Carol

johnny_ultimate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH3zcuRQXNo

It feels like over the last half year film critics have been members of a secret club that has seen Carol early, their comments on the film falling somewhere between gushing praise and 'nanananana we've seen Carol' (tone can be a difficult thing to discern from written text). Now, the film has finally been liberated.

Does it live up to the critical preamble? Oh god yes, but it's also a more unassuming and gentle film than the excitement might suggest. It is a modest, straightforward, old-fashioned romance - and it is enchanting because of it.

The 16mm photography is stunningly understated throughout, and the way the film plays with the idea of a gaze to make the title character come across like this mysterious, difficult-to-interpret but bewitching presence is fascinating. Yet beyond all the woozy cinematic magic on display, it's the sheer earnestness of the story that makes this so compelling, and oddly refreshing. It really feels like its been decades since a film quite like this was made, albeit with a discernibly modern twist. The score and soundtrack soars, but it is the gestures and glances and loaded exchanges - often delivered with little in the way of fanfare - make this a truly great film romance, aided by two lead actresses among the greatest of their respective generations.

There's nothing particularly showy about Todd Haynes' film, and therein lies the appeal of this beautiful film. It's as romantic a love story has ever been filmed, but also one tinged with longing, regret, mistakes and cruelty - moments that make the joy hard-earned and far from inevitable. It culminates in a final scene that is pure perfection - an intoxicating punctuation mark after two hours that already had me feeling pretty damn tipsy.

Looper007

Just back from the only screening of the whole day in Cineworld (It staggers me that this wonderful film isn't getting any more showings).


It's a film that's deserving of the praise and without doubt Todd Haynes best film to date, it make a great companion piece with Haynes other 50's set film Far From Heaven. Like that film it's clearly indebted to Douglas Sirk and Fassbinder, Rooney Mara deliver's a performance that breaks the heart

The scenes when Therese goes on the road trip with Carol, When She blames herself for their affair that could ruin Carol chances of seen her child and when Carol breaks it off with Therese and without a word said you can see her heart breaking

. Cate Blanchett delivers her usual top notch performance maybe her best to date. The chemistry between both of them is amazing. Sarah Paulson and Kyle Chandler both deliver great performances in smaller roles. But this a two hander all the way.

The Ending

Where Therese goes to the Restaurant to meet Carol and that look between them is wonderful

. I see both Blanchett and Mara walking away with the Female acting awards come award season, I'd be hugely surprised if one of them doesn't win something at the Oscars. Great film.

e_e

Film of the year for me, didn't have to question it for a second. The richest, most visually sumptuous, immaculately detailed, atmospheric and haunting romance I've seen since In the Mood for Love. I watched Brief Encounter two days ago and it's the highest compliment I can pay that this did not feel like a step down in quality from that at all.

spurious

Taking the Mammy and my partner to this tomorrow - can't wait.

spurious

Loved it - it was so satisfying to look at - the costumes, scenery, the music - just beautiful. Fantastic last scene.

Looper007

e_e wrote: »

Film of the year for me, didn't have to question it for a second. The richest, most visually sumptuous, immaculately detailed, atmospheric and haunting romance I've seen since In the Mood for Love. I watched Brief Encounter two days ago and it's the highest compliment I can pay that this did not feel like a step down in quality from that at all.

Would have agreed with you on Friday, but after seen Steve Jobs today I have say Carol will probably finished second.

But it's a fantastic film and as I said Haynes best film to date (although I love Safe and also Velvet Goldmine, a underrated film), if neither actress win both of the actresses awards at the Oscars I be very shocked. Although Blanchett was excellent, it was Mara's performance that springs to mind (especially after you mentioned In the Mood for Love), she reminded me of a female version of Tony Leung, she doesn't say a lot but you can read everything from her eyes.

One of the best love stories I've seen in years.

Aisling(",)

I utterly despised this film.Far too long.Cold glacial love story.The tedious wait for something to happen.Their relationship was unbelieveable and I hoped it would crash and burn.

It looked beautiful but that it's only redeeming point.

Up there as second in my list of awful films of 2015 behind A pigeon sat on a branch reflecting on existence.

I will be sickened if they get any oscars.

Looper007

Aisling(",) wrote: »

I utterly despised this film.Far too long.Cold glacial love story.The tedious wait for something to happen.Their relationship was unbelieveable and I hoped it would crash and burn.

It looked beautiful but that it's only redeeming point.

Up there as second in my list of awful films of 2015 behind A pigeon sat on a branch reflecting on existence.

I will be sickened if they get any oscars.

Wow that's some hate Aisling. Have to disagree with you saying it felt far too long, it flew by for me. The love story for me felt real and as I said one of the more romantic films I've seen. I found the relationship believable and I was cheering it on. As it was clear her marriage was pretty much over.

I be sickened if it doesn't win any Oscars especially for it's two leads.

Calling it one of the worst films of the year as their is a lot of rubbish out there is a tad harsh.

johnny_ultimate

Has anyone read the Price of Salt? I'm curious about Genevieve Cantrell - Carrie Brownstein's character. As an unapologetic Sleater-Kinney fanboy, Brownstein's name stood out and seemed to be given plenty of prominence in the opening credits - only for her to show up for around 90 seconds in the final minutes of the film. I think the character definitely serves a strong if understated (the film in a nutshell, TBH) purpose in prompting Therese's final decision, but was wondering if she's a more prominent presence in the novel? Just stood out as having a reasonably weighty importance despite her limited screentime.

Nerdlingr

Saw it two weeks ago and I didnt like it either. All style and no substance for me. Blanchett playing Blanchett. Rooney Mara playing doe-eyed. It was overly long, slow and meandered to its inevitable conclusion. I dont really see what all the fuss was about in Blanchett's performance. A lot of staring into space, aloofness, coldness. The last scene... came and went and I thought "is that it?".
I think people are giving it way too much credit than its worth. The critics will eat it up for the way it looks and how so little can say so much. Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian went on about the nuances of lipstick on a cigarette.

I much rather the scenes between the two leads and their respective partners. This for me is where the film came to life.

Rooney Mara leaving her boyfriend and Blanchett fighting for her child (which i thought was the best scene in the whole film)

. The cold and detached relationship between the leads was the least interesting thing for me.

3/5

MilesMorales1

I thought it was very very good, looked nice, good acting, all that craic, don't know if its deserving of the mountains of praise its been getting though.

It is very understated though, I like that. Not sure how believable the relationship was overall either.

Sad Professor

I had high hopes for this and it didn't disappoint. The dialogue and performances are so mannered like a classical romance, yet the visuals are sensuously erotic in their attention to every little touch, gesture and eye movement. A passionate love story exquisitely crafted, heart-wrenchingly performed and just breathtaking in every way.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Has anyone read the Price of Salt? I'm curious about Genevieve Cantrell - Carrie Brownstein's character. As an unapologetic Sleater-Kinney fanboy, Brownstein's name stood out and seemed to be given plenty of prominence in the opening credits - only for her to show up for around 90 seconds in the final minutes of the film. I think the character definitely serves a strong if understated (the film in a nutshell, TBH) purpose in prompting Therese's final decision, but was wondering if she's a more prominent presence in the novel? Just stood out as having a reasonably weighty importance despite her limited screentime.

As I recall, the character in the book is a famous actress who comes onto Therese quite strong and even invites her up to her room. I wouldn’t say she had any bigger role except obviously you get Therese’s whole inner monologue where as in the film Haynes deliberately keeps the women and their conversation distant, I guess to show Therese’s disinterest. She serves the same purpose either way.

vidor

This was...fine? It's predictable and straightforward in nearly everything it does, and that's not necessarily a negative but it irked me here. Might sound a little silly to say it considering the subject but it just felt safe.

e_e

I'm a little saddened by all the "so what?" comments on here. People love it not just because it looks "beautiful" but because it's maybe the most formally perfect film made this year in how it serves its content and it evokes a feeling of love in a way few movies ever have. It's not supposed be some tense, twisty and content-filled narrative or weighty intellectual exercise, it's pure tone and emotion and all the better for it. I can't remember the last time I watched a new movie and was so attentive to every perfectly placed detail put in visually and aurally. All of the immaculate detail is not just a superficial "isn't this stuff oh so pretty?" like you'd get out of blatant awards fodder: it's a sensual, tactile and emotional underpinning to the story. It's a god damn perfect film in every aspect is what I'm saying and that films don't just get a 95/100 score on Metacritic by accident.

There was a guy sat behind me who was really uppity and impatient all throughout the trailers straight into the movie. Yawning, tapping his feet off the ground and audibly fidgeting in his seat and I could tell right there that he went in with the wrong mindset completely.

MilesMorales1

e_e wrote: »

I'm a little saddened by all the "so what?" comments on here. People love it not just because it looks "beautiful" but because it's maybe the most formally perfect film made this year in how it serves its content and it evokes a feeling of love in a way few movies ever have. It's not supposed be some tense, twisty and content-filled narrative or weighty intellectual exercise, it's pure tone and emotion and all the better for it. I can't remember the last time I watched a new movie and was so attentive to every perfectly placed detail put in visually and aurally. All of the immaculate detail is not just a superficial "isn't this stuff oh so pretty?" like you'd get out of blatant awards fodder: it's a sensual, tactile and emotional underpinning to the story. It's a god damn perfect film in every aspect is what I'm saying and that films don't just get a 95/100 score on Metacritic by accident.

There was a guy sat behind me who was really uppity and impatient all throughout the trailers straight into the movie. Yawning, tapping his feet off the ground and audibly fidgeting in his seat and I could tell right there that he went in with the wrong mindset completely.

Well I don't know if that was me, but I was definitely fidgeting during the movie. I tend to do when I have to sit in a seat for 2 hours straight :P

(not saying it was me, but that kinda sounds like me)

JP Liz V1

Would this be Kyle Chandler's biggest film role to date?

NachoBusiness

Has to be one of the most boring films I've seen all year. Was really looking forward to it too.

On paper, it sounds like something I would love. I adore films like this but it is sooooo bloody slow and not in a good way. It's tedious in the extreme because it has no substance. It's as if you can constantly see what the director is attempting, but yet fail so miserably at. It's try hard rubbish. A film that sets out to be something it never gets anywhere near to achieving but setting out to achieve something is all some people need I guess.

Mara is excellent. The only positive of the film. On the other hand Blanchett is wooden. She overacts in almost every scene and does a poor job at it too. She simply does not convince. I felt her character was in love alright, but only with herself. How anyone could sit through this and come out feeling they had just watched a great love story is beyond me.

The dialogue is also very cringeworthy. It's purple prose and hilariously so. Carol as a character wasn't even that likable. She comes across as fake and lacking sincerity. A martyr at each turn, even if she decries the notion. My God I can't believe the reviews this film is receiving. It has all the ingredients of a great film though and I suspect that is why. Sad as that may be.

If ever a film was mutton dressed up as lamb, then this is it.

Fysh

I enjoyed this a lot, it put me in mind of Mad Men in terms of its focus being on the period setting and small yet evocative details (Therese heating her flat by leaving the oven on with the door open was a great little detail, and speaks volumes without saying a word). It's slow moving in that it's all about looking at the characters, and if you don't find them (or their situation) interesting then I guess it would be dull. I thought it was great, though.

Irish Aris

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Has to be one of the most boring films I've seen all year. Was really looking forward to it too.

On paper, it sounds like something I would love. I adore films like this but it is sooooo bloody slow and not in a good way. It's tedious in the extreme because it has no substance. It's as if you can constantly see what the director is attempting, but yet fail so miserably at. It's try hard rubbish. A film that sets out to be something it never gets anywhere near to achieving but setting out to achieve something is all some people need I guess.

Mara is excellent. The only positive of the film. On the other hand Blanchett is wooden. She overacts in almost every scene and does a poor job at it too. She simply does not convince. I felt her character was in love alright, but only with herself. How anyone could sit through this and come out feeling they had just watched a great love story is beyond me.

The dialogue is also very cringeworthy. It's purple prose and hilariously so. Carol as a character wasn't even that likable. She comes across as fake and lacking sincerity. A martyr at each turn, even if she decries the notion. My God I can't believe the reviews this film is receiving. It has all the ingredients of a great film though and I suspect that is why. Sad as that may be.

If ever a film was mutton dressed up as lamb, then this is it.

Some very interesting points in your post, Nacho.
I just highlighted one part just for reference. And I find it very interesting because I am (at the moment) on the opposite side: I found Rooney Mara completely flat, whereas Cate Blanchett played with her role a bit more.

I've seen Carol last Sunday and I am still on the fence about it. e_e mentioned earlier Wong Kar Wai's In The Mood For Love and I find this a great analogy, albeit for slightly different reasons - mainly the fact that like Kar Wai's film, I feel that this requires more than one viewing to fully appreciated.
Carol felt very slow, nearly dragging at times, a bit too subtle to really make me care about the 2 main characters.
But when I look at it into a bit more detail, there are certain elements that make for a wonderful film: The love scene is beautifully shot, really sensational. The way Haynes sets his interior shots, with attention to detail is intriguing, though not always fascinating. To a certain extend it does remind me of Far From Heaven. Carter Burwell's music complements the images in a very discreet way.
As I mentioned I found Mara a bit blunt. It is probably deliberate, but I didn't feel that it was adding much to the character Blanchett on the other hand played nicely with the finer details of her character and portrays a troubled, yet very determined woman.
On the discussion of the Oscar nomination (which reminds me of a similar discussion on Stephen Daldry's The Hours), I feel that Blanchett is probably better suited for the leading category as her character is the reason that things happen.
So what's missing? Why am I not very enthusiastic about it? Probably a second viewing will short this out.

e_e

I can't say I found it a bit slow tbh, the 2 hours flew by for me especially after experiencing the slog that was Black Mass right before it.

LuckyLloyd

I thought it was beautiful with an immaculate sense of detail for the period aspects. The lead performances are all incredibly strong but...hmm, I just thought the setup and portrayal of them falling for each other ever so slightly missed the mark. It's an incredibly ambitious way to try and do it, to leave everything to their expressions / reactions to each other and paint all the unspoken elements of attraction on screen but, I don't know, it just didn't feel 100% to me.

That said, the "easier" post traumatic section sees the performances hit the mark perfectly with some powerful closing scenes.

I don't think it's quite the perfect work some quarters are making it out to be, but there's more than enough to forgive the imperfections.

NachoBusiness

Irish Aris wrote: »

I found Rooney Mara completely flat, whereas Cate Blanchett played with her role a bit more.

Well, from what I can gather Mara's role is supposed to be somewhat flat as her character is an immature girl, coming of age and in denial about her sexuality. In awe of Carol but also intimidated by her.

Carol felt very slow, nearly dragging at times, a bit too subtle to really make me care about the 2 main characters.

Well this is just it. It shouldn't. I mean, the film is supposed to be moody and slow but in no way shape or form should it drag and boy does it. The reason it does, in my opinion at least, is primarily down to Blanchett's pathetic performance. It is unquestionably that which I feel is the main culprit. Had she been convincing in the role, there is no way that I would have been bored. The dialogue seemed very amateur at times but I could have lived with that. It's based on an old novel and so that was to be expected to a degree. Watch almost any old classic love story and the dialogue can seem humorous but the acting and performances will still be believable all the same. Here, one sticks out like a sore thumb as being over the top and lacking warmth and sincerity.

But when I look at it into a bit more detail, there are certain elements that make for a wonderful film: The love scene is beautifully shot, really sensational. The way Haynes sets his interior shots, with attention to detail is intriguing, though not always fascinating. To a certain extend it does remind me of Far From Heaven. Carter Burwell's music complements the images in a very discreet way.

Totally agree, which is why I said it has many ingredients of being a great film. I actually think the fact that so much of what you speak of was great, made Blanchett's performance all the more grating. Like one singer in a choir singing in a totally different tune to everyone else.

On the discussion of the Oscar nomination (which reminds me of a similar discussion on Stephen Daldry's The Hours), I feel that Blanchett is probably better suited for the leading category as her character is the reason that things happen.

Of wherever category they stick her she's going home with a gong. Hollywood love this nonsense. Lea Seydoux and Adele Exarchopoulos's performances in Blue Is The Warmest Colour were in a different league to Blanchett's. A totally different type of film, granted, but acting quality at a level than Blanchett is incapable of. As Speilberg said of it:

The film is a great love story that made all of us feel privileged to be a fly on the wall, to see this story of deep love and deep heartbreak evolve from the beginning. The director did not put any constraints on the narrative and we were absolutely spellbound by the amazing performances of the two actresses, and especially the way the director observed his characters and just let the characters breathe..

Snubbed by the Academy of course and primarily because it contained graphic love scenes. Won the Palme d'Or though. Thankfully.

So what's missing? Why am I not very enthusiastic about it?

Well, in my opinion the only reason anyone would not be enthusiastic about this love story is because they must not have bought it at some level. Love is almost a character in and of itself in a film like this and if the main character is not coming across as being in love, with anybody other than herself I mean, and being convincing in that regard, then how the hell can the viewer be engaged at any deep level.

Even in one of the final scenes when Blanchett talks about how she wants her husband to have custody of her kids but only so they do not have to suffer anymore... I couldn't buy any of it as she was overacting so much. Martyrdom came off her like steam in that scene and yet, from what I garner from reading reviews of the book, the character was far from that type of person. I don't see much wrong with the dialogue in that scene, just it's delivery and how fake she comes across as she performs it. I honestly believe had the screen went black and someone handed me the dialogue for that scene I would have got more of a genuine feeling of the character than I did from watching Blanchett perform it. The woman actually took more from the film than she gave it.

As for the love scenes. When Blanchett kissed Mara, it felt like I was watching a mother kissing her daughter. It was totally unerotic.

Probably a second viewing will short this out.

I doubt it. Give it a shot though, I may do myself but for me what is missing is a believable and authentic performance and no amount of viewings will make up for that.

e_e

Blue is the Warmest Color a deep love story? I never got why it was marketed and praised that way as the film really couldn't have given less of a **** about romance, lust takes the precedent in that film more than anything.

I think the fundamental difference between that and Carol is that Carol looks with the characters whereas Blue is the Warmest Color looks at them. I found the one love scene in Carol a lot more genuine and touching than the nude wrestling match that was BITWC's numerous sex scenes. :P

Nerdlingr

One of the greatest flaws of the film was how Rooney Mara's character managed to get two weeks off from her job over Christmas to go on the road trip !!! Totally unbelievable!! :P:P

vidor

e_e wrote: »

I found the one love scene in Carol a lot more genuine and touching than the nude wrestling match that was BITWC's numerous sex scenes. :P

At least it was an wrestling match in which everyone knew the rules. Unlike Carol where clearly Blanchett had a say in what was allowed to be filmed in that scene, totally removing the viewer from it.

e_e

I'd say the opposite actually that BITWC is a lot more distancing with its sex scenes because it self-consciously holds nothing back and wants to be this big Cannes "ooh look at what I'm able to show on film!" provocation. I like that film a lot mainly as a character study but those scenes are just "yeah there's like still 90 minutes of this 3 hour movie left can we get a move on please?". They fundamentally distract from the characters and story too.

The love scene in Carol is a lot more of a piece with the understated nature of the movie. It's clearly more interested in both the buildup and the fallout (nice use of Easy Living btw!) from that scene.

Sad Professor

I think the sex scenes in Blue in the Warmest Colour have to be viewed in context with that film’s obsession with the mouth and orality. Talking, kissing, smoking, eating, f**king. It’s easy to think the film is about love but really it's about hunger. For food, for sex, for love, for intellectual expression... for life, I guess. Or Kechiche just has a mouth fetish. Whatever but the sex scenes are explicit for a reason. And yeah Kechiche’s makes no effort to subvert his straight male gaze, but if Blue is about lust and desire and not love then I don’t necessarily see that as a problem. It just means the film belongs to a long and somewhat conventional tradition of French films about young women.

As e_e said, Carol is aiming for something more. Haynes has talked about trying to subvert the male gaze by basing the cinematography on the work of female photographers of the era. I was so swept up in the film I’m not sure if it entirely succeeds on this point. But the love scenes are quite rightly more sensual than explicit.

e_e

No joke I once heard somebody on a podcast ponder whether all the pasta eating in Blue was supposed to be phallic and/or vaginal. :pac:

Mickeroo

Went to see this last night (holding off on Star Wars for a few days yet). Thought it was brilliant, the final few minutes of the movie were really something. I really liked how we see the opening scene twice too and how different it feels after we see the story leading up to it. Loved the score too.

Also, I could not get over how much Mara looked like Audrey Hepburn!

_Whimsical_

I have to say I was incredibly disappointed by this film. Certainly it was an exquisite rendering of a period in terms of the styling, manner and understated tone but I found the characters and the romance fell utterly flat.

I didn't find the relationship believable at all, at no point did we see any real shared intimacy that we could plausibly imagine a love might be built around. Instead Mara seemed like a deer in the headlights, both fascinated and ever so slightly intimidated by the worldly Carol. For me Carol came off selfish and slightly predatory, I just couldn't like her at all, even though I pitied her at times. Mara was clearly caught in the grip of an enchantment and didn't seem to know what she was doing but we knew all along that this was not Carol's first rodeo, and she'd seen the havoc it has wrecked in her marriage before. Yet she takes up with a young girl on the basis of a lingering glance in a shop and suckers her into a drama with no good end for either of them. On their road trip I felt Mara besottedness but it seemed as if Carol just had her along as a pleasant distraction. Her relationship with Abbey seemed much more like a true love and integral to her being.

Something felt "off" about the Carol and Mara as a couple for me and it tinged the whole story with a slightly ominous feel. I wasn't rooting for a happy ever after together but instead for Mara to wake up and get away before too much damage was done.