Carol (Todd Haynes, 2015)

[Ribs]

I literally looked up whether or not he did the Artist and could wear he wasn't listed there. Oops, got some of my figures there to the point where my observation isn't necessarily as valid.

(Though 4 out of 7 from 96-02 compared to 2 out of 13 from 03-15 is a sizeable difference nonetheless)

[Michael Kerpan]

I have stated here that I wish Weinstien had distributed "The Assassin" instead of Well Go USA.

Weinstein would have insisted on meddling with the film (being convinced that he knows how to edit better than master directors -- viz/ Snowpiercer). So -- no. Just no.

[Trees]

I have stated here that I wish Weinstien had distributed "The Assassin" instead of Well Go USA.

Weinstein would have insisted on meddling with the film (being convinced that he knows how to edit better than master directors -- viz/ Snowpiercer). So -- no. Just no.

Obviously a Miyazaki-style "no cuts" clause could be put in the contract. =; [-X

[knives]

Bong had one if memory serves and look at all the good that did him.

[Trees]

Bong had one if memory serves and look at all the good that did him.

Harvey has been put in his place before by Asian directors:

No Cuts: Harvey Weinstein, Hayao Miyazaki and the samurai sword

Harvey Weinstein, one of Hollywood's most belligerent producers, received a samurai sword in the post because his reputation preceded him. It came with a note that said simply: "No cuts."

By 1997, Weinstein's Miramax company had been taken over by Disney, which had a distribution deal with Japanese animation revolutionaries Studio Ghibli.

Weinstein became one of Hollywood's most powerful producers by acquiring and ruthlessly cutting films to make them as commercial as possible. Fearing his masterpiece Princess Mononoke would be butchered, director and animator Hayao Miyazaki sent Weinstein the sword with the note advising him not to do it.

Actually, Miyazaki later claimed it was his producer, not him, who sent the sword. But he still took the credit for putting Weinstein in line. He told the Guardian: "Although I did go to New York to meet this man, this Harvey Weinstein, and I was bombarded with this aggressive attack, all these demands for cuts. I defeated him."

http://thefilmfacts.blogspot.ae/2012/08 ... azaki.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rrenault]

As for Carol's comparatively uplifting ending, concern over it is certainly warranted, but the tragic love story is just as much if not more of a cliche, and there's hardly anything radical about employing such a trope, whether the romance is heterosexual or homosexual (e.g. Titanic, The English Patient, Doctor Zhivago, Brokeback Mountain, etc.). You probably run the least risk of being labeled a reactionary by ending a love story on an ambiguous note, as was the case with Blue is the Warmest Color, not that I prefer it to Carol. With that said, ending things on an ambiguous note has become its own arthouse cliche, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, which leads one to the conclusion that it's the filmmaking and/or writing itself that makes or breaks a work, and not to peddle Adorno, but that the 'content is in the form'.

[mizo]

I think the real "arthouse cliche" is when people who go to arthouses complain about cliches.

[FrauBlucher]

I didn't think it was an uplifting ending. Haynes allows them to be with each other but this story takes place in the 50's, so my thoughts go to what's next for them. Carol gives up her daughter, which is very sad. Therese probably looses her friends. All kinds of social prejudices will weigh on their relationship. It is not a fairy tale where we say "they lived happily ever after." An ending where one doesn't have to think of the consequences of the their relationship carrying on in a place and time that that kind of relationship is greatly frowned upon, is an ending, imho, that will not invoke thought about what the underlying message of what the film is trying to convey.

And quite frankly, Carol and Blue is Warmest Color are very different films. Just because the narrative shows off lesbian relationships doesn't mean they are comparable.

[Luke M]

Ugh, I can't believe we're seriously comparing Blue is the Warmest Color and Carol.

[ianthemovie]

"Uplifting" is perhaps the wrong word for the ending; "hopeful" might be better. Both women will certainly face difficulties as gay women living in the 1950s but I think the point is that Therese appears to choose to revive the relationship with Carol, and Carol has shown that she is unwilling to closet herself for the sake of others. (Even the subplot with Carol's daughter seemed hopeful to me. We obviously don't know how that will resolve, but judging from Carol's triumphant speech in the lawyer's office she may have won the case.)

I love that, in a perverse twist, Haynes makes a happy/hopeful ending feel subversive. As many people have noted, tragic endings to gay love stories were de rigueur at the time the novel was written and are still common in mainstream films today. Even without studio pressure to punish the characters, a lesser filmmaker would no doubt have felt he was doing something edgy or "real" by leaving the women to suffer alone. Leave it to Haynes to turn that on its head. Same with the Rindy subplot: a typical melodrama would require the heroine to choose between her lover and her child, where Haynes suggests that Carol may end up getting to keep both.

[R0lf]

Ugh, I can't believe we're seriously comparing Blue is the Warmest Color and Carol.

Seeing as I found the soundtrack very generic in places I've been re imagining CAROL set to the soundtrack from THE HUNGER (in part provoked from the apparent use of a body double for Blanchett as Deneuve before her).

[hearthesilence]

Ugh, I can't believe we're seriously comparing Blue is the Warmest Color and Carol.

Honestly, it really is superficial to compare the two. Yes, they both have lesbian affairs involving one older and one younger individual, but they are many worlds apart. Completely different works with completely different aims, and with regards to plot, time, place, culture, and even the age gap is significantly different.

[Trees]

I think it is valid to compare the performances of the lead actresses, for example. Both "Blue" and "Carol" have been hailed and heralded for the performances of their two romantic leading actresses. These performances have often been used as the main selling point for both films. For me, the performances in "Blue" were far superior. Part of that, I think, is because the characters in "Blue" were better- and more believably written.

To compare the two films might be, as you suggest, superficial, but to compare the performances seems fair enough.

[Vlogler]

I think it is valid to compare the performances of the lead actresses, for example. Both "Blue" and "Carol" have been hailed and heralded for the performances of their two romantic leading actresses. These performances have often been used as the main selling point for both films. For me, the performances in "Blue" were far superior. Part of that, I think, is because the characters in "Blue" were better- and more believably written.

To compare the two films might be, as you suggest, superficial, but to compare the performances seems fair enough.

I don't think its fair to compare the films based on character because Blue's main feature is the character work that the actors and director put years of work into. Carol is a more plot-driven film, that put more attention into details of the visuals and characters than the strength or believably of these characters. Kechiche's film has more natural performances and cinematography and Haynes's is more carefully composed and performed. The former is a perfectly valid personal preference, and probably mine, but to me it's unfair to judge one film based on another's aesthetic goals and process. Obviously Blue's performances were superior; but that's not the point for me.

Also come on. Can we not compare movies just because they have lesbians?

[FrauBlucher]

I think it is valid to compare the performances of the lead actresses, for example. Both "Blue" and "Carol" have been hailed and heralded for the performances of their two romantic leading actresses. These performances have often been used as the main selling point for both films. For me, the performances in "Blue" were far superior. Part of that, I think, is because the characters in "Blue" were better- and more believably written.

To compare the two films might be, as you suggest, superficial, but to compare the performances seems fair enough.

While you're at it, let's compare performances in gangster films, sword-and-sandal films, super hero films, slasher flicks, etc.....I don't see your point.

[rrenault]

To play devil's advocate, couldn't you potentially argue that Weinstein's willingness to get behind the film without demanding revisions to make it more marketable is a sign it's a relatively safe film by arthouse standards. Compare it to James Gray's The Immigrant, which was bought by Weinstein but for which he demanded revisions that Gray said no to. In the latter case, the film received a very limited release that obviously diminished its exposure. In other words, Harvey was satisfied with Carol as is, but not with The Immigrant.

[Foam]

I almost don't want to humor or entertain this comparison to Blue is the Warmest Color but my position here is almost exactly the opposite of that expressed by Trees. And it really does hinge on the recognition that there are profound and essential differences between these two films. I started and quit Blue three different times precisely because I found the characters such boring types and couldn't relate to them on any level whatsoever. On the other hand I felt an instant and sustained and intensifying connection with Mara's character, right down to the last little specificities of dialogue and performance--and I'm not a woman, wouldn't identify as homosexual, etc. I could not "relate" to Carol, but I felt I understood her since my life is populated with those whose interpersonal style is pitched at the same kind of theatrical level. To sum up: comparing this and Blue, the films are different, the performances are different, and are meant to conjure up different associations for different kinds of people, among which any overlap is incidental.

As an aside, isn't Mara clearly the lead here? Blanchett's nomination for Best Actress strikes me as superficial. I may well be wrong but I don't think she gets as much screen time. She only seems to be the lead because she's a bigger name actress and the film is named after her. But the film relates to her more as an object; there's stronger subjective weight around Mara's character. Or at least it seemed so to me.

[domino harvey]

No idea if it's right but Amazon just sent me a shipping update saying this Blu-ray was coming out next Tuesday (release date elsewhere says not til March). Possibly moved up to take advantage of the Oscar noms?

[mfunk9786]

Amazon lists it as the new date on their website, too. Perhaps Anchor Bay printed enough of these already to do an early Amazon exclusive release?

[hearthesilence]

The new date was announced on the official film Facebook page. Maybe capitalizing on the Oscar race regardless of the outcome?

[Ribs]

That's not the official page, though - the official page hasn't posted anything about home video release.

[domino harvey]

If it's true it's a great idea, I wish studios did that more often post-Oscar noms. I see Room is coming out in freaking March, which makes no sense to me. Why not capitalize on all the people who want to see it now that it overperformed in Oscar noms, especially given how small a film it is?

[domino harvey]

Blu-ray.com is reporting the Feb 2 release date now as well

[Professor Wagstaff]

The February 2nd release date is gone from Amazon. Damn!

[Luke M]

This would've been an instant purchase if it came out in a week.