterization, in the film Capote, of William Shawn, Capote’s editor at The New Yorker, in the form of a letter from Shawn’s sons. And now I have to ask myself, why all the fuss over James Frey and his “enhanced” memoir if the movies can get away with it as a matter of fact?
Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. I believe that what Frey did was wrong and subsequently will hurt and question the credibility of memoir writers, possibly other non-fiction writers as well, far into the future. If a written work is labeled as a memoir or an autobiography, it better be the truth without reservation. Period. So, why aren’t moviemakers held up to the same standards as other media? Why is Hollywood always given a pass?
There are many examples of biopics “playing loose with the facts” throughout movie history. One early example that comes to mind is Houdini starring Tony Curtis, in which the magician dies trapped in his Chinese Water Torture illusion, unable to escape a watery death. Actually, Houdini died of complications from getting punched by a fan. He always prided himself on his physical condition and would regularly challenge men to hit him in the stomach. On this occasion a fan let go before he had a chance to prepare himself and he died a few days later. Not as dramatic a death as the movie, but certainly a major liberty was taken in changing its circumstances. Can you imagine the outcry if Oliver Stone had changed JFK’s death in his movie of the same name? (Of course, Stone hypothesized and fictionalized every other aspect of that film, but then again, that was the whole point.)
So, along comes a letter from the Shawn boys to The New Yorker declaring that the filmmakers invented the William Shawn character “out of whole cloth”. They write that their father never organized a book reading for Capote, never spoke in public, did not arrange for Richard Avedon to take photographs of the killers or publish them, found editing “In Cold Blood” very disturbing, did not go to Kansas to visit Capote and never flew in an airplane; all of which happen in the film. Minor points, you say? Maybe…but it paints a totally different picture of the actual man being portrayed, a man whose reputation was built on getting the facts straight.
Frankly, I thought that Capote was a good movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant in portraying Capote even when he just stood still and didn’t say a word. The story took a slice of the writer’s life and was able to show us his talent as well as his weaknesses, but now I’m wondering what else might not be true, what else may be stretching the real story, and that’s the stuff that poisons the well. Maybe next week we’ll hear from Harper Lee’s family…