criterionforum.org

Trees wrote:Also, there were some really phony, contrived plot points in "Carol" that made me roll my eyes. I'm talking about the mysterious man who follows them. Ugh.

He's not just a "mysterious man," he's

Spoiler

a private investigator hired by Harge to gain leverage against Carol in their divorce proceedings.

It's a plot point straight out of Patricia Highsmith's 1952 novel.

I understood that. It came off as very phony and contrived in its execution, the way it was set up, the way it was revealed, the way Blanchett's character reacted, the effect it had on the characters moving forward. This entire film felt like a misfire to me.

I would just like to take this opportunity to state that while I didn't really care for this film, the opinions of Trees do not reflect the opinions of Carol Was Just Okay, Inc. and its subsidiary companies

Don't back off now, mfunk Sorry I was being harsh. I do think think "Carol Was Just Okay". I liked the cinematography, score, art direction. It's mainly the central characters I could not buy into, though I tried. I went into the film wanting to like it.

I'm late to the party but I finally caught this tonight. I'm a little disappointed by some of the lukewarm reviews here. I thought it was fantastic. It lived up to my lofty expectations. Blanchett as expected is terrific, but Mara - Wow. I couldn't take my eyes off her. Best performance of the year and that includes the guys. I loved, loved this movie.

Chiming in here to say I saw it on Monday night and Tuesday afternoon, and though I must confess I've seen far too little films (I'm working on it), I must say it's one of the greatest films I've seen and in my top 25 favorites. Practically perfectly made, with every shot and line of dialogue filled with intention and meaning; so close to a masterpiece and I'm seeing it again next week.

This is my first Haynes film and I was in love with the film right from the get go. While it may be a bit clear at times where the plot is going, and there were relatively few surprises, I truly enjoyed the trip along the way. Beautifully subtle performances that left me feeling fully invested in the characters and their well-being, which is something I don't usually feel when watching a film (that "rooting for" factor).

There was also such a great deal unsaid in the film. The suffocating pressure that these women must feel in their lives, while never explicitly discussed is constantly apparent and comes through in every scene. The characters and situations just made me feel such distress for these women who never get to be their true self. I think this is a testament to the strength of the acting performances and focusing just the right amount on the periphery of the primary character's lives...focusing on the awkward relationships and lifestyles they are living while never over-doing it. When the men around these women act weird/awkward/angry, we can feel the women's discomfort. The film achieves a social commentary without ever coming out and saying it's trying to do so. A beautiful film, and looking forward to checking out Safe next (eventually!)

It's a quietly stunning film. The performances are as good as you get. No one does 50s social inequalities and prejudices like Todd Haynes. He is 2 for 2 in this area. His style is so present and consistent, which makes him one of the true auteurs of today's filmmakers. Even though he he has Sirk in him he is his own. I did sense a taste of In The Mood For Love in certain scenes. Which is always a good place to borrow from imho.

Drucker, Safe is brilliant. There is a reason why this little film, barely scene made many "best of" lists for the 90s. You should also check out I'm Not There.

Also, don't stop at I'm Not There when I'm Still Here is great as well!

swo17 wrote:His best will always be this

It's certainly up there with Jon Moritsugu's Der Elvis as one of the most important works of American transgressive cinema from the last 30 years.

I feel like Sirk comparisons get name-dropped by people who’ve seen two Sirk films and think they’ve cracked some kind of arch code. I saw little Sirkian about this film, and so what? It’s a great movie, and one of the most erotic things I’ve ever seen. The way the camera lingers and fixates on little things, like memories in real-time, is fabulous— I feel like I walk away with the same sexual charge and impression from Blanchett’s fur coat in the first carride as Mara's character does, for instance, and the film is filled with moments where the characters just breathe (sometimes literally) and take in each other. Those who see nothing going on, or fail to recognize how good the central performances are (including the rather thankless perf by Kyle Chandler), I just don’t know what more you want from a movie like this. Give Mara the Oscar already, for God’s sake.

I don't really think it's that odd a comparison; obviously Far from Heaven is an homage to Sirk and this very clearly is a development along a rather similar school of thought so surely it's not completely out of reason? I think the film rather exceeds that mold; rather than adopting a radical way of telling this story, the extent of the commitment to narrative traditionalism is so far as to become radical, only devolving to a glorious classical melodramatic moment for the two emotional climaxes of the film at the beginning & close of the last act.

Stylistically they may not have much in common but certainly structurally as a romantic melodrama it has numerous beats that bring the films of Sirk to mind more than any other (Brief Encounter excepted).

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.

Trees wrote:

Dylan wrote:I loved Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara. They give the best performances I've seen in a film this decade.

Have you seen Blue is the Warmest Color? In my opinion, the two female performances in that film were far, far superior to Mara and Blanchett in Carol.

I know I'm hated on this board, but I had to chime in anyway. Just to respond, Carol's a love story while Blue is the Warmest Color is a tale of sexual discovery and exploration. And I respectfully disagree with your claim that Carol is paint-by-numbers Oscar bait. That it's not Oscar bait, some Blanchett moments notwithstanding, is what makes it so refreshing. If anything, I'd argue Blue is the Warmest Color is Cannes bait.

Blanchett's acting does get a tad Oscar-baity at times I found, but it's otherwise a fine film, and Mara is simply ethereal.

rrenault wrote:

Trees wrote:Have you seen Blue is the Warmest Color? In my opinion, the two female performances in that film were far, far superior to Mara and Blanchett in Carol.

I know I'm hated on this board, but I had to chime in anyway. Just to respond, Carol's a love story while Blue is the Warmest Color is a tale of sexual discovery and exploration. And I respectfully disagree with your claim that Carol is paint-by-numbers Oscar bait. That it's not Oscar bait, some Blanchett moments notwithstanding, is what makes it so refreshing. If anything, I'd argue Blue is the Warmest Color is Cannes bait.

Blanchett's acting does get a tad Oscar-baity at times I found, but it's otherwise a fine film, and Mara is simply ethereal.

I won't disupte that "Blue" is Cannes-bait. But if you read interviews with Harvey Weinstein for example, it becomes pretty clear that Oscar-baiting is one of his main strategies for promoting his films and making money. Too bad for him, the Academy seems to be getting sick of his baiting and actually shunned "Carol" this year, much to his chagrin, I am sure. Without Oscar buzz, "Carol" is having problems at the box office. I am only stating my opinion that "Carol" is Oscar bait. I don't have any leaked memos or emails stating it explicitly. But to me, the film has all the trappings of Oscar bait.

I don't think Haynes or the film have any baring on Weinstein's agenda. The greatness of the film should not be penalized because of that fool. On a side note, this film would probably end up in the Collection if it were not with Weinstein, unless Haynes has a prearranged agreement (which I doubt Weinstein would do).

Trees wrote:if you read interviews with Harvey Weinstein for example, it becomes pretty clear that Oscar-baiting is one of his main strategies for promoting his films and making money. Too bad for him, the Academy seems to be getting sick of his baiting and actually shunned "Carol" this year, much to his chagrin, I am sure.

You understand that Harvey Weinstein had absolutely nothing to do with the making of the film, right? He just picked up the U.S. distribution rights. It was produced by Film4. Yes, Weinstein is known for being very aggressive about courting nominations for the films he buys, but the idea that someone like Todd Haynes approached this project with an "Imma get me some Oscars!" perspective is ludicrous.

Like Carlo Ponti, Weinstein has distributed his fair share of *risky* films under the assumption he could use his clout to get them recognized by the powers that be. Other examples include The Master and the Three Colors Trilogy.

Weinstein does seem to have lost a little bit of his talent at the awards season game; from 1996-2001 (six years) he produced three BP winners but since then it's just been the admittedly stellar campaign for King's Speech (albeit he did lose a great deal of respect for the whole cutting-to-PG13-thing). The other races matter too of course but I get the impression Hollywood at large has been wary of his antics for well over a decade now.

It's also safe to say The English Patient, Shakespeare In Love, and Chicago were more commercial-friendly than many of his recent releases.

FrauBlucher wrote:I don't think Haynes or the film have any baring on Weinstein's agenda. The greatness of the film should not be penalized because of that fool. On a side note, this film would probably end up in the Collection if it were not with Weinstein, unless Haynes has a prearranged agreement (which I doubt Weinstein would do).

A major stumbling block to Carol entering the collection would be that Studio Canal was involved in its production and distribution.

Ribs wrote:Weinstein does seem to have lost a little bit of his talent at the awards season game; from 1996-2001 (six years) he produced three BP winners but since then it's just been the admittedly stellar campaign for King's Speech (albeit he did lose a great deal of respect for the whole cutting-to-PG13-thing). The other races matter too of course but I get the impression Hollywood at large has been wary of his antics for well over a decade now.

The Artist winning might be a bigger coup from him in recent years.

Although this is currently number 4 on my 2015 list, I'm still more on the "like" side of Carol. Blanchett dominates the film and the relationship to the extent that there's a bit of teacher-student perversity in the power dynamics. Mara is also excellent, in the less showy but arguably more difficult role of playing such a passive character. Oddly enough, I felt like I had a much clearer take on Therese than I did on Carol, who remained an enigma hidden behind her wardrobe. That doesn't have to be a major flaw, but for me it made the central romance feel a little hollow. In short, my major problem was that I could understand why Therese was in love with Carol, but not quite what Carol felt about Therese, outside of sexual attraction (or to let out the cynic in me, the possibility of a simpler relationship in which she holds all the power). That isn't a huge problem, since most of the film is about emotions being repressed and sublimating throughout everything (hence giving every beautiful object of the past a hint of eroticism and longing, as Domino pointed out). But it does mean that Carol's final invitation to Therese comes out of left field. Blanchett sells it, but there's a sense of a desperate attempt to save a doomed relationship by moving ahead too fast.

However, the final scene is absolute perfection. The best use of handheld camerawork that I can recall.

I don't doubt Haynes sincerity at all. What few interviews I have read and seen with the guy, he comes off professional, smart and sincere. Harvey, on the other hand, is fairly transparent about his methods of using awards to promote films he distributes. It's clearly part of his calculation. He discusses this type of thing openly and publicly in interviews.

I'm not knocking the guy. More power to him. I have stated here that I wish Weinstien had distributed "The Assassin" instead of Well Go USA.

I personally did not find the characters in "Carol" to be believable or relatable. I suspect others have felt the same, which might explain the lack of box office and awards nominations.