I am wondering how much of a factor time played in the development of a relationship - I mean, it's only crucial to the development of an overall person, after all. Is it possible to "forget" that someone committed a quadruple homicide in cold blood long enough to fall in love with them? Each artistic portrayal that I have seen thus far has very similar artistic perspectives concerning the first moment that Truman and Perry lay eyes on each other - when Perry is getting out of the police car and being walked inside the courthouse after arriving from the point of arrest in Las Vegas. As he is limping along accompanied by guards all around, surrounding by the watching eyes of the masses of people standing silently, simply observing the killers: Perry and Truman's gazes lock and hold. This mysterious moment is utterly ambiguous and therefore frustrating - what are they thinking? What are they seeing in each other in that moment? How are they judging each other? Do they at all realize the future about to unfold before them? Basically, I just want to know, was the attraction instantaneous? Not necessarily love at first sight like Romeo & Juliet, but you know what I mean.
Truman spent a great deal of time with Perry over the course of five years - getting to know him, but for what purpose? Was it always research for the book, or research for bonding? How many of those sessions were personal visits? Was there ever even a distinction or did the two always meld together?
Then there is the idea of change. Perry slashed a knife across Mr. Clutter's throat and then put four bullets into the four members of the family, how sympathetic can someone so lacking in sympathy and empathy be? Or could he transform over the course of five years? In general, people like to believe in second chances and the power of positive change in a person's life; that they are capable of doing it provided a motive and the willpower to achieve that goal. In this case, we almost don't want to believe it's possible, but does that necessarily mean that it isn't? Based on the book, one could make an argument saying it most certainly is possible to "regain humanity", but the fact of the matter is that Perry never does - contrary to the novel's ending, he does not apologize. How could he have changed his ways and learned to love Truman, but missed the lesson on the error of his ways?
I also wonder about balance. Hindsight is 20:20, but at what distance? Near or far sighted? Personally, I believe it be the latter. When first reading the book, I marveled at how well Capote balanced the stories of the Clutters, the people of Holcomb and Garden City, the investigators and prosecution. However, now I am seeing that Capote's original goal seemed to have been lost. His initial idea for his New Yorker Magazine article was to understand how a small, tight-knit community would be affected by the horrific tragedy. That seems to be lost after the second section - the community he was originally so concerned with barely has a voice. I also used to defend Capote - I didn't understand where people were seeing the partisanship towards Perry. I naively believed that Dick was such a despicable character with such apathy and nonchalance that his story was told fairly and authentically as he would have conveyed to the author. Now, I'm not so sure - was Dick unjustly crucified for Perry's benefit? Simply to provide contrast via means of juxtaposition to an extreme?
It's times like this when I wish I had been there - just living during that time to follow the case and the release and reaction to In Cold Blood, but maybe also as a fly on the wall, so we could know once and for all what really went down during those five years. Then again, that could get real awkward real fast, so perhaps it is better not to know...
No comments:
Post a Comment