A beautiful film but... - Carol (2016) Discussion

[–] teeveejeevee 8 years ago

The story in the novel is all from Therese's point of view. You "see", "hear", and "feel" Carol only in how Therese sees, hears, and feels her. The film created a Carol that has flesh and bone. There is more to Abby in the novel, but again, it's all through Therese.

The film version is not for everyone. As described by the director (Todd Haynes) himself:

"It's a quiet film. It's not a film that takes you by the throat and shakes your head. So you don't know if that's necessarily what everybody is interested in seeing."

(source: Video at http://www.indiewire.com/2015/05/cannes-video-todd-haynes-cate-blanchett-and-rooney-mara-discuss-carol-with-indiewire-61682/)

I found Carol to be on a higher level than the ordinary standard fare dished out by almost all romance films. It's not meant to appeal to those who find their romance fix in films like The Notebook, Titanic, The Bridges of Madison County, etc.

Carol is on an entirely different playing field. Maybe it was the frame of mind I was in when I first saw it, but I "got" it. I heard words expressed between Carol and Therese that weren't spoken. I connected with their story because it wasn't simplified in favor of the lowest common denominator.

I could also understand how two women from different social status and age brackets could connect with each other and fall in love. It was hard enough being an independent-minded woman in post-WWII American society. Add being a homosexual to it and you have a recipe for living deep in the closet with emotional isolation.

reply

[–] IrisJ123 8 years ago

Titanic, The Notebook and Bridges of Madison County? You just named three of the crappiest "romance" movies ever to grace the big screen, sheesh. There is some middle ground, I hope.

Anyhow, I liked Carol very much -- I just didn't buy it on a human level. There's a difference.

It was beautiful in a visual and theatrical way, so it can best be appreciated in that sense. The women were luminous, and Cate Blanchette gave a wonderful performance. But they didn't feel quite human. To say that lesbians in the 1950s couldn't have complex relationships and full, intelligent conversation, particularly when they were alone (not in public), is a bit insulting. They could, and they did. In real life, it wasn't just all about the subtext. That isn't how humans relate.

The characters here felt like -- part of a movie. Which, given the director, makes perfect sense -- movies like "Far From Heaven" are more about the art form than about delving into the deep, raw and messy humanity of the characters.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IrisJ123 8 years ago

You actually brought up another point to me about their relationship.

I did see why Therese would be intrigued by Carol (glamorous older woman who is suddenly paying her a lot of flirtatious attention, etc.), but it was hard to understand what Carol saw in Therese, other than that she was a cute woman (and maybe a little gaydar).

Carol was sophisticated and somewhat experienced in lesbian relationships. She had Judy, who was very out and seemed to know where to go and what to do when it came to the scene that existed in New York in the '50s. You would think, through her, Carol would have been introduced to other sophisticated lesbians who were already comfortable in their skin in what was, of course, a difficult time in history for gays. Why go for the young, clueless twerp with little discernible personality?

Perhaps that WAS the appeal -- some people (both men and women, straight and gay) enjoy being part of the "initiation" process, so to speak. Young, naive and shy is right up their street. But it was hard to buy that Carol had deep feelings of romantic love for her. Based on what?

Because the book is from Therese's full perspective, I guess it does make a bit more sense that Carol's attraction is more mysterious -- just doesn't work as well for a cinematic interpretation.

BUT I am also glad it ended happily -- you are right that so many gay-themed dramas, particularly lesbian ones, seem to end in overwrought tragedy. Even in 2016! Because I hadn't read the book and didn't know the ending, I kept thinking Therese was going to be too late to meet Carol at the dinner, and we'd get an "all is lost/it wasn't meant to be" kind of ending. Which would have been very '50s pulp, yeah, but it would have sucked.

I guess now we can imagine they'll be having those deep conversations that were missing before. ;)

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IrisJ123 8 years ago

I agree that the "I want to ask you things" scene was intriguing. I wish they had played off that a bit more when the two women actually got together.

I did find Therese to be twerpy. Too innocent and naive, like a child. I guess I have little patience for innocence and naivete at this point in my life. I couldn't imagine being attracted to her, even though she has aesthetically pleasing looks. I don't think it's Rooney Mara's fault. I think the script didn't give her enough to work with.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NeedysBoy 8 years ago

"I agree that the 'I want to ask you things' scene was intriguing...."

Maybe that's the answer. Carol wanted to be Therese's guide in the new world they were sharing.

 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

reply

[–] mindthinkr 8 years ago

Funny that you aquait Rooney Mara with Audrey Hepburn...I saw Cate Blanchett as a young Betty (Lauren) Bacall. Especially in the eyes. Interesting that we both went to our past views of those times to re-remember old favorites that these current actresses brought back to our minds. All four very beautiful indeed. BTW...I, once you mentioned it, saw how Rooney Mara indeed had resemblances to Hepburn.

reply

[–] GMonhey 8 years ago

Carol was a reckless woman. She saw Therese as a timid girl who she could have fun with. It started off vwry shallow from Carols perspective. You could understand why Therese felt differently about Carol, though. I assume it was the first time she expressed her self that way with a another woman, however not sure what Carol got out of it later on.

Do I have to give it to you?

reply

[–] teeveejeevee 8 years ago

To say that lesbians in the 1950s couldn't have complex relationships and full, intelligent conversation, particularly when they were alone (not in public), is a bit insulting. They could, and they did. In real life, it wasn't just all about the subtext.

Other than you, who else said ^ that in this thread?

The three films I mentioned were -- when they were released (and still are) -- popular romance genre films. They and other run-of-the-mill romance stories are easy to digest because the characters say and do what's expected, and every dot is connected.

Personally, if I'm going to watch a romance film I prefer to spend the two hours or so with And Now My Love (Toute une vie), The Girl on the Bridge (La fille sur le pont), and similar others.

reply

[–] achun 8 years ago

[Titanic, The Bridges of Madison County, and The Notebook] were -- when they were released (and still are) -- popular romance genre films. They and other run-of-the-mill romance stories are easy to digest because the characters say and do what's expected, and every dot is connected.

Personally, if I'm going to watch a romance film I prefer to spend the two hours or so with And Now My Love (Toute une vie), The Girl on the Bridge (La fille sur le pont), and similar others.

I had never heard of those French films. I'll be interested to check them out.

I think one of the best romance films ever is Before Sunrise. It shares with Carol an eschewing of "movie logic" in favor of a more organic portrayal of how people interact and stories unfold.

---
You want thingamabobs? I got twenty!

reply

[–] movie80 8 years ago

Titanic, The Notebook and Bridges of Madison County? You just named three of the crappiest "romance" movies ever to grace the big screen, sheesh.

Huh??

reply

[–] NeedysBoy 8 years ago

"The movie could have done with a scene or two in which there was some deeper conversation..."

Isn't love always a bit mysterious?

 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

reply

[–] pedromvu 8 years ago

Just saw this and have to agree 100% I really liked the movie though, but every time Carol was alone with Therese I kept hoping for a glance of why they fell in love with each other, in the movie it appears it's just curiosity on the part of Therese and that their relationship is more on a physical level from the part of Carol.

Not that I needed it to be like the Before trilogy or anything but at parts I was let down on how they never seem to connect in a meaningful way through conversation, and I had to assume they were madly in love just because the movie synopsis says so.

And yet the movie works so well, aside from the great cinematography and music, the acting was top notch and if you take for granted they simply are in love from the start, there is still a lot to like here and I think I would still rank it in the top 10 of movies the year it came out.

reply

[–] LovesConfusingJoy 8 years ago

I agree. I didn't think they had the best chemistry but I "saw" it more towards the end.

reply

[–] lword1970 8 years ago

I think feeling a connection is how most couple regardless of gender fall in love. At first glance for whatever reason there was a connection. surely each character has seen a beautiful woman before but in eachother they saw and found a connection that was on some level romantic . It was a nice dance but the connection was there . I love the phone conversation early on when Therese says that she wants to ask her things and Carol says ask me . The acting was beautiful . And I felt the connection between these characters.

reply

[–] IrisJ123 8 years ago

That phone call was a nice moment. I wish there had been more (deeper) scenes like that.

reply

[–] SCY385-1 8 years ago

IrisJ123: The film reminded me of Far From Heaven. In that movie the characters are very "reserved". Not too much emotion. Very polite. Very safe. Very fake. That was the way people were back in the 50's. On the surface everything looked as it should. Women wore dresses. Men wore pants. Women married men, had children, and that was that. Minorities stayed in their places. There was no tolerance for anything outside of the norm. I don't think it would have fit in the movie to have all this "passion". What you are describing is a sense of oppression and the "big brother is watching syndrome". I believe it was intentional to better reflect the time period. Remember Harge had a private detective follow Carol and record very intimate moments between her and Therese. Even though the women had alone time with each other and eventually did express their love for each other there was still this sense of not wanting to go too far. Don't show too much. Don't be too open even if you are alone. I agree that there was something very wooden about the characters. It might have been nice to see them break down the barriers, but I think the portrayals were intentional for the reasons I've stated.

reply

[–] nikkiten1979 8 years ago

Perfect explanation.

This is indeed the 1950s. Two women attracted to each other was very abnormal and considered a mental disorder. I totally saw the passion though.

Cate is one of my favorite actresses and this movie, which I wasn't very interested in reaffirmed why I always find her so captivating. She's not just beauty and has some serious acting skills.

can't outrun your own shadow

reply

[–] SCY385-1 8 years ago

Nikkiten: Cate Blanchett has two Oscars and numerous nominations for a reason. She is a fantastic actress. I knew that back when I first saw her in Elizabeth. She took that character from a beautiful, spirited young woman to a older, wiser, and somewhat heartbroken monarch. You could see it in the way she spoke, the way she dressed, and just the way she walked. By the final scene of Elizabeth you are looking at a completely different person even though it's the same person. That's called acting and Cate is a master at it.

reply

[–] nikkiten1979 8 years ago

Elizabeth was (is) an amazing movie and you're right Cate is a master at her craft. Even in the bad Indiana Jones she was great!

can't outrun your own shadow

reply

[–] moionfire-259-468629 8 years ago

I agree. I think with these type of movies they are better as books as there is more nuance of demonstrating why someone is drawn to someone.

reply

[–] printphi 8 years ago

I thought this was a beautiful film, great acting, etc., and even great chemistry. BUT I didn't feel that either Carol or Therese - esp. Therese - had much personality. The story was interesting, but the people weren't interesting to me, and I didn't feel invested in what happened to them. I'm glad I saw it, but for me something was definitely missing in the character department.

For some reason, Abby was the only character I wanted to know more about.

reply