Carol (2015)

[yourstruly]

The new Todd Haynes movie starring Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett.

 

I saw it last night. All of the reviews are saying it's Haynes' best movie and...I think Far From Heaven retains that title IMHO. It's *good*, but after seeing it, I am not sharing in the rapture. The look of the movie is incredible-you are there, completely immersed in the 1950s and you buy it lock, stock and barrel. I just didn't buy the love story and it wasn't nearly as devastatingly emotional as Far From Heaven. That movie, especially the final scenes, kill me dead. This seemed more mannered and maybe *too* restrained. Blanchett has one great scene where she goes full Blanchett, but she was better in Blue Jasmine. And the category fraud issue is real, Rooney Mara is without question the main character.

 

I do think one thing that was interesting was that the movie (and the book) diverge from the predominant tendency in gay-themed work, even now, to have a tragic, nearly operatically tragic, ending. Apparently the book was controversial in its day because it suggested that gay relationships could work and the gay lovers don't have to die or be permanently separated. It made you think about how back then, gays and lesbians had "roommates" or "good friends" and could not say any more.

 

It's interesting, and Haynes is always worth seeing. But I am not getting the "best of the year, one of the greatest love stories ever" hype.

[trippyhop]

I just watched this the other night and really liked it. It didn't live up to the hype for me, but I thought it was still a good, not great, film. Rooney Mara as Therese was fantastic and I hope she wins whichever Oscar she's nominated for. Cate Blanchett, however, was just okay. I think it was tricky for her, however, because since I felt that Therese was the lead of the film, whenever Carol was seen from Therese's point of view, Carol was always this mysterious enigmatic alluring person, so there wasn't much to play. She was good in her scenes without Therese, such as with Harge (Kyle Chandler is getting no love for his role, but he should).

However, I did get the flutters from the film because they did a framing device from "Brief Encounter" (one of my favs) that totally gets me every fucking time, so good on Haynes for giving the Carol/Therese romance some extra cinematic oomph.

[Crim]

Watched it. Best movie of the year? Well, ultimately that is subjective. Great and one of the best? Yes. I've read the book some time ago and it is breathtaking in terms of language, so I wasn't sure what to expect, knowing that. Carol was exquisite, cinematically. In a different medium, the same kind of beauty and not a bad trade-off at all.

 

trippyhop, I agree about Cate Blanchett, but it does take skill - or maybe just charisma - to inhabit this kind of role and make it seem natural. Speaking of natural, I liked that she didn't go for the 50s femme fatale mysteriousness or glam. Also, how good was the "we are not ugly people" line reading? That whole scene could have been more of a triumphant turning point kind of moment, but with her acting it came off just beautiful and more layered that what lesser movies would have gone for, imo.

 

I liked Sarah Paulson too, and her character, and her one scene with Harge was great ("I can't help you with that", closes door, turns off light. I laughed and laughed.)

[galax-arena]

I liked this movie, but I agree with those of you saying that it didn't warrant all the "BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR! BEST LESBIAN MOVIE EVER!" hype. I mean, if the "best lesbian movie" superlative is true, it's because most lesbian movies out there just plain suck, especially in terms of cinematography. And hey, Carol really was a gorgeous movie. 

[trippyhop]

Crim, I completely agree that Cate Blanchett is a sublime actress and it does take immense talent, but I just think that Carol with Therese was a bit thin. Regardless, Cate and Rooney had fantastic chemistry.

[wlk68]

Just got back from seeing this and while I liked it, I'm not quite getting the "omg, this is a masterpiece" vibe that's being thrown around. I though Kate and Rooney were good but the movie felt very restrained. But then again, maybe that was on purpose. It was only when they had sex that all that repressed emotion finally came boiling to the surface.

The clothes were gorgeous and if they ever did an Audrey Hepburn bio pic, Rooney would be great.

That's all I got.

Edited January 9, 2016 by wlk68

[Crim]

Some new featurettes on the official YT channel.

[lovemytvshows]

Feeling the burn about the Oscars snubs as well as the other awards shows (Golden Globes, Critics Choice, etc) for Carol.

 

Here are a few articles addressing the snubs:

 

• http://www.autostraddle.com/carol-didnt-get-oscar-snubbed-because-its-too-gay-it-got-oscar-snubbed-because-it-dismisses-men-324022/
• http://qz.com/594857/2016s-biggest-oscar-snub-proves-hollywood-overlords-cannot-deal-with-female-sexual-desire/
• http://www.bustle.com/articles/135561-oscars-snub-carol-for-best-picture-no-one-saw-this-coming
• http://flavorwire.com/556038/how-carol-got-screwed

[galax-arena]

If only a) either Carol or Therese or both had died tragically; and/or b) there had been more for the men to do! /s

[lovemytvshows]

galax-arena Or if Carol was actually a former fur-trapper who had to fight off a bear called Harge in the winter snow in order to be reunited with her daughter. And that was played out all visceral and bloody and revenge porn-like, then maybe Todd Haynes and Carol would nab the Best Director and Best Picture noms.

[GreekGeek]

My opinion: The re-creation of the Fifties was superbly done. I especially liked the scenes in the department store and on the road. Blanchett and Mara gave fine performances. But I found myself bored rather often. The problem with these "forbidden love" movies is that it seems like forever before something happens, and at the same time everyone knows what's coming. Smoldering looks and understated dialogue don't carry a story for long. (I had the same problem with Brokeback Mountain. This is why I don't think it was a terrible injustice that it lost Best Picture--an unpopular opinion, I know.) And Mara's character wasn't terribly interesting. She reminded me of Season Four Peggy Olson on Mad Men--the young working woman who isn't that much of a wow, but who attracts men and the occasional lesbian everywhere for plot reasons.

[Jac]

I enjoyed Carol greatly when I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Todd Haynes does an amazing job of recreating the 1950s on film. Far From Heaven is a favourite film of mine and I think Carol was as good aesthetically.

I think that both Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett were very good, and Kyle Chandler badly needs some love for his role, however, compared some of Haynes other work the writing lacked depth. This was not necessarily a bad thing but it means that Carol is not at the same level for me as Far From Heaven.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Jac

[vibeology]

I saw this a while back and I was impressed with the visuals, but I never really connected with the love story aspect so overall, I was left with the feeling that it was an good but not memorable movie.

 

I think the thing that most impressed me was also, sadly, one of the reasons I didn't really believe in Carol's love for Therese and that was the costuming. Therese's costumes were designed to match Rindy and in fact throughout the film Therese and Rindy were shown in similar jumpers, plaids, similar hairstyles to the point where it seemed that Carol was filling the Rindy shaped hole in her heart with Therese. Once Therese was awakened sexually, her clothing did change and mature to be more like Carol's own style (so many more reds, pants, and barely a plaid in sight) so I took that visual clue to suggest that Therese wasn't just a Rindy replacement anymore, but of course we get so little time with Carol and Therese after they meet up again that it was hard to invest in their relationship.

 

Its a beautiful film and there are clearly depths to it that I would enjoy more with a second viewing, but its not something that I connected to on an emotional level.

[Parachutes]

I saw the film on New Year’s Eve – as in, literally, rang in the New Year with it since I caught a 10pm showing – and I have to say I was quietly blown away by it. It oddly managed to rekindle my love of film and filmmaking; something I kind of “grew out of” since what’s been trending as popular in the last five-six years could be categorized as:

1) Marvel Comics Universe/insert-franchise-here sequels/animation
2) Oscar Bait bio-pics
3) Oscar Bait quirky and/or twee indies
4) Adam Sandler

 

Basically, if your film isn’t breaking opening weekend box office records or garnering Awards prestige*, it’s almost not noteworthy. That’s a crude oversimplification, but that’s how it’s appeared as someone who pretty much stopped watching movies altogether for half a decade.

 

With that said, I’m not sure where one’s own personal experiences come into play, but I deeply connected with the film. This adaptation could have been so badly bungled with a different team, but  for me, it was a perfect storm of players as far crafting the film. Where people found the pace slow, I recall thinking of how the use of longer shots helped the tension feel palpable which is what I loved when I read the book a couple of years ago. I have to say from experience, it is a hell of a doozy when you meet someone, experience an almost fatalistic connection, and couple that with physical chemistry.

 

Also, I know there’s a lot of talk about the script, but I liked that it was very concise, but still managed to capture a lot of tone and feel of the novel. I feel like I got a lot more backstory with less dialogue because of what was left in and then there was the added bonus of having a really fantastic supporting cast (specifically, Sarah Paulson and Kyle Chandler) who also brought a lot of depth to their characters and the story.

 

Though, one thing that occurred to me later on especially since some of the criticism for the film has been about how thin the story is and how it relied too much upon the gazes between the two leads is how much communication in the act of courtship has changed. We live in such a TMI-culture. We hold back a lot less. We overanalyze and then, we share our opinions to anyone who will listen. We’re quicker to engage in sexual intimacy, but hesitant to commit to actual relationships in hopes that a better option is around the corner in the left-swipe of an app. And yes, we Netflix and chill. It’s incredibly interesting to witness and maybe one reason (besides its shoddy rollout schedule) as to why the film never found a larger audience. Here, we have two women whose main interaction is primarily with the objective of finding out to what extent the other party is interested and how far they could push the boundaries of intimacy with each meeting.

 

But perhaps, it was all too niche, too cold, and too gay. Whatever the case, I do hope it ends up being seen a lot more once it’s available to buy/rent.

 

*Fully aware that this film also pretty Oscar-baity due to the topic, but because it was so restrained when it could have been melodramatic, it ultimately of bypasses that label for me.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Parachutes

[raezen]

Finally saw this film tonight and thought it was a beautiful but slowly moving film, which I did enjoy. Everyone was excellent in there part, but I know that there are people I wouldn't recommend the film too because they would find it too art house. I was glad there were some surprises because I really didn't guess it would have ended that way.

[galax-arena]

I'm really annoyed at a lot of the lowkey sexist/homophobic comments I saw about this movie leading up to the Oscars. I was keeping up with those anonymous brutally honest Oscar ballots, and there was one guy who sniffed that he didn't like the movie because he couldn't be bothered to care about the plight of "rich white women." But in the next breath, he was busting a boner over The Big Short. So rich white women are a no go for you, but rich white men are fine? Okay. 

 

It's not like I think everyone has to like the movie. There are legitimate reasons to criticize it; I don't think it's perfect and it still annoys me how a movie about white people has been hailed as the lesbian movie for all of us. (You'd never see that sort of sentiment with a movie about gay/bi WOC.) But I couldn't help but think that a lot of the commentary surrounding this movie was influenced by the fact that not only is it a movie about lesbians, but the men have pretty much nothing to do. There was one critic who opined that they would rather have seen the movie from Harge's perspective, which... lolque?  

[Bruinsfan]

Yes, and clearly Brokeback Mountain would have been a better movie if Alma were the central character. WTF, critic?

[Milburn Stone]

All of the reviews are saying it's Haynes' best movie and...I think Far From Heaven retains that title IMHO. It's *good*, but after seeing it, I am not sharing in the rapture. The look of the movie is incredible-you are there, completely immersed in the 1950s and you buy it lock, stock and barrel. I just didn't buy the love story and it wasn't nearly as devastatingly emotional as Far From Heaven. That movie, especially the final scenes, kill me dead. This seemed more mannered and maybe *too* restrained.

 

I agree with all this. FFH is still Haynes' high point. (Along with the sequence he directed in the documentary Six by Sondheim.) The "too restrained" quality reminded me of Haynes' Mildred Pierce...which wasn't that great, either. That said, I'm not sure Haynes could make a bad movie even if he tried.

[SeanC]

I finally got to see this now that it's out on Blu-ray.  The delay gave me time to read the book first, at least.  I thought it was quite good, though some of the hype around it did come across as a bit hyperbolic -- then again, if this was your favourite movie of the year, who am I to say otherwise?  Great performances, very nice romantic.  The costumes, etc. were incredible, of course.

 

Two niggles/observations I had about the adaptation:

 

1)  Changing Therese's artistic pursuit from set design to photography.  The latter is obviously a lot more cinematic and conducive to Meaningful Moments, so I get why they changed it, but a main character being interested in set design was kind of unique, whereas an aspiring photographer is something we've seen a million times before.

2)  The change to the climax where it seems like, despite not having custody, Carol will be allowed to see Rindy sometimes.  In the novel, she basically decides that she can't live under the strictures Harge (what's with the names in this story?) is trying to compel, and so it's not worth it just to see Rindy every so often under supervision given how much she's suffering under it.  I thought that was a tougher ending, but I wonder if they decided the main character seeming to give up on her kid like that would be too unsympathetic?

 

I am amused that 2015 had two Oscar-nominated retro-styled romantic dramas set in New York in 1952 centered on shopgirls.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

About to finish Carol right now, and I liked it less than I thought I would. I always mistake Cate Blanchett for Tilda Swinton initially, which has nothing to do with the film itself, but they're very similar-looking, so for the first ten minutes or so I had difficulty remembering who I was looking at.

 

I had trouble understanding why, if Abby and Carol had been lovers before she met Therese, Harge didn't immediately divorce her and take the kid away. It's never explicitly stated that Carol was intimately involved with Abby, but when they're sitting in the cafe and Abby says, "Tell me you know what you're doing", Carol says, "I don't....I never did" while giving Abby this very significant look. Harge (ugh, that name) was suspicious of Therese even before anything happened, so he must have had context to think his wife was sometimes attracted to other women. I know he's just the husband, so who cares about him, but the central conflict of the movie is that Carol and Therese might not be able to be together because she might lose her daughter, so if she and Abby were a thing first, as I suspected, and nothing happened, that lessens the conflict for me.

 

BTW, it was nice to see Sarah Paulson not in that awful Marcia Clark wig, and I thought both Mara and Blanchett did a very good job with their roles, but I'm not sure the movie as a whole really gels for me. I might have to watch it again, see if it hangs together better the second time around.

 

Edited because I am a moron.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Cobalt Stargazer

[raezen]

I thought both Rapace and Blanchett did a very good job with their roles, but I'm not sure the movie as a whole really gels for me. I might have to watch it again, see if it hangs together better the second time around.

You mean Mara. Rapace was the first Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

You mean Mara. Rapace was the first Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

 

Head? Meet desk. Now I'm even getting my Lisbeth Salanders mixed up. Thanks for the correction, raezen.

[Steph J]

I had trouble understanding why, if Abby and Carol had been lovers before she met Therese, Harge didn't immediately divorce her and take the kid away. It's never explicitly stated that Carol was intimately involved with Abby, but when they're sitting in the cafe and Abby says, "Tell me you know what you're doing", Carol says, "I don't....I never did" while giving Abby this very significant look. Harge (ugh, that name) was suspicious of Therese even before anything happened, so he must have had context to think his wife was sometimes attracted to other women. I know he's just the husband, so who cares about him, but the central conflict of the movie is that Carol and Therese might not be able to be together because she might lose her daughter, so if she and Abby were a thing first, as I suspected, and nothing happened, that lessens the conflict for me.

 

But, the thing is, Harge and Carol didn't divorce because he found out that she'd had sex with a woman. They divorced because she left the marriage and he couldn't convince her to come back. Right until the end, even when he knew for certain about her relationship with Therese, he still wanted to make the marriage work. The custody battle was all about trying to force Carol into coming back, to be "cured" with therapy, and to be "normal."  From Harge's point of view, Carol's relationships with Abby and Therese are just symptoms of a mental illness that he believes can be treated and afterwards they can just go forward as the picture perfect couple.

[methodwriter85]

And Mara's character wasn't terribly interesting. She reminded me of Season Four Peggy Olson on Mad Men--the young working woman who isn't that much of a wow, but who attracts men and the occasional lesbian everywhere for plot reasons.

 

I get the feeling that we're supposed to see Rooney Mara as being as a stunning beauty. Like, Audrey Hepburn kind of beauty.

[lovemytvshows]

I had trouble understanding why, if Abby and Carol had been lovers before she met Therese, Harge didn't immediately divorce her and take the kid away.

 

I might be wrong but I don't think Rindy was born yet, when Abby and Carol had their fling? Movie timeline wise, Abby told Therese what happened was about "5 or so years ago" and I'm assuming Rindy is about 4? I mean yeah it's cutting it a bit close but I'm of the assumption that Rindy wasn't in the picture at that time.

 

And Harge probably naively thought that once they had a family and a kid, Carol would double down and be settled in the role of dutiful wife and mother.

[Milburn Stone]

I get the feeling that we're supposed to see Rooney Mara as being as a stunning beauty. Like, Audrey Hepburn kind of beauty.

 

I'll go you one further, and assert that the attempt to make us see Rooney Mara as a stunning beauty is 100% successful. She is one. Several moments in this movie, I silently said to myself, "My God, she's young Audrey Hepburn." I have no doubt Haynes coiffed, dressed, and made her up to put that thought in my head--but the fact that he succeeded has to be partly credited to the raw material he had to work with.

 

Another director who thought she was a stunning beauty--to the extent that he couldn't take his camera's eye off her--was Steven Soderbergh, way back in '13, when he made his last movie, Side Effects. Not a great movie. But in the extreme closeups of her that never seem to end (nor would I want them to) you can tell that he and his camera are beyond smitten--mesmerized would be closer to the truth.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[galax-arena]

Speaking of Audrey Hepburn, Rooney channeling Audrey in terms of looks is one thing, but there was one criticism of the movie that complained about how "depressed" Rooney is as Therese and that the filmmakers should have cast someone brighter and more vivacious a la Audrey Hepburn: "that part needed an Audrey Hepburn, an enchanting, alive, beautiful young woman." And that made me go, "Really now?" Saying that Therese should have been ~enchanting and alive completely misses the point of her character IMO. Therese is meant to be repressed and withdrawn. I usually can't stand Rooney's acting, but Carol was the one time where it worked for me because Therese as a character was tailor-made for Rooney's "skill" (lol). If you read the source material, you notice that the quiet withdrawal we see in Movie!Therese matches up really well with Book!Therese. Book!Therese is not meant to be an Audrey Hepburn type character at all. She's not supposed to be some bewitching enchantress or some whirling ball of joie de vivre.

 

When the movie was in development, there were concerns about how the filmmakers would pull it off because Therese is such an introspective character where so much of the book is in her head, and something like that is hard to film. I mean, maybe people understand that and still don't think that Rooney managed to pull it off, which is fair enough! Her acting really can be hit or miss, and for me most of the time it's a huge miss lmao. But... like... Audrey Hepburn? No way. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

From Harge's point of view, Carol's relationships with Abby and Therese are just symptoms of a mental illness that he believes can be treated and afterwards they can just go forward as the picture perfect couple.

 

Thank you for clarifying, Steph J, and I know I'm likely nitpicking. But Harge seemed seriously threatened by Therese's presence when he finds her at the house and asks her how she knows his wife, and its Carol who explains that she just dropped by to return her gloves. He says, "Well, that's bold," in this bitter sort of way, and maybe it's just how Kyle Chandler played it, but it seemed way over the line, since at the moment he was just talking to some woman his estranged wife met at a department store. *shrug*

 

I'll go you one further, and assert that the attempt to make us see Rooney Mara as a stunning beauty is 100% successful. She is one. Several moments in this movie, I silently said to myself, "My God, she's young Audrey Hepburn." I have no doubt Haynes coiffed, dressed, and made her up to put that thought in my head--but the fact that he succeeded has to be partly credited to the raw material he had to work with.

 

She is lovely, isn't she? I'd noticed it before this movie as well, but in the ending scene where Therese is waiting for Carol to look up and notice her, the light on her is just so, and I'm like, "Good God, she's beautiful."

 

 

When the movie was in development, there were concerns about how the filmmakers would pull it off because Therese is such an introspective character where so much of the book is in her head, and something like that is hard to film.

 

FWIW, there's a point where Therese and Carol are in the car because Carol is basically in the process of dumping her, and Therese bursts out, "How can I ever be sure of anything when I always say yes to everything?!" Because the character is very much inside her own head, she's a reactor, not one who usually instigates the action, which (for me) is why it matters that she makes the decision to seek out Carol in the end, even though she wadded up the note she got at work and threw it away.

[Parachutes]

Two niggles/observations I had about the adaptation:

 

1)  Changing Therese's artistic pursuit from set design to photography.  The latter is obviously a lot more cinematic and conducive to Meaningful Moments, so I get why they changed it, but a main character being interested in set design was kind of unique, whereas an aspiring photographer is something we've seen a million times before.

2)  The change to the climax where it seems like, despite not having custody, Carol will be allowed to see Rindy sometimes.  In the novel, she basically decides that she can't live under the strictures Harge (what's with the names in this story?) is trying to compel, and so it's not worth it just to see Rindy every so often under supervision given how much she's suffering under it.  I thought that was a tougher ending, but I wonder if they decided the main character seeming to give up on her kid like that would be too unsympathetic?

 

1) When I initially read the book, the set designer profession stood out to me, too. It also plays into who Therese is as a character who feels so disconnected from the people in her life (even though she likes them just fine for the most part) and why meeting Carol becomes such a life-altering event. Ultimately, it may have come down to two really essential things: budget (which was small for the talent involved) and storytelling. Todd Haynes mentioned a lot in interviews about being inspired by the NYC street photography taken by female photographers of the era; the "female gaze"; and the concept of subject, object, and who is on which end of being desired. Photography was a cherry stem that could tie pretty neatly whereas keeping her a stage designer may have required sacrificing the more multidimensional picture we were given of Carol for some of the more extraneous characters from the novel.

 

2) I saw a press conference of a screening and this very topic came up! I think they were aiming to avoid making the character too sympathetic in this regard.  In the novel, Carol leaves Therese (in limbo) to attend the hearing, finds that the evidence is so insurmountable that she just readily concedes any custody of Rindy and has some sort of breakdown before she ends up meeting with Therese. It almost seems like she's making the choice to be with Therese because she can't be with her daughter. At least in the film version, Carol is written as making a more active choice by taking charge of the negotiations with the monologue and walking away with very clear terms of her own. She was given a bit more autonomy, I think, and we're privy to the aftermath as she mentions she's only seen Rindy "once or twice" since the hearing. So I did get a sense that she had ultimately lost something by making that stand.

 

 

Thank you for clarifying, Steph J, and I know I'm likely nitpicking. But Harge seemed seriously threatened by Therese's presence when he finds her at the house and asks her how she knows his wife, and its Carol who explains that she just dropped by to return her gloves. He says, "Well, that's bold," in this bitter sort of way, and maybe it's just how Kyle Chandler played it, but it seemed way over the line, since at the moment he was just talking to some woman his estranged wife met at a department store. *shrug*

 

Your interpretation is accurate. Harge is threatened and bitter. Therese represents a reality that he and Carol tried to move past (apparently with a band-aid baby) and a tangible end to their marriage. The previous affair with Abby could almost be hand-waved away because it was an isolated event (as far we know and because, "silly women's feelings"). Seeing Carol entertaining a young woman alone (i.e. without men present), in the evening, suggests otherwise to him. The boldness is in that he can sense the ulterior motive behind a seemingly innocuous gesture of "gratitude". We don't really know the history of Harge and Carol's beginnings but I don't think it'd be a wild stretch to assume that Carol made the "first move" with Harge (or Abby, for that matter). I think predator or seductress are too strong of labels because it suggest something calculating and sinister but Carol definitely has a quality of someone who's very confident, very forward with her desires.

 

(Man, that's way more than I ever wanted to write about Harge. It kind of undermines the refreshing quality of the story, but it's a testament to how much depth Kyle Chandler brought to the role, though.)

Edited March 24, 2016 by Parachutes

[Chaos Theory]

This was a hey I know that guy movie for me. Hi! Edward Nymgma on Gotham. Nice to see you getting work. Also I am always pleased to see Sarah Paulson.

As for the movie itself it was a beautifully told well written but slow moving tale. I enjoyed it a great deal.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Good film, but nowhere near the masterpiece that is Far From Heaven.

6/10

[Milburn Stone]

Good film, but nowhere near the masterpiece that is Far From Heaven.

 

That's where I am, too.

 

I wonder if part of the difference (not all of it by any means, but part of it), was the magnificent score for FFH by Elmer Bernstein. If Carol had had a score like that, would it have made the movie seem greater? Maybe. If FFH had lacked the score it had, would that movie have seemed not so great? Also maybe.

 

I have high regard for Carter Burwell and think his work deserves far more recognition than it has received, but his score for Carol didn't take it to the next level as Bernstein's score for FFH did.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[MrsRafaelBarba]

One issue, Kyle Chandler wasn't given much to work with.

I was really excited upon seeing him in the trailer.

Don't me wrong, Kyle wasn't terrible.

But the performance wasn't anything special.

Like with Dennis Quaid and Dennis Hayesbert.

But I liked Sarah Paulson as Abby.

Edited April 24, 2016 by MrsRafaelBarba

[paramitch]

I just saw this, and had been wanting to catch it. I was very happy with the film overall -- I thought it was gorgeously done. Beautiful sets, acting (and actors of course), atmosphere, score. I was just so, so glad it ended happily. I haven't read the book as yet, so I was all prepared for another sad ending to a non-heterosexual romance to take it mainstream. I was so glad to be wrong.

On 12/29/2015 at 9:41 PM, trippyhop said:

Crim, I completely agree that Cate Blanchett is a sublime actress and it does take immense talent, but I just think that Carol with Therese was a bit thin. Regardless, Cate and Rooney had fantastic chemistry.

I thought the casting was fantastic. I especially loved that Cate was the draw for the film, but that it's really seen through Rooney's (Therese's) eyes. I also loved Kyle Chandler in the casting against type. 

On 2/9/2016 at 7:35 PM, Parachutes said:

I’m not sure where one’s own personal experiences come into play, but I deeply connected with the film. This adaptation could have been so badly bungled with a different team, but  for me, it was a perfect storm of players as far crafting the film. Where people found the pace slow, I recall thinking of how the use of longer shots helped the tension feel palpable which is what I loved when I read the book a couple of years ago. I have to say from experience, it is a hell of a doozy when you meet someone, experience an almost fatalistic connection, and couple that with physical chemistry.

I agree. And what a cast. Meanwhile, speaking as a het but open-minded woman, I definitely didn't find it "too cold" or "too gay." I thought it was gorgeously done. I was just so glad the storyline let the resolution move toward something beyond tragedy (something I think is too often the cliche in same-sex or offbeat love stories). And the chemistry between the two women was beautifully conveyed.

On 3/3/2016 at 6:41 AM, galax-arena said:

I'm really annoyed at a lot of the lowkey sexist/homophobic comments I saw about this movie leading up to the Oscars. I was keeping up with those anonymous brutally honest Oscar ballots, and there was one guy who sniffed that he didn't like the movie because he couldn't be bothered to care about the plight of "rich white women." But in the next breath, he was busting a boner over The Big Short. So rich white women are a no go for you, but rich white men are fine? Okay. 

It's not like I think everyone has to like the movie. There are legitimate reasons to criticize it; I don't think it's perfect and it still annoys me how a movie about white people has been hailed as the lesbian movie for all of us. (You'd never see that sort of sentiment with a movie about gay/bi WOC.) But I couldn't help but think that a lot of the commentary surrounding this movie was influenced by the fact that not only is it a movie about lesbians, but the men have pretty much nothing to do. There was one critic who opined that they would rather have seen the movie from Harge's perspective, which... lolque?  

I would have given your post 100 likes if I could. Thanks for this -- I saw so much of the same thing before the Oscars and it drove me NUTS. Meanwhile, I truly did think the film managed to transcend worries about color or money -- and I guess, my question is, why should it have to, anyway? The characters and situation were truly compelling. Did it matter to me what color they were? No. Did it matter to me that they weren't dirt-poor (although I felt it was clearly implied that Therese is living pretty modestly)? There have been far more movies about poverty than homosexuality -- I'm just sayin', I don't think one movie has to address every one of society's ills, and I say that as someone who grew up dirt-poor.

So why does one of these love stories have to support so many other expectations? It's not fair. It's certainly not the norm for 99% other films out there. I was appreciative that this movie sought out the hidden spaces of these two women's hearts (and sorry that even now that storyline was a risk for a mainstream film). It didn't have to check a certain number of boxes for me to be invested and enthralled.

On 3/16/2016 at 6:03 PM, SeanC said:

Two niggles/observations I had about the adaptation:

1)  Changing Therese's artistic pursuit from set design to photography.  The latter is obviously a lot more cinematic and conducive to Meaningful Moments, so I get why they changed it, but a main character being interested in set design was kind of unique, whereas an aspiring photographer is something we've seen a million times before.

I haven't read the book. But -- speaking as an occasional theatre tech columnist, the translation of "set designer" to "photographer" for cinematic reasons is believable to me given the medium of film -- photographs can be seen and absorbed in an instant. Whereas set designs (however gorgeous) simply don't work the same way. They're also not as personal. Therese's photos in the film instantly communicate both a sense of Carol and Therese's feelings about her. I don't mind seeing "another photographer" because every photograph (and photographer) is different. Substitute the word "writer" and I would say the same thing.

On 3/22/2016 at 2:35 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I had trouble understanding why, if Abby and Carol had been lovers before she met Therese, Harge didn't immediately divorce her and take the kid away.

I thought this was very clear. Because, while it demonstrated to Carol (perhaps for the first time, at that point) that she was a lesbian, it was not true love in any sense. It was simply a physical encounter or affair. Carol wasn't in love with Abby, although I do think she loves her as a friend. So that made sense to me. And Harge would never divorce Carol, which was the whole core construct of the film -- he simply viewed her feelings (her unlove of him, her lack of desire, and her affairs with women) as symptoms of a mental illness, instead of as clear markers that she is simply gay.

On 3/22/2016 at 8:58 PM, Steph J said:

But, the thing is, Harge and Carol didn't divorce because he found out that she'd had sex with a woman. They divorced because she left the marriage and he couldn't convince her to come back. Right until the end, even when he knew for certain about her relationship with Therese, he still wanted to make the marriage work. The custody battle was all about trying to force Carol into coming back, to be "cured" with therapy, and to be "normal."  From Harge's point of view, Carol's relationships with Abby and Therese are just symptoms of a mental illness that he believes can be treated and afterwards they can just go forward as the picture perfect couple.

This. Very well put.

On 3/22/2016 at 9:29 PM, methodwriter85 said:

I get the feeling that we're supposed to see Rooney Mara as being as a stunning beauty. Like, Audrey Hepburn kind of beauty.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think she is incredibly beautiful. And in that "real people who surprise you" kind of way. In the beginning of this film, she was a mouse. By the end, she had attained confidence and a sense of self and pride, and she was just so beautiful I couldn't look away from her. She did the same thing for me in "Dragon Tattoo" -- she's become one of my favorite actresses because she is never quite how I remember, and never acts as I expect, and yet I find her mesmerizing. 

On 3/23/2016 at 5:41 AM, Milburn Stone said:

I'll go you one further, and assert that the attempt to make us see Rooney Mara as a stunning beauty is 100% successful. She is one. Several moments in this movie, I silently said to myself, "My God, she's young Audrey Hepburn." I have no doubt Haynes coiffed, dressed, and made her up to put that thought in my head--but the fact that he succeeded has to be partly credited to the raw material he had to work with.

Wonderfully put -- I felt much the same way. The wonderful thing about the film that I think is successful is that Therese is someone most people would never notice -- their gazes would slide right past her. But Carol sees how beautiful she is right away. And that's part of falling in love.

On 3/23/2016 at 8:22 AM, galax-arena said:

Speaking of Audrey Hepburn, Rooney channeling Audrey in terms of looks is one thing, but there was one criticism of the movie that complained about how "depressed" Rooney is as Therese and that the filmmakers should have cast someone brighter and more vivacious a la Audrey Hepburn: "that part needed an Audrey Hepburn, an enchanting, alive, beautiful young woman." And that made me go, "Really now?" Saying that Therese should have been ~enchanting and alive completely misses the point of her character IMO. Therese is meant to be repressed and withdrawn.  

I agree with you and certainly disagree with critics of Mara. Therese is someone we have to subtly watch as she blossoms -- I actually never ever saw her as depressed so much as waiting for her life to begin. The one I thought was palpably, tragically depressed (and deservedly so) was Cate's character of Carol, who is being trapped by her husband and her time into a quiet living hell.

On 4/23/2016 at 11:15 PM, MrsRafaelBarba said:

Good film, but nowhere near the masterpiece that is Far From Heaven.

I keep seeing this posted here and I don't understand it. I think "Far from Heaven" is a beautiful film. I also think "Carol" is a beautiful film. It's the same for me with Lean, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Campion, Soderbergh, etc. -- I'm happy to love many of their movies without feeling that there is only one worthwhile leader. I totally understand those who agree to disagree, however.

Edited November 26, 2016 by paramitch

[Milburn Stone]

39 minutes ago, paramitch said:

I think "Far from Heaven" is a beautiful film. I also think "Carol" is a beautiful film. It's the same for me with Lean, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Campion, Soderbergh, etc. -- I'm happy to love many of their movies without feeling that there is only one worthwhile leader. I totally understand those who agree to disagree, however.

For me, it wasn't so much about thinking that every Todd Haynes movie needs to be the best one ever. It was more like, "OMG, this is the next movie from the guy who made Far From Heaven. This is gonna be awesome." And for me, it wasn't. (I still wonder if a lot of the difference between the two films was the latter's lack of an Elmer Bernstein score. Much as I admire Carter Burwell.)

[paramitch]

18 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

For me, it wasn't so much about thinking that every Todd Haynes movie needs to be the best one ever. It was more like, "OMG, this is the next movie from the guy who made Far From Heaven. This is gonna be awesome." And for me, it wasn't. (I still wonder if a lot of the difference between the two films was the latter's lack of an Elmer Bernstein score. Much as I admire Carter Burwell.)

I definitely understand this, I just think this point of view might be unnecessarily limiting, even if I understand the impulse. To me, it means we have the opportunity to miss a heck of a lot of beautiful work and moments. Maybe every work by Spielberg isn't Schindler's List. But I love a dozen other of his films anyway. That kind of thing.

I loved Far from Heaven too. But I really loved Carol, too, and that's all I meant to convey. I don't think they have to measure up to each other to be enjoyed.

The funny thing is, I wasn't comparing it so much mentally to Haynes's other works, but to Highsmith's, as I am a huge fan of Minghella's gorgeous adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley. Highsmith can be a chilly writer, but the right writers and directors also are able to coax the hidden yearning in her words that's really meaningful and moving; that sense of otherness, of being an outsider. I have never loved Tom Ripley as a character, except in Minghella's gorgeous adaptation, because he was able to put that desire and despair and loneliness onscreen. It's very similar to the way Haynes is able to show us Carol's incredible despair and loneliness here, and it really moved me.

On a side note, as far as film music -- I think Bernstein was a genius, but his voice was cooler than I tend to prefer, and more cerebral -- more technical and remote. I do love many of his scores, especially those for The Grifters, Airplane!, The Age of Innocence, and Far from Heaven,  but am also a longtime fan of Carter Burwell, and can't say enough about how much I love his scores for Conspiracy Theory, And the Band Played On, Doc Hollywood, No Country for Old Men, and In Bruges as they are all are huge favorites of mine to this day.

I thought Burwell's score for Carol was gorgeous and romantic, and I especially loved his choices for silence (always my favorite thing about him -- something he did with similar skill in No Country for Old Men as well) -- the interesting thing is, I was absolutely sure when I watched it (having missed his name) that the score for Carol was by either Philip Glass or Michael Nyman. The lush, oceanic strings and repeated motifs just felt very much like a Glass homage to me. And it wasn't! So that was kind of awesome.

Thanks for the discussion!

Edited November 27, 2016 by paramitch
paragraph breaks are our friends

[Milburn Stone]

Shifting over to Burwell, another score of his that sticks in my mind is that for Kinsey. Haven't listened to it in a long time but I remember being blown away by it.

I hear different things from you when I compare Bernstein to Burwell. Burwell is amazing at creating mood. He makes me have thoughts about the story that I wouldn't have without his music. Bernstein is amazing at heightening emotion, without ever going so far as to be obvious or manipulative. He makes me have feelings about the story that I wouldn't have without his music.

But I suspect you feel just the other way around! :)

[scrb]

So it was suppose to be love at first sight kind of deal?

The way she was describing to Richard, about whether a boy can fall for someone, sounded like that.

BTW, that actor got dumped by Hannah on Girls too so maybe he's finding a niche.

[SimoneS]

On 4/24/2016 at 2:15 AM, MrsRafaelBarba said:

Good film, but nowhere near the masterpiece that is Far From Heaven.

6/10

I agree. I love Cate Blanchett as an actress and was so looking forward to this movie, but too many scenes fell flat. This is going to sound strange, but throughout the movie, I kept thinking that Haynes' loves Blanchett as much as I do which is probably too much for the movie he was trying to make. Everything about her was filmed so aesthetically perfectly that Carol didn't feel real which contributed to her romance with Therese feeling unconvincing.

In contrast, I found the characters in Far From Heaven compelling and every scene purposeful building to the inevitable conclusion. It is indeed Haynes' masterpiece.

Edited March 14, 2017 by SimoneS

[Milburn Stone]

6 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I agree. I love Cate Blanchett as an actress and was so looking forward to this movie, but too many scenes fell flat. This is going to sound strange, but throughout the movie, I kept thinking that Haynes' loves Blanchett as much as I do which is probably too much for the movie he was trying to make. Everything about her was filmed so aesthetically perfectly that Carol didn't feel real which contributed to her romance with Therese feeling unconvincing.

In contrast, I found the characters in Far From Heaven compelling and every scene purposeful building to the inevitable conclusion. It is indeed Haynes' masterpiece.

Couldn't agree more, @SimoneS, and I'd add that an ingredient of FfH's much greater artistic success (to my perception) is that it felt a lot more like a story Todd Haynes actually gave a damn about.

[paramitch]

I still feel like the constant comparisons between "Carol" and "Far From Heaven" are mystifying and unnecessary. Despite a similarity of subject matter, in some ways, they're just so different and their portraits of people and their sufferings are utterly separate and distinct.

Quote

I'd add that an ingredient of FfH's much greater artistic success (to my perception) is that it felt a lot more like a story Todd Haynes actually gave a damn about.

Again, I think this is unfair. I definitely feel like Haynes cared about the fates of the two women (and the story he was creating). I understand the slight remoteness of the presentation of the film's drama because that is how Carol herself maintains her life -- she glides through, playing a role, smiling, calm, and icily covering the actual inferno taking place underneath. The glossy icy veneer is richly ironic since I truly believe Carol at the beginning is inches from utter despair and suicide. I think it's a deliberate choice by Haynes that doesn't denote a lack of care, but a deliberate and fascinating point of view. Which also links directly the wonderfulness of that final scene -- the final moment, when Therese looks up at Carol and the film actually glows with real joy.

Meanwhile, as far as critical success, "Carol" was nominated for six Oscars. "Far From Heaven" (which, again, I love also) was nominated for four.  "Carol" has a Rottentomatoes rating of 94%. "Far from Heaven" has a rating of 87%. So yes, "Carol" actually wins that race. If we're measuring. Which I wish we weren't.

I love both films, and both are landmarks and important for similar yet entirely separate reasons. I have lesbian friends for whom "Carol" was a lifeline. So I just don't get the insistence upon comparing the two (to the detriment of "Carol") and to me it's not only mystifying, but it utterly undermines what Haynes was trying to accomplish with this film.

@Milburn Stone, I actually agree with you on the film music front -- I think! I would certainly agree that Bernstein is amazing at creating an underlying emotion and tension but where I don't necessarily or typically notice the melodies themselves. I tend to prefer warmer composers. Burwell is capable of creating gorgeous melodies that meld with the visuals for me and enhance them in a totally different way. (His scores for "Conspiracy Theory," "Fargo," "No Country for Old Men," and "And the Band Played On," among many others, still move me to tears.) I remember liking his score for "Kinsey" but the film itself was so harrowing that I cannot remember a single note of music.

Edited July 23, 2017 by paramitch

[StarBrand]

Saw this on Netflix , to see what the fuss was about. I liked it, although it's not "OMG Oscar worthy" (personally I coudln't give two shits about the Oscars validating a film's greatness, but I digress)

I tend to like characters, who for one reason or another, can't, or won't, say out loud what they're feeling. This movie  makes good use of glances, touches.  This is lost on some people, who consider things like this "boring".  The plot is pretty much predicable, as is the eventual romantic liason between Therese and Carol, although in a weird way, it's not.  There are at least a couple of scenes where one might think the tryst is going to happen, so in the NYE scene, when it does, sort of does come at a suprise.  And when it does, it's Threse that initiates it.

And while there's nudity involved, it's only the one scene that is remotely explicit. It didn't have to be either, nor did I feel "cheated". I hate movies that have people bang up against walls, seemingly in a rush, and that's the only depiction of passion. Here it's slow building and romantic. At least I thought so.

I've heard the quibbles about Rooney's acting here and elsewhere, but I would concede here it works. Her character is just a naturally introverted person, and it's only in the middle of the film, on her road trip with Carol, that she seems to open up. You see her close right up again when Carol meets with her after cutting off contact with her. I know this movie was notable for having a somewhat happy ending for a lesbian couple, although of course it's not without consequences for Carol. I liked the last scene where Therese scans the room for Carol, finds her, and their eyes meet-and Carol starts slowly smiling, before the scene cuts off.