Carol
Carol
#2Carol
Posted: 11/26/15 at 6:06pm
I saw it too and loved it. Rooney Mara does amazing work (it's really her film and not Cate's) and it's ridiculous that she's being considered for supporting and not leading actress.
What I liked was that the film looks meticulously period and yet it's filmed in a modern style (the taxi cab shots, lighting of the interior scenes) that made it feel fresh and relevant. The restraint of the script was admirable. I don't think it will catch on with a larger audience, but it's 100% worth seeing.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#3Carol
Posted: 11/26/15 at 8:03pm
"What I liked was that the film looks meticulously period and yet it's filmed in a modern style (the taxi cab shots, lighting of the interior scenes) that made it feel fresh and relevant. "
I felt the same way about Haynes' Mildred Pierce adaptation, even though that was set two decades or so earlier (obviously his other period film, Far From Heaven with its Sirk-isms doesn't follow this example.)
I cannot WAIT to see this. Except that I'll have to (I think it comes out here early Dec.) But I have been anticipating it for so long, that's it's wonderful to hear so much praise. The Price of Salt is definitely worth a read--I find it interesting that some trailers are advertising this as By The Author of The Talented Mr Ripley which seems a bit misleading... Salt is very different from Highsmith's Ripley books (or any of her other books I've read), although I suppose most people would think of the Minghella film which itself is vastly different than the books and deals much more blatantly with issues of repressing your sexuality so maybe they want that connection to be in people's heads....
The New Yorker this week has a nice feature article about the autobiographical elements of Carol (well, of The Price of Salt,) of which there are even more than I gathered from reading an older Highsmith bio. It seems to be online to read in full for free: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/30/forbidden-love
Auggie27
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/03
#4Carol
Posted: 11/26/15 at 8:11pm
Opens wide December 18th. I think people expecting it as a follow-up to "Far From Heaven," a specific masterwork, should not in anticipation connect it so readily to that film, period aside. Haynes is going for something entirely different. His affection for the 50s as a mirror of repression and behind-closed-doors passions is expressed in very different ways. The source material is another's story, whereas "Heaven" was painstaking homage to the tropes and stylistic imprint Sirk (without a whiff of camp or parody, still startling over a decade later). Haynes finds an entirely different heartbeat and even a different visual style, despite sharing the same brilliant cinematographer, Ed Lachman. .
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#5Carol
Posted: 11/26/15 at 9:08pm
Absolutely--I hope I was clear that I wasn't expecting a similarity in my statement (although I might regret my comment about Mildred Pierce when I get to see it...)
I believe that Brooklyn goes wide on the same date (not that that means much, except that some critics have already, annoyingly, pitted the films up against each other.) *edit* though apparently it opens here and in most major Canadian cities on the 11th.
#9Carol
Posted: 11/26/15 at 10:06pm
Yeah but that's common. I'm trying to think of a major example... Alice Munro's short story collection with the novella The Bear Climbed Over the Mountain was renamed Away From Her after Sarah Polly's film adaptation. Christopher Bram's amazing Father of Frankenstein was renamed because they wanted Brenden Fraser in the film, which was low budget but he was a name and wanted to do a more serious role but he said he refused the title due to it sounding like a cheapo Frankenstein sequel, so they renamed it Gods and Monsters, and the novel is now published under that title.
#10Carol
Posted: 11/26/15 at 10:21pm
It's been going by "Carol" for years, though - I think it changed when her real name was put on the jacket instead of her pseudonym (Claire Morgan). I could be wrong, though.
In any case, I too am eagerly anticipating the movie! :)
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
#12Carol
Posted: 11/26/15 at 10:34pm
Interesting--I had no idea actually. I have a used copy - the 2004 one there. However I found this site that claims to explain why the novel's name changed, but it kinda doesn't explain it at all in the end... http://www.shmoop.com/the-price-of-salt-carol/
#13Carol
Posted: 11/26/15 at 11:28pm
I just flipped to the back of my own copy, which has an afterword written by Patricia Highsmith herself in 1989. It seems she changed the title herself when it was published in her own name, though she didn't say why. I can't find it online, but there's an audio version on YouTube - she also talks about the real-life inspiration, and the letters she received back in the 50s. Not her actual voice, alas.
Worth a listen, if you happen to be interested.
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#15Carol
Posted: 11/30/15 at 8:44am
Really wanted to love this movie but didn't like it very much. Haynes dials down his movie-lover's yen for melodrama, but what's left is a very cold, flat thing.
The romance is perfunctory. The on-the-road courtship plot repetitive to the point of tedium. Nothing supports Carol and Therese having the kind of love to support the arc of the plot. Mara beautifully captures Therese's youthful infatuation and adoration. She's the heart of the movie but can't carry it on her own. No one could.
Blanchett's attraction for Mara isn't made specific or clear enough to sustain the love story. When Abby (strong, sensible work from Sarah Paulson) warns Therese that "everything changes," it rings far truer to the story we think we are watching than the famous "happy ending" which distinguished the novel.
Blanchett plays with her hair. A lot. She does nothing to suggest that Carol is at the beginning of a great and important love affair.
As a man who mad-loves his wife so much he'll destroy her to hold on to his marriage, Kyle Chandler provides a far too convincing passion for Blanchett. As unhealthy as his attachment is, it dwarfs anything Blanchett hints at in her feelings for Mara. Any final frame hopes for Carol and Therese land with a thud.
Updated On: 12/1/15 at 08:44 AM
Auggie27
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/03
#16Carol
Posted: 11/30/15 at 11:24am
"The Price of Salt" was never gonna be a major film's title. The selling of this film past a niche audience is still a challenge. The heavy per-screen box office reports in NYC and LA are anecdotal evidence of only a sliver of the movie-going audience this time of year. I believe it will do well, but it's early, and doesn't go wide til 12/18. ("Truth" with Blanchett, bombed, and it's not a bad movie at all.) And for what it's worth: there are no screeners yet, at least not for the WGA.* I haven't talked to SAG members.
*Assuming Nagy is a member; the screenwriter for "12 Years a Slave" was not, and we got no screeners. The union members are the early recipients, not the academy.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 11/30/15 at 11:24 AM
#18Carol
Posted: 11/30/15 at 12:18pm
I really wanted to love this because I am a huge fan of Haynes' FAR FROM HEAVEN and Cate Blanchett is one of my all time favorite actresses but henrikegerman summed it up perfectly. Not only what was left was cold and flat it basically left me feeling that way as well.
Auggie27
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/03
#20Carol
Posted: 12/7/15 at 10:45am
Like a preponderance of these platformed, slowly opening year-end releases -- long awaited, in the case of CAROL at least since the start of summer -- there's a predictable backlash. I hear people say BROOKLYN, ROOM, and SPOTLIGHT are overrated every day. Many of us were more than a little hungry from some rangier fare by the time October rolled round, and SUFFRAGETTE and TRUTH were so welcome. CAROL is probably easy to oversell to just about anyway It's a small, exquisitely rendered film that in every way executes Todd Haynes's vision. It's not that the hyperbole is wrong, just promising a movie that probably can't be delivered to some. One of the great pleasures of FAR FROM HEAVEN was its ability to sneak in with fanfare, but not heavy expectations. This film has only the same director and to a certain extent the same era in common (though it's not executed in any way near the say way, even with the same cinematographer.) People wanting another HEAVEN won't find that. Maybe that's part of the backlash -- or, a fairer, more neutral word -- disappointment.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Fantod
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/3/14
Auggie27
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/03
#22Carol
Posted: 12/12/15 at 8:29am
The screeners went out and arrived. They have sent it to all of the unions. It's a very good one (the cinematography is preserved, unlike the "Into the Woods" last year, which is the darkest screener I've seen, some scenes almost in pitch black; the released dvd apparently corrected all that, per this board). I am rooting for Ed Lachman's work, as noted above, so far from "Far From Heaven"''s autumnal palette. The saturated color and leafless trees against grey skies very powerful. The movie is very chilly, literally, which makes its slowly escalating pulse very much part of its impact. No spoiler, but this is a love story that dares to take its time; by the standards of the time, almost generating impatience (I've read many comments to A. O. Scott's review at the Times, smart ones that simply found it too slow by half). Haynes is working with a different metronome setting, and though it pays off, it makes different demands in its storytelling. What has shocked some of my friends: how cold and aloof and not entirely likable the title character is. I think it's a strength -- the film is devoid of sentimentality -- but again, this treatment does not have the Sirk homage warmth underneath. In a way, it makes the "naughtiness" in the forbidden love far more compelling.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Auggie27
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/03
ArtMan
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/10/08
#24Carol
Posted: 1/16/16 at 9:20pm
Saw this yesterday. I was more impressed with the design and costumes. It was nearly flawless. The story didn't do anything for me. Although well acted, I didn't buy into this great love and the life choices that were made as a result. The movie was slow, but felt rushed at the same time. If that makes sense?
