criterionforum.org

...and Amazon just emailed me again to tell me it won't be coming out next week. Drat!

I really have very little idea why, once you buy a ticket for a film in the theater, you can't endlessly stream said film until the date of its disc release if you want to. The disconnect between theatrical windows and disc windows is feeling more and more unwelcome the longer we go on with convenience-based stuff like streaming being in the picture.

You can replay the film all you want -- but only in your own head.

mfunk9786 wrote:I really have very little idea why, once you buy a ticket for a film in the theater, you can't endlessly stream said film until the date of its disc release if you want to. The disconnect between theatrical windows and disc windows is feeling more and more unwelcome the longer we go on with convenience-based stuff like streaming being in the picture.

Same could be said for books. When I buy a hardback or paperback from Amazon, I feel like I should not have to buy an additional digital copy for my Kindle, it should just be included.

mfunk9786 wrote:I really have very little idea why, once you buy a ticket for a film in the theater, you can't endlessly stream said film until the date of its disc release if you want to. The disconnect between theatrical windows and disc windows is feeling more and more unwelcome the longer we go on with convenience-based stuff like streaming being in the picture.

As if listening to our very discussions, Fandango just today has bought a VOD company called M-GO with the intent of offering "super tickets" that include streaming down the line.

Trees wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:I really have very little idea why, once you buy a ticket for a film in the theater, you can't endlessly stream said film until the date of its disc release if you want to. The disconnect between theatrical windows and disc windows is feeling more and more unwelcome the longer we go on with convenience-based stuff like streaming being in the picture.

Same could be said for books. When I buy a hardback or paperback from Amazon, I feel like I should not have to buy an additional digital copy for my Kindle, it should just be included.

Amazon does exactly that for their music, if you buy it on CD you can get an immediate digital copy of it. Most of their music I should say, that hasn't been the case with every release I've bought but most of them lately have done that.

This bullshit with ABC wanting to censor a TV ad is so typical.

If you're going to do a paint by numbers lesbian melodrama, there better be some passion in it. Perhaps a gay man is the worst positioned to speak on this topic, as Haynes apparently has no interest in what brings these women together, and makes them risk everything for a chance at love. Honestly, by the time they run away together, and proceeded to feed each other sandwiches, I was ready for Gaspar Noe to take over.

It's amazing to me that this film won the forum consensus #1. It seemed very average to me.

Oh my god, you're right! I have totally changed my opinion based on your impassioned post. Thank you, kind sir and/or madam! Do you have other such opinions on motion pictures you could possibly share with me?

James Bond needs more humor!

Zot! wrote:If you're going to do a paint by numbers lesbian melodrama, there better be some passion in it. Perhaps a gay man is the worst positioned to speak on this topic, as Haynes apparently has no interest in what brings these women together, and makes them risk everything for a chance at love. Honestly, by the time they run away together, and proceeded to feed each other sandwiches, I was ready for Gaspar Noe to take over.

I really don't understand your critique here. The younger woman has an interest in pursuing a lesbian relationship, but her introverted-ness and the social atmosphere she's a part of have made it hard for her to pursue any such relationship. Carol is immediately drawn to her and goes about trying to make the relationship happen. They were attracted to one another, and after spending time together, begin to fall in something like love.

Also, I don't see what they are really "risking."

Spoiler

Carol has sort of already lost everything. Her husband already mostly has control of her daughter, and her last relationship didn't work out. She wants to be able to be open about her identity without being forced to disavow it. Therese also has nothing to lose, as her heterosexual relationships are emotionally painful, trying, and clearly not working out.

Two women fall in love at a time it is scandalous to do so, one of these women is well-to-do and already has an ex-husband and child. The film's framing does a superb job of reinforcing their personalities, and the sublime acting has you emotionally invested in their outcome.

Though I found the 2nd half better, Carol also seemed to be lacking passion, thus making the movie pretty cold and distant.

The movie suffered mainly because the lead roles were written oddly. The two protagonists seem more like characters written for a movie than real human beings. Both actresses are extremely talented, but they were working with flawed roles in a film that was adrift due to these fundamental character issues, along with some exceedingly contrived sub-plots, like the private detective.

Trees wrote:It's amazing to me that this film won the forum consensus #1. It seemed very average to me.

It didn't? The consensus seemed to be that it was good not great. I thought it was great and my favorite film last year not named Mad Max - but I was in the minority.

I am still no closer to understanding exactly what the recent posters didn't like about this movie. We know the backstories of the ladies. We know about other people in their life and how they've reacted to them in the past. We know about other relationships and their failures. We know what they are both trying to get out of life and how the other one could possibly fit in. And we know what could be holding them both back from fully embracing the potential relationship.

The private detective sub-plot was essential to the film.

Spoiler

It's clearly the last straw in Carol and her husband's post-marriage relationship. Before the road trip, she is still trying to cover her tracks and hide her outside affairs. But after her ex-husband betrays her trust with a private detective, she no longer feels any need or pressure to hide her true identity, and refuses at a custody-related hearing to continue to hide her identity to assuage her husband and gain some custody of her child.

What her husband does by hiring a private detective to spy on her is pure slime, and finally makes Carol decide enough is enough.

In terms of that private-eye subplot, I felt it's execution was phony and unbelievable, in terms of the way the events unfolded, and the characters' reactions, particularly Blanchett's reaction, which seemed fake and unreal.

This thread's recent turn is not helping whoever is lurking this forum for material for the next "Criterion Forum is anti-women" thinkpiece

Really don't know how to respond except to say that it instantly became one of my all-time favorite films upon my first viewing, and it only grows more and more achingly and powerfully beautiful every time I see it.

Trees wrote:In terms of that private-eye subplot, I felt it's execution was phony and unbelievable, in terms of the way the events unfolded, and the characters' reactions, particularly Blanchett's reaction, which seemed fake and unreal.

I agree with Drucker's explanation that it makes perfect sense as far as character motivations and the narrative goes. Even more importantly, though, it also works tonally: the P.I. scene comes right after

Spoiler

the first time they have sex and can truly be together.

It is a violation of the safe space they have found on the road, away from Harge and Therese's ex. If I'm remembering this right, there is a fast and jagged tracking shot following Therese, who is hurriedly following Carol as she goes toward the P.I.'s room

Spoiler

with the gun

. This is an abrupt aesthetic shift from the slow, tender scene right before; this shift perfectly captures the emotional violation of the P.I. (and in turn Harge), who have intruded on Carol and Therese's happiness.

Zot! wrote:Honestly, by the time they run away together, and proceeded to feed each other sandwiches, I was ready for Gaspar Noe to take over.

I couldn't disagree more. I thought all the car scenes were incredibly erotic: the lingering closeups on hands and eyes, the way the sunlight reflects on the windows. Eating sandwiches alone together in the car is such an intimate moment, especially compared to the sequences in restaurants where they have to maintain a certain public decorum.

Satori wrote:Eating sandwiches alone together in the car is such an intimate moment, especially compared to the sequences in restaurants where they have to maintain a certain public decorum.

Yes, I think this is something that some viewers fail to appreciate: the fact that someone in the closet (or basically anyone gay in 1952) was always in danger of exposure (or worse) in public. In the car, on the road, in their hotel room, Carol and Therese are more able to be free with one another. That they were still under surveillance and under judgement in their most unguarded and intimate moments together is a terrible betrayal and their worst nightmare come true.

Though I liked it, I wasn't as huge a fan of Carol as some people here, but the private eye subplot was far from phoney and most believeable within the context of its times.

I suppose I had the same problem as some others, in that despite great performances, I felt at a distance from the characters and the film ultimately didn't move me as much as I felt it should. I loved Haynes' short films when they came out but I'm only an unreserved fan of two of his longer works, Safe and Mildred Pierce.

I will watch Carol again soon and I think it could be a film on which my opinion changes in much the same way it changed on Safe, which I enjoyed far more on a second viewing and which may just be my favourite film of the 90s.

Matt wrote:

Satori wrote:Eating sandwiches alone together in the car is such an intimate moment, especially compared to the sequences in restaurants where they have to maintain a certain public decorum.

Yes, I think this is something that some viewers fail to appreciate: the fact that someone in the closet (or basically anyone gay in 1952) was always in danger of exposure (or worse) in public. In the car, on the road, in their hotel room, Carol and Therese are more able to be free with one another. That they were still under surveillance and under judgement in their most unguarded and intimate moments together is a terrible betrayal and their worst nightmare come true.

Yeah, exactly. So much of the film is about the difference between public and private spaces. The scenes in the hotels or in Carol's home (before Harge barges in) have such a different feel than the scenes in public. A "surveillance" plot is such a perfect narrative device for capturing what gay people in the 50s went through on a daily basis (and still do in some places).

And of course in 1952 they didn't have no fault divorce...so private detectives were often used to capture infidelity and justify divorce. So the plot device is very plausible!

I have very mixed feelings about Carol. First time I saw it, given the hype, I could not believe what a predictable piece of melodramatic trash this was. As others were engrossed in the film I was laughing at lines and decisions being made. By the time it was over I was beside myself with how much the people around me had loved it.

I did not buy their affection for one another. What on earth was it based on? A mother is going to sacrifice her daughter for a shop girl? One way to compensate for this would be to increase the sexuality between them, but this wasn't done either. Nor did I think the two lead performances were good. It felt to me like their performances existed separately from one another, not opposite. Blanchett who is one of the strongest female screen presences out there has reached the Meryl Streep stage of her career — she is now Cate Blanchett multiple award winning actress before anything else — the character she's playing is secondary to her own identity. I found her acting here Pacinoesque in suffocating the other players in almost every scene. If there is anybody who would benefit from being in a comic book movie or something with Kevin Hart it's her. Rooney Mara's fine, but here angsty forlorn millennial Winona Ryder shtick is grating set in 1952 and it simply does not work against the domineering Blanchett. Add Haynes, who is a pretentious, incredibly self aware filmmaker to this mix and you have a very nice looking meal that tastes very bland.

Over time however I found the movie stayed with me. Its mood established from the wonderful opening shot, the persistent apprehension, Haynes' minimal framing over a very detailed set design and the swirling music over what felt to be a very genuine aesthetic portrayal of 1952. I watched it again and tho I didn't detest it like I had the first time many of my problems mentioned above remained. The best parts of the film by far is actually everything to do with Carol, the daughter and Coach Taylor. In fact Rooney Mara is far more interesting with her friends and photography career than in any scene with Blanchett.

Nobody can sit there and say its not a very well executed movie, but like most things done perfectly it lacks a bit of soul. I think the reason why people are able to gloss over this shortcoming is that regardless of how believable a love match Blanchett & Mara are, we have knowledge this kind of suffering most definitely existed for many people like these characters and thus we reward them with our sympathy.

I respected the hell out of Haynes' filmmaking here, but when your subplots are all far more interesting than your plot it's a problem.

About the ending

Spoiler

I loved how the camera drifted here like it was lost on its own island. The expression of restraint on Mara's face was perfect, but what on earth was Blanchett's face supposed to be in film's final shot?




This is not the expression of someone 'in love' this is the final shot to set up the next film in a series of horror movies