acting
I finished "In Cold Blood" this week. Having also just seen "Capote," I was tuned in to places in the book where characters talk to nobody in particular, or to a "certain reporter" or "a journalist." These entities would all be Capote himself, natch. And I sorta felt uncomfortable about the journalist role in the whole setup. From the movie, I knew that Capote himself had arranged for better lawyers to represent the two murderers, and later refused to help the two any further after he had secured the story he needed to write.
In essence, the journalist created the story rather than reported it, to some - significant - extent. That's not what journalists do.
When I was little and watched PBS nature shows I would get frustrated that the cameramen wouldn't save the hyena from the lions, or the lion cubs from their father, or the zebra from the cheetah. You had to take sides! Protect the zebra against the tiger! Or else you're on the tiger's side! But of course, the journalists and camerapeople are documenting nature, not taking sides. Not intervening. Don't touch the story. Don't influence the actors. When you go back to the future, don't change anything.
Capote's interferences were particularly callous and cynical, which was why it took me two weeks to be able to pick up the book after seeing the movie. Hard to know, though, when it might be right to interfere. But then you're no longer a journalist. Then you're an actor. And reading the book I was irked because I felt duped, with the author telling me a story that was neither real nor fiction, where the deciding factor between the two was the author himself. How dare he write scenes that could only have happened with him as though they were happening outside of his existence, as though he had no part at all. It was deceptive.
Perhaps at the time the book came out there were articles written about Capote's participation, and perhaps these stirred controversy. Perhaps he was attacked by readers who felt duped, who felt there was either fiction or nonfiction, and no fudging inbetween. Surely he was.
gertrude
In essence, the journalist created the story rather than reported it, to some - significant - extent. That's not what journalists do.
When I was little and watched PBS nature shows I would get frustrated that the cameramen wouldn't save the hyena from the lions, or the lion cubs from their father, or the zebra from the cheetah. You had to take sides! Protect the zebra against the tiger! Or else you're on the tiger's side! But of course, the journalists and camerapeople are documenting nature, not taking sides. Not intervening. Don't touch the story. Don't influence the actors. When you go back to the future, don't change anything.
Capote's interferences were particularly callous and cynical, which was why it took me two weeks to be able to pick up the book after seeing the movie. Hard to know, though, when it might be right to interfere. But then you're no longer a journalist. Then you're an actor. And reading the book I was irked because I felt duped, with the author telling me a story that was neither real nor fiction, where the deciding factor between the two was the author himself. How dare he write scenes that could only have happened with him as though they were happening outside of his existence, as though he had no part at all. It was deceptive.
Perhaps at the time the book came out there were articles written about Capote's participation, and perhaps these stirred controversy. Perhaps he was attacked by readers who felt duped, who felt there was either fiction or nonfiction, and no fudging inbetween. Surely he was.
gertrude
posted by Gertrude at 12:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home