criterionforum.org

Carol seems to be one of those films in which its supporters and detractors are seeing two completely different films (which is perfectly okay; what a boring world it would be if we all saw films in the same way). I was always right there with the characters and never thought any of their actions were unbelievable; I certainly never felt any distance from the emotions of the characters and the authenticity of their love.

Spoiler

During the love scenes, the camera is right there with the women, framing their heads in closeup as they kiss and then their bodies as they make love. Compare this sequence to the sex scene at the beginning of [Safe], in which Haynes keeps us completely distant from the joyless "duty" of marital sex.

As for the ending,

Spoiler

The scene is so beautiful and emotionally involving: the music builds as the pair lock eyes, recreating the glance across the room in the department store when they first met, and then the smile slowly comes across Carol's face. I thought it was absolutely perfect.

Black Hat wrote: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.

That's pretty much my main concern with the movie. There is some kind of extreme cold attitude that just kept me at a distance of any emotion, any empathy for the characters, even more Blanchett's one, which seemed in the end more manipulative than anything, using Mara's character to free its life and explore new exciting prospects.

She doesn't really seem to care about her, either, and Blanchett's stiff acting, while seemingly adequate, only adds another layer of coldness (which, however, only made Mara's acting even more impressive). It didn't seem unbelievable at all, though. However, a few things seemed rush and a bit lazy (which is a whole different thing), and, again, the overall movie simply seemed way too cold to bring me into it.

To be more concrete : because of the similar type of love-story depicted, I've seen several people comparing Carol with La vie d'Adèle, and La vie d'Adèle was much more emotionnaly devastating than Carol to me (which is what I was expecting Carol to be).

domino harvey wrote:Carol also brings to mind the works of Delmer Daves. Don't exactly see that name getting bandied about quite as freely as Sirk, even though it's far more apt for this film. The sincere treatment of an up-against-the-odds romance was hardly the domain of any one Hollywood director.

Apparently Haynes himself with mostly influenced by Ruth Orkin and Morris Engel. Anyways, I have a slightly unique perspective to add to this that I hope people will find interesting. I watched this with my mum who has lead a life similar to the one Carol has in the film, her's was one of the first two lesbian custody cases in the US, so her response (especially as a not film person) was fairly interesting to me. She loved the film and thought that it was amazingly true to life (i.e. she asked me if the director was a lesbian after the sex scene because she had never seen actresses 'play gay' with such pointed accuracy). She appreciated the 'elegance' of the filmmaking saying it was only the second time she's seen a lesbian drama that didn't look like it cost nothing with the elegance providing a stronger relationship to the characters (she felt the emotional truth of the film was super effective and true to life).

Thanks for the sharing that knives. Wonderful.

Knives that a real cool piece of insight, what was the other lesbian film your mother was speaking of?

I can't remember the name. Something from the '80s.

It makes me wonder if it could have been the, also 1950s-set, Desert Hearts.

No, not that.

I've Heard the Mermaids Sing?

I'm 90% certain she said it was Personal Best.

I went down a rabbit hole this morning reading up on Ed Lachman's work on Todd Haynes's films. (FWIW, I'm Not There is screening in 35mm right about now at MoMA.) It was curious to see what choices they made given the analog world within their films vs. the rapid shift to digital that was happening at the same time:

Here's a good interview Lachman gave to Variety:

The decision to shoot in Super 16 was interesting. Why did you opt for that?

Film grain. Even 35mm negative is so grainless that it almost looks digital when you go through a DI. And the same can be said obviously for the digital world. When you shoot digitally they can add grain to the film, but it doesn’t operate the same way. In a digital world, everything’s pixel-fixated in the same place. Grain moves. It has, I think, an anthropomorphic [quality]. I like to feel, like, a pulsing of something living underneath the surface of the image. So by referencing Super 16 I felt it could harken back or it could give a reference to the way you could look at a photograph from 50 or 60 years ago, that the grain structure was different back then. And Super 16, through a DI, through a digital intermediate, would feel like looking at a photograph from the past. So that was the real idea. Then this feeling of another layer of seeing their emotions through grain captured, I thought, another emotional quality of their performance.