In 1959, the landscape of American true crime changed forever. What took place was the brutal murder of the Herbert Clutter family in the small farming community of Holcomb, Kansas. The crime sent shock waves across the country. What happened next became infamous. Writer Truman Capote learned about the murders, and with his childhood friend and fellow author Harper Lee, they traveled to Holcomb.
Which Capote would describe as ”a lonesome area that other Kansans call “out there.”” There they interviewed local residents and investigators assigned to the case and took thousands of pages of notes (8,000 pages, to be precise). Capote’s story behind the inception of the book was brilliantly portrayed by Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote (2005). And also portrayed by the equally talented Toby Jones in the film Infamous (2006).
Eventually, the killers, Richard “Dick” Hickock and Perry Smith, were arrested six weeks after the murders. And later executed by the state of Kansas. Capote conducted personal interviews with both Smith and Hickock. Smith especially fascinated Capote, in the book he is portrayed as the more sensitive of the two killers. The book was not completed until after Smith and Hickock were executed.
A screen adaptation was always on the table, long before the book had actually been published. Richard Brooks, an acquaintance of Truman Capote, was given early drafts of Capote’s book In Cold Blood before it was completed. Capote was considering optioning a film version. Otto Preminger had initially expressed interest in directing an adaptation. But Brooks agreed to the project and purchased the rights from Capote for an estimated $400,000.
“Columbia Pictures originally wanted Paul Newman and Steve McQueen as Richard Hickock and Perry Smith.”
In Mark Harris’ piece for Film Comment, he recalls how Brooks wasn’t interested in cast big name movie stars. ”He wanted the film version of In Cold Blood to feel as much like a hybrid as the book had, with one foot in boundary-pushing dark drama and the other in documentary realism. And for that, he wanted new faces, actors who would, for audiences, have no associations outside the characters they were playing.”
Columbia Pictures originally wanted Paul Newman and Steve McQueen as Richard Hickock and Perry Smith, respectively, but Brooks refused as he felt their star statuses would render their performances less believable to audiences. And perhaps this is why the film works with the likes of Robert Blake and Scott Wilson being cast. Both actors were unknown to a mass audience.
Wilson recalls how Brooks would refer to him and Blake as “‘the boys’ [and then] talked a lot about who he could have gotten. If that sounds bitter, I don’t mean it to be—it’s just the reality that was with me at the time. Brooks was like an active volcano that you knew was going to erupt but you didn’t know when, although after a certain amount of time”
However, they weren’t exactly amateurs. Blake had been a child actor and appeared in numerous films prior to In Cold Blood. Wilson had just come off of In the Heat of the Night, where he had played the role of a vagrant picked up on suspicion of murder (the man Poitier’s Virgil Tibbs eventually exonerates).
“The film is somewhat more realistic and effective due to the lack of vivid colour.”
Poitier had taken an interest in Wilson, even rewriting their interrogation scene to give the young actor more to do. Wilson (who was interview by Mark Harris) recalls how, “Sidney asked me if I was up for In Cold Blood. I said, ‘What’s that?’ And he said, ‘Ask your agent. You should be up for it.’”
Production was not easy for the young actors. As mentioned previously, Brooks had an exact vision of how he wanted this film to turn out. Brooks, was an infamous bully, and a massive perfectionist (almost as bad as Kubrick.) As detailed by The Guardian’s John Patterson “Everything great about In Cold Blood comes from his intelligent corralling of the talents above. And his commitment to realism and accuracy, which went as far as his insistence that the murders be filmed in the town, the house, indeed, the very rooms in which they really happened.”
Realising this detail, makes viewing the film even more real. The house looks lived in. And at the same time we get the sense that it’s harbouring some poor souls trapped in a morbid history captured in print and in film for eternity.
Brooks insisted on shooting the film for Columbia in black and white. This came at a time when every other studio and director had abandoned it. The next time a major studio film was shot in black and white would not be until 1971’s The Last Picture Show. The film is somewhat more realistic and effective due to the lack of vivid colour. Two major scenes stand out for their use of lighting.
Firstly, the opening, which is set on a darkened bus, with a child making her way towards the rear. She sees a boot sole with two catspaw studs and the outline of a man holding a guitar. He strikes a match on the boot and moves it toward his cigarette and his face, which fills the screen. This is our introduction to Perry Smith (played by Blake).
The second scene (or rather sequence), which makes effective use of the black and white photography is the flashback of the killings. The death of Herbert Clutter (John McLiam) remains one of the hardest scenes to watch in the film. With Herbert tied up on a mattress in the basement, dressed in his pyjamas. The only real source of light comes from the two killer’s flashlights, eerily lighting their faces so they look distorted.
“In Cold Blood is probably 1967’s most ‘forgotten’ film.”
As Smith goes to cut Clutter’s throat (we don’t see the blade making actual contact), the flashlight rolls around, casting monstrous shadows across the basement walls. Coupled with Quincy Jones’ foreboding score, this is one of the most haunting scene ever committed to the big screen. Jones apparently utilize two acoustic basses throughout the score to represent the two killers’ “demented minds.
Upon it’s release, In Cold Blood received critical praise for major critics of the time. Charles Champlin of The Los Angeles Times described the film as “an honest, sobering, revealing motion picture, earnest and authentic.” And Bosley Crowther of The New York Times called the film an “excellent quasidocumentary, which sends shivers down the spine while moving the viewer to ponder.” Still, the film wasn’t the box-office hit that the studio had anticipated. The film actually opened in the same two weeks as The Graduate and the re-release of Bonnie and Clyde.
Although, In Cold Blood is probably 1967’s most ‘forgotten’ film, we can’t deny it’s significance in film history. As John Patterson states it “marked the first appearance in a studio-financed movie for the terms “pussy”, “bullshit”, “jacking off”, and “diarrhoea”.” In Cold Blood, is a perfect example of New Hollywood realism, gritty and bleak, and truthful in its depiction of real life.
The film was an indication of what was to come. Not only in terms of cinema, but the rise of high-profile crime and true crime fiction. In less than a couple of years, America would be hit with another brutal crime, and a popular true crime book would emerge. This book was Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry’s Helter Skelter.
Discover more from Filmotomy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
