( +1 hidden )
January 21, 2016 at 8:42 pm #212355
So, I was finally able to get around to watching Carol a couple days ago and found myself completely underwhelmed. I had heard so much hype for this movie, whether it be from the critics, audiences, fans of film, etc and it completely failed to live up to expectations. I hate to use this word to describe the movie, but I found it kinda boring and much too slow. While the acting and the technical aspects were pretty good to great across the board, I felt it didn’t help enough when the film itself seemed quite lifeless. So lovers of the film, I’m asking, what am I missing here? I’m not trying to be rude, but I’m legitamately curious why this film was so beloved. What about did you all fall in love with?January 21, 2016 at 9:37 pm #212357This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.January 21, 2016 at 9:42 pm #212358This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.January 22, 2016 at 12:11 am #212359
I will even go all the way to say that The two leads are totally miscast (no chemistry, they look more like Aunt/cousin rather than lovers). “And that last scene is the worst acting I’ve seen from Blanchett who was much much better in Cinderella this year.January 22, 2016 at 5:25 am #212360
“Carol” is a modern-day masterpiece. If you don’t get that/can’t see that, then too bad for you.January 22, 2016 at 6:44 am #212361
What makes CAROL a wonderful film is the way that every part of its production serves the central purpose of the story. I disagree with many who say that it’s a lesbian love story. Yes, it’s that in part, but it’s so much more. For me it’s about women–their love for each other, their other-ness in the world, their emotions, their inner beauty and their outer beauty, etc.
When you read about Patricia Highsmith and the IRL experience of working at a department store and being so enraptured by a Carol-like woman that inspired her to write The Price of Salt, you understand this to be true about the story. That moment wasn’t about lust or homosexuality for Highsmith, it was about being instantly enamored and obsessed with another woman. Through the film you see the way this is how Therese feels. She begins the story as a timid, frumpy-clothed girl and ends the film having become Carol. The film ends with the two of them meeting each other’s gaze because Therese finally feels equal to Carol. Therese has become the woman that she was wanted to become, but it took loving and witnessing another version of that woman to become her.
Every part of the production serves this idea. Therese is a photographer. The cinematography frames the women through doorframes and windows, often blurred because this is how unclearly society sees women’s needs and desires. The script is sparse (what you may call boring) because the intent is vision and sight and inner feelings, not the outward expression of speaking. The costumes describe the progress of the women, specifically Therese, as their personalities unravel and take form. The music is calm, melancholic, feminine.
Take the first scene and its counterpart at the end as examples of the way the film itself shifts from the male perspective to the female perspective. We first see the tea room scene via the male perspective, spotting Therese with Carol from across the room. We see Carol touching Therese’s shoulder as that man sees Carol touch Therese’s shoulder, and like him we lack the context of what Therese’s glance means. At the end of the film we get this same scene from Therese’s perspective and with the context that it is owed. But we only get it because the film has delved into the personal lives of women having stripped away the male gaze.
Call it boring? It’s slow. It’s meticulous. It’s quiet. Yes, it’s those things. And you call that boring, but you call it boring because you haven’t understood why it must be all of those things and more.January 22, 2016 at 6:57 am #212362
I was so excited to finally see Carol this year because I love Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara (who doesn’t?!) and Todd Haynes films. Everybody knew how excited I was to see it, that’s how much I talked about it, but when I did aound a month ago, I too was completely underwhelmed. In its own right, sure, it’s a mastrpiece of sorts… but I just didn’t feel the magic of the book was translated to the screen without flaw. Perhaps, it was ultimately my own fault for hyping it up so much and then it not being able to live up to my expectations. I couldn’t even add it to my Top Ten films of the year. Either way, I still really, really like Carol, but I also understand where the original poster is coming from.January 22, 2016 at 7:09 am #212363
Well, I actively seek out films with Rooney Mara. I like her. She’s good.
And she’s great here as well. More compelling than the great Cate imo. Her role just might be the more difficult of the two to really flesh out.
The film is gorgeous overall. Great costuming, great cinematography, and a terrific story of love.
And far from a commercial one.
And it’s Todd Haynes. He can add another notanotherbasicfilm to his resume.
I was surprised it missed for Best Picture. It would have been a worthy contender.
I’ve had time to get over Mara being in Supporting, but this is an embarassment.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Philip K Dick Blade RunnerJanuary 22, 2016 at 7:47 am #212364
I think in addition to the intimacy, the silent moments of longing and everything people have articulated here, there is a certain amount of ownership within the gay community for this film. Because it doesn’t judge or cast Carol and Therese in a stereotypical light. It treats them like real people just like anyone else. And I think it’s hard for some straight people to understand the struggle to express love for a person of the same sex in public — and in the ’50s, even in private. I think that’s so perfectly captured in the movie, especially if you really connect to Therese as I did.
Also, I think the lead-up from their first moments to their big expression of love is so smartly handled. Some people who don’t understand what Haynes is going for will call it “boring.” Just because there’s no big action doesn’t mean there’s not a world of emotion going on between Carol and Therese every time they look at each other.
It’s no surprise that despite being the highest rated movie of the year on Metacritic, the straight white male academy chose to go for movies they could personally relate to more. It’s the same conversation as the #OscarsSoWhite controversy. People will respond more favorably to what they’re most comfortable with.January 22, 2016 at 7:49 am #212365
Loving these posts about the film’s virtues.January 22, 2016 at 9:53 am #212367
That’s a question I’ve been asking myself ever since the movie came out. I think everybody loves it because it has homosexuals in it.
May the best of your todays be the worst of your tomorrows.January 22, 2016 at 10:18 am #212368
Oh for god’s sake, why is it that every time a bunch of people like a movie about a minority group, there’s this dismissive attitude that they only like it because it’s about minorities? It happened with Brokeback Mountain, Selma, 12 Years a Slave, Straight Outta Compton, etc. A good movie is a good movie.January 22, 2016 at 10:54 am #212369
I didn’t find “Carol” quite as exquisite as “Far from Heaven” (one of the best films of the 2000s), but holy moly is Blanchett flat-out fantastic in it. I think it’s by far her finest work to date. Mara’s great too but the scenes without Blanchett just aren’t the same. Another superb script by Haynes, gorgeous cinematography, a moving score…wonderful all-around, even if, as I said, it doesn’t quite reach the same heights as FFH.January 22, 2016 at 12:57 pm #212370This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.