Some of the comments here boggle my mind. The fact that Cate is "40" -- who cares? She was supposed to be older. It wouldn’t have worked as well if she had been younger. As for Rooney Mara not being emotionally expressive: Unless you have lived as she was clearly forced to -- in a closet -- you couldn't possibly understand. She looked "blank" because she was desperately trying to function in a world where she did not see a place for herself -- until she met Carol.
To me, the defining moment of this film is when Rooney returns from a meeting with Carol. She's on the train and she suddenly cries. It sums up the hell she's been living in her entire life. Her portrayal of Therese was beyond perfect.
Another brilliant scene was when she's having lunch with Carol. Carol orders with the authority of an A-list movie star in Beverly Hills. Therese realizes she's completely out of her sphere and does what anyone else in her shoes would have done: orders the exact same thing.
As for the "short cut" issue that's been brought up multiple times in these comments: Okay, there were some inaccuracies. But, so what? I have never seen a film that so beautifully captures the tortured emotions of people who living in this era, except another Haynes film, “Far From Heaven.”
As with that film, “Carol” is clearly an homage to the "women's films" of that era. The muted colors, the "high-drama" of the lawyer's meeting... all, brilliant. I loved it and will view it multiple times.
19
Thanks for this excellent review of a beautiful film. The faultless acting of the two leads, and the mellow colouring of the photography are as soft and enveloping as the lovers’ embraces. This is great art.
8
I haven't read the comments and this might be a commonplace observation, but -- depending on the extent to which Rooney Mara's slightly blank affect was feigned or intrinsic to the actor -- I could easily imagine Mara doing a biopic of Audrey Hepburn.
6
There are a number of anachronisms in the film. The shortcut "across the interstate," mentioned below, as well as references to "stereophonic radio" (which did not exist until 1961) and "stereophonic television" (which would have to wait until the 1980s). If only we had been there to guide them!
1
It's hard to make a really convincing period piece of this era anymore; we're too far away from it now (65 years or more). Most people working in film today simply don't remember it. So they easily get mixed up, about things like what kinds of road travel or maps there were, did they have interstate highways yet? and which ones, or (surprisingly) things like costumes and makeup. Look at photos of that era (1949-1952) -- it was the time of Dior's New Look. Women wore tightly pincurled hairdos, not loose fluffy hair. And in 1950, women still wore SEAMED stockings with reinforced toes and heels -- yet Blanchett is shown repeated in SEAMLESS modern pantyhose-type stockings!
Nitpicking, I know, but I'm a period costume buff. (My hubby is a antique car buff, and noted "all the cars look brand new and scratch free!"!).
Nitpicking, I know, but I'm a period costume buff. (My hubby is a antique car buff, and noted "all the cars look brand new and scratch free!"!).
6
Just saw it on the small screen. I thought the cast was great. I don't know about the rest of the period piece accuracy, but the detective who tells Carol and Therese about the shortcut around the interstate must have been a time traveler, since there were no interstate highways until 1956.
6
Im sure the following one-sentence review has already been done to death, so forgive me...but Im doin it anyway!!! Here goes:
Far from Far From Heaven.
Far from Far From Heaven.
3
I loved it, especially the idea that one of the people involved in the affair isn't preying on the other one. There was something gentle and very human in this movie, a willingness to slow things down and go through the steps of a new relationship, one by one. I thought the disparity in their life styles was really done well, and Ms. Mara's hesitancy and withdrawal prod the viewer to wonder what the cause of her behavior is? Reluctance? Is she overwhelmed by Carol's sophistication? Is she afraid of her own feelings? We begin to see her as the weaker one in the relationship, then all of a sudden, "I want to stay in the executive suite!" The film weaves a subtle but sure path along the normal development of a love relationship, then, because being gay was actually illegal then, the tragic price that Carol has to pay for being who she is. I just love this movie, with or without interstate highways. It was the human relationships that counted.
6
When I first saw this film in the theater, I found it beautiful but leaden. Rooney Mara, especially, felt one dimensional, sort of a staring elf.
But then I watched it again, a few months later, and realized that, in watching it through the lens of my own expectations, I had missed the story of these two women every bit as much as the people surrounding them.
This film is stunning, and the depth that these two actresses bring to their characters--and the story of their characters--is phenomenal.
In its subdued grace and almost total dependence on feeling, as opposed to the now ever-present skin skin skin, this is one of the best representations of desire ever filmed.
Brava to both Ms. Blanchett and Ms. Mara.
But then I watched it again, a few months later, and realized that, in watching it through the lens of my own expectations, I had missed the story of these two women every bit as much as the people surrounding them.
This film is stunning, and the depth that these two actresses bring to their characters--and the story of their characters--is phenomenal.
In its subdued grace and almost total dependence on feeling, as opposed to the now ever-present skin skin skin, this is one of the best representations of desire ever filmed.
Brava to both Ms. Blanchett and Ms. Mara.
13
I've been a Blanchett fan since Elizabeth and have enjoyed all of her films to date. Not this one, I'm afraid. From the very beginning, I never bought the idea they were attracted to each other. Rooney Mara displayed all the depth of a paper plate. Blanchett did not seem believable. But the supporting cast was strong. Beautifully filmed as well. But dull as day old dishwater.
6
It was a borefest -- a beautiful, well acted borefest. I'll have to read the book to see if it is THAT dull in print (Highsmith is a very fine writer, otherwise).
I think Cate Blanchett was too old for her part...she is and looks 40 (a marvelous, vital 40 but still). Yet she has 4 year old daughter. Women married and had children VERY young then. If she was the mother of a 4 year old, the author probably intended Carol to be about 30 at the most.
Rooney Mara....sorry, I could never accept her as Lizbeth Salander either. She's pretty but not a good actress. I think she was picked for her big eyed resemblance to a young Audrey Hepburn (who, had they made a version of The Price of Salt IN 1953, would have been marvelous!). But Rooney can't act. She just sits there and phones it in. I wonder how Kristen Stewart might have been here -- I just saw her in the Clouds of SIls Maria and she was very impressive. She has really grown as an actress since the Twilight films.
I think Cate Blanchett was too old for her part...she is and looks 40 (a marvelous, vital 40 but still). Yet she has 4 year old daughter. Women married and had children VERY young then. If she was the mother of a 4 year old, the author probably intended Carol to be about 30 at the most.
Rooney Mara....sorry, I could never accept her as Lizbeth Salander either. She's pretty but not a good actress. I think she was picked for her big eyed resemblance to a young Audrey Hepburn (who, had they made a version of The Price of Salt IN 1953, would have been marvelous!). But Rooney can't act. She just sits there and phones it in. I wonder how Kristen Stewart might have been here -- I just saw her in the Clouds of SIls Maria and she was very impressive. She has really grown as an actress since the Twilight films.
2
I'm no expert on film but I know what I like, and having finally seen this movie, I thought it was terrific. First, if there is a greater actor than Cate Blanchett, I've not seen him or her. Like Daniel Day Lewis, Ms. Blanchett not only has a great face, but it's astonishing what she can do with it - how much she can communicate without saying a word. Rooney Mara was also wonderful, and the scenes in which they interacted were mesmerizing. I also think the movie had a perfect ending.
13
To me Carol is the most profound movie i've seen and actually deeply felt in years.
The scenes, actors, writer of screenplay, photographer et al brilliantly captured a time and love story beyond compare. The thrilling erotic gazes, and unforgettable love scenes were beyond compare to current cinema, IMHO.I am still feeling the magnetism ... so
palpable throughout. Thankfully, it was free of death, violence & tragedy, plus no one had a cell phone in 1952 to distract them from being totally present.
Beautiful!
The scenes, actors, writer of screenplay, photographer et al brilliantly captured a time and love story beyond compare. The thrilling erotic gazes, and unforgettable love scenes were beyond compare to current cinema, IMHO.I am still feeling the magnetism ... so
palpable throughout. Thankfully, it was free of death, violence & tragedy, plus no one had a cell phone in 1952 to distract them from being totally present.
Beautiful!
9
Hands down the best film I saw this year. Even the master of melodrama, Douglas Sirk, would have deeply admired it's power, style and subtlety. Just like's Sirk's magnificent All That Heaven Allows, the lovers are faced with a repressive, judgmental and cruel society which seeks to destroy anyone and anything non-conventional, and nearly succeeds. The clothing, the lighting and the camera work are heavenly. The Academy Awards are a joke, of course, but not even nominating this film for best picture is an absolute scandal.
13
I thought that it was beautifully filmed. I have a lot of other thoughts about it but now I want to respond to A.O. Scott when he said this:
"Carol,” like virtually every other movie Mr. Haynes has directed, is a period film, almost fetishistically precise in its recreation of the look and sound of the past." It drove me crazy when Carol turned on the radio in the car in the tunnel (Holland? Lincoln?) on the way to New Jersey! Even now, 60 years later, it is impossible to get radio reception in the tunnel.
"Carol,” like virtually every other movie Mr. Haynes has directed, is a period film, almost fetishistically precise in its recreation of the look and sound of the past." It drove me crazy when Carol turned on the radio in the car in the tunnel (Holland? Lincoln?) on the way to New Jersey! Even now, 60 years later, it is impossible to get radio reception in the tunnel.
13
Thought the same thing! Also found it odd when Abby picked Carol up in the city that the top was down in mid December. Therese is tightening her wool scarf as they drive off to New Jersey
6
In the book it talks several times about the obsession Abby and Carol seem to have with driving with the top down on the cars or the windows open. I assume this is a hold over from the book.
3
I also wondered about them driving from New Jersey (where Carol lives), to Chicago, in DECEMBER -- just around Christmas & New Years -- and while it is cold & snowy in New Jersey (correctly), when they get to Chicago....it's spring-like weather, balmy and they take their coats off and walk in the sunshine. Did the direct think CHICAGO is warmer in the winter than New Jersey or New York? because that is emphatically not true! it's miserably cold, wet and windy in Chicago and about the same latitude, so why it would be so much warmer?
This film is set in 1952, my senior year in college. Unlike Therese, I actually sailed for Europe on the Empress of Scotland in 1953, after I graduated, and then came back and lived and worked in New York before going to graduate school, so the era is strong in my memory and I was looking forward to the film.
The people I knew in 1952 often hid the fact if they were gay. But I don't think I ever knew such leaden characters as Carol and Therese, who seem to be what Bob and Ray referred to as Slow Talkers of America. To say that the film has sparse dialogue is an understatement: people go to lunch, order, and then chew. Rooney Mara's Therese has an appealing look, but has nothing to say, and to compare her to Audrey Hepburn ignores the fact that Audrey H was charming and witty. Nobody has a sense of humor in the film, even a wry one. We spend hours with Carol and learn essentially nothing about her except for the few obvious facts of her current status--we don't know if she has any interests, talents, education. If she likes Ike.
Bottom line: excellent photography and attention to physical details, but too slow, and nonverbal if you are hoping for character exposition or any sense of life.
The people I knew in 1952 often hid the fact if they were gay. But I don't think I ever knew such leaden characters as Carol and Therese, who seem to be what Bob and Ray referred to as Slow Talkers of America. To say that the film has sparse dialogue is an understatement: people go to lunch, order, and then chew. Rooney Mara's Therese has an appealing look, but has nothing to say, and to compare her to Audrey Hepburn ignores the fact that Audrey H was charming and witty. Nobody has a sense of humor in the film, even a wry one. We spend hours with Carol and learn essentially nothing about her except for the few obvious facts of her current status--we don't know if she has any interests, talents, education. If she likes Ike.
Bottom line: excellent photography and attention to physical details, but too slow, and nonverbal if you are hoping for character exposition or any sense of life.
24
"thank you" u for this actual honest review of this beautifully shot/detailed mediocre film. While there are several truly incredible scenes visually (example: the final wide framed shot of Therese meeting uhhh...guy in hat #2? in...Central Park?, through the bridge from the other side of the pond was spectacular); the story/character development (or lack) left plenty 2 b desired, IMO. Im in the very small minority who isnt completely blown away by every single thing Cate does. I think she is very good, but that means nothing when delivering the lines of such a dull character (however, I do appreciate the fact that this film didnt just shove Cates face into my face evry single chance it could, like pretty much every other movie that shes in seems to do. I get it: shes beautiful, and stoic and...British? Shes beloved. OK! Fine and dandy. Let the woman act! This movie allowed her that.) Im not sure what I supposed to find so likable, or interesting to the point where I should care about what happens to her character. Same with Rooney. Well, dont get me wrong: she poured on the demure, mousey, fish outta water, drink tea like a mouse mousey thing really well. Still not sure why I care. Im still waiting for her to do something I should give a toot about. And the Hepburn comparisons really need to stop. I absolutely love Far From Heaven, and this movie is far from that. Its fine. But...same exact movie, 2 less famous actresses: wouldve garnered way less buzz, I think.
4
@Jean: thanks for that laugh ("slow talkers of America")! very true!
While I don't think Rooney Mara has 1/100th the talent of Audrey Hepburn, she does bear a passing PHYSICAL resemblance....she has big eyes, strong dark eyebrows and she is very, very thin. She is dressed in "Carol" very much like Audrey Hepburn in "Funny Face", where Hepburn starts out as a bookish nerd with the same hairdo (bangs and a bob) and plaid jumpers! I think you are supposed to pick up on this, at least subliminally.
Had this film actually been MADE in 1953 -- when it would have been REALLY brave and daring, unlike today where it is merely "politically correct" -- Hepburn would have been magnificent in this part. She could really act, besides being a great and unique beauty. I can also see Grace Kelley as "Carol". But that's just me.
While I don't think Rooney Mara has 1/100th the talent of Audrey Hepburn, she does bear a passing PHYSICAL resemblance....she has big eyes, strong dark eyebrows and she is very, very thin. She is dressed in "Carol" very much like Audrey Hepburn in "Funny Face", where Hepburn starts out as a bookish nerd with the same hairdo (bangs and a bob) and plaid jumpers! I think you are supposed to pick up on this, at least subliminally.
Had this film actually been MADE in 1953 -- when it would have been REALLY brave and daring, unlike today where it is merely "politically correct" -- Hepburn would have been magnificent in this part. She could really act, besides being a great and unique beauty. I can also see Grace Kelley as "Carol". But that's just me.
2
I really wanted to like this film. Overall, it was a fine, slow film. I enjoyed the various shades of the two female leads. However, I have grown tired of seeing Blanchett play the somewhat blasé aristocratic roles. If she is truly such a great actress - and I think she is - how about invest more in less privileged characters? In other words, I don't think this character was much of a stretch for her. I think she should stretch more in future film choices.
9
As the lights went up in the theater, my first word to my companion was "turkey." On further reflection, it doesn't get much better. No chemistry between the beautifully photographed lovers. Plotting gaps (the road trip just sort of happens). I wouldn't have minded the slow pace if it contributed to anything in furtherance of the plot. Instead, it just seemed tedious. Frankly, I think this is more about political correctness than art. There is probably a good film out there about lesbian love, but this ain't it.
12
Portraying a period at the far end of living memory with the wisdom of hindsight can be--and in this instance is--a valid pursuit. CAROL and BROOKLYN have that in common, and have things to say that contemporary-in-the-day films could not have. The stylization of the period look as well as the characters complained of so much, works for me. It struck me that those days were not nearly so filled with Packard cars and Stromberg-Carlson telephones as this film is. Even that helps somehow, suggesting an alternative or relative reality.
3
A deliberate but excellently crafted period piece and love story. Ms. Mara is a revelation in this film
8
I was looking forward to this movie; unfortunately that the actual viewing of it crushed me. The highlights were Cate Blanchett's seemingly effortless acting and the opening and closing scenes which are the same scene played over with the viewer now apprised of the true story and depth of feeling rather than being simply observer at the start. It is filmed in an impressionistic manner with swirls of color seen through frosted glass or cloudy rain streaked windows. Many scenes were beautiful.
The annoyances were the dark, dark filters over every single scene, making midday with its bright sunlight fade into shadow and the sad, sad score with a mournful oboe informing the viewer that life is just plain bad. The character of Therese is just dull as can be and there is no spark of personality or reason for Carol (or anyone) to care about her. She seems to have no inner life and her dreams are as faded as the paint in her dumpy apartment. Yes she does have that Audrey Hepburn quality to her looks. It is not enough. This is not a drama for there is no drama to the story as presented by the writer and director. Yes it does portray a terrible era of strict societal norms. I was hoping to be engaged by a story with characters and meaning. I don't need an action movie to be happy. This was leaden. Full disclosure: other members of my group thought it poignant and interesting.
The annoyances were the dark, dark filters over every single scene, making midday with its bright sunlight fade into shadow and the sad, sad score with a mournful oboe informing the viewer that life is just plain bad. The character of Therese is just dull as can be and there is no spark of personality or reason for Carol (or anyone) to care about her. She seems to have no inner life and her dreams are as faded as the paint in her dumpy apartment. Yes she does have that Audrey Hepburn quality to her looks. It is not enough. This is not a drama for there is no drama to the story as presented by the writer and director. Yes it does portray a terrible era of strict societal norms. I was hoping to be engaged by a story with characters and meaning. I don't need an action movie to be happy. This was leaden. Full disclosure: other members of my group thought it poignant and interesting.
33
Totally agree. I had high expectations because the novel was so good. Should have known.
5
I agree. Cate Blanchet who i usually love played it just plain sad throughout, almost one dimensionally. - or maybe it was just the music.
6
Just saw the film, and it has strengths but is ultimately disappointing. The sexual tension and charge between the two leads, from the very beginning, was palpable and artfully displayed. As someone who (barely) remembers the 1950s, the connection with the material appearance of the past was fun. But was it really necessary to let the camera linger so long on faces, scenes, etc., with nothing actually happening and no real purpose other than to slow things down? And did people really speak so elliptically (and rarely) in the 1950s? The result of all the ellipsis and lingering shots with nothing happening was to leave several plot elements unclear and, at least for me, to make it that much harder to identify with the characters. In sum, I thought this the kind of film that film critics can be expected to fall in line and praise profusely, but that in fact could have been so much better as storytelling and as a movie.
11
...and did they also say "Nice" ironically, in reference to something they dont actually find nice? I wouldnt think so, but it happened with Therese's boyfriend during the 'we-are-20-something-actors' argument. I found it odd.
Wonderful film. A powerful story of forbidden love. Moving performances.
I never felt felt pacing or lack of action were problems, contrary to some what some are complaining about here. The two leads are quiet characters, with much going on below the surface. If the film may out of step with the hyperkinetic pacing of many movies today, it's a refreshing change. We need more films like this.
I never felt felt pacing or lack of action were problems, contrary to some what some are complaining about here. The two leads are quiet characters, with much going on below the surface. If the film may out of step with the hyperkinetic pacing of many movies today, it's a refreshing change. We need more films like this.
28
I agree with your comments. One of my problems with some of the earlier posts is people looking at the film with 2016 eyes. These women had to be more cautious, more refrained. They were unable to, in any capacity, express their depths of passion in public. And God forbid in private had Carol misjudged Therese's feelings she could have really faced a steeper consequence. Therefore I completely got it. I thought they were both great I loved the juxtaposition of passion in an era not far removed from the passions of WWII but cemented in total boredom of the early 50's. I just wish there was more, like a glimpse of them later on. But that is just me who bonded with the characters. Cate was perfectly cast.
3
It was boring just like the fifties were boring.
Stunning film.....I must see it again and like other great films, will likely watch it multiple times as there are so many layers of nuance in both the performances and the frame. I also loved the quality of super-16....I miss film's shot in film.
20
An ode to analog film, within a love story (nothing compares to the warmth of 'grain'). Wonderful to see 'Therese' shooting with an Argus 35mm camera too.
7
Well it was Carol or Star Wars today, I chose Carol- really glad I did. I found it very involving and charming. The fifties were chock full of judgmental attitudes about almost everything, and the characters here negotiated them pretty well.
A good choice. Star Wars will be around for a while.
I think Rooney Mara has a pretty serious Natalie Wood thing going on. That fit perfectly with a story set in the 50's.
A good choice. Star Wars will be around for a while.
I think Rooney Mara has a pretty serious Natalie Wood thing going on. That fit perfectly with a story set in the 50's.
10
Oops, meant Audrey Hepburn, she and Ms. Mara look very much alike.
6
I just mentioned to someone that Rooney Mara looked so much like Audrey Hepburn (without Givenchy!)
2
Beautiful and sublime. In every way.
17
Beautifully filmed and acted but overly stylized to the point of feeling inauthentic (yes, I realize this was the 50s). I wanted to be wowed by the film and only felt disappointed at the end.
13
Amazing film. Palpable chemistry between Blanchett and Mara...
12
Glad you found some - I didn't, either physical or emotional. I couldn't figure out what these two people saw in each other. Therese didn't seem to have anything to contribute, and Carol was, for the most part, chilly and removed. The relationship between Carol and Abby was much more believable and authentic.
5
I don't even want to read the reviews, skimmed this one, as it might break the spell the movie casts since I saw it today. I don't want to analyze any of it too much but rather just wallow a bit. A very fine film.
14
This is one of the finest movies I've ever seen. Todd Haynes' movie is a work of art and is so powerful you'll be left with a movie hangover when it ends.
The movie accurately captures the period and nothing is left to chance. Haynes' attention to detail is astonishing. He misses nothing and the audience is better for it.
Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara are able to capture the tension in a love story "out of the norm" and fraught with danger. They're able to allow the audience to feel the mounting tensions and desires and finally release us with one of the most beautiful love scenes ever captured on film. Much is left to our imagination, but their tenderness and love shines through with remarkable clarity. "Carol" is a stunning movie and deserves any and every award it might garner. It is a gift to the audience and I'm grateful for the gift.
The movie accurately captures the period and nothing is left to chance. Haynes' attention to detail is astonishing. He misses nothing and the audience is better for it.
Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara are able to capture the tension in a love story "out of the norm" and fraught with danger. They're able to allow the audience to feel the mounting tensions and desires and finally release us with one of the most beautiful love scenes ever captured on film. Much is left to our imagination, but their tenderness and love shines through with remarkable clarity. "Carol" is a stunning movie and deserves any and every award it might garner. It is a gift to the audience and I'm grateful for the gift.
37
This film is smart, beautiful and moving. Kudos all around for brilliant work.
In the movie adaptation of Carrie Fisher's Postcards from the Edge, Meryl Streep as the main character voices the line: "I don't want life to imitate art. I want life to be art." The disconnect from what is and what should be; from what we have and what we want -- and those rare moments when that dichotomy is transcended is what this movie is all about. Not to tout the competition, but Kenneth Turan's take (in a Diane Rehm Show "movies of 2015" conversation in which Mr. Scott took part) is spot on: To call this movie a "lesbian love story" is a disservice. This movie is a love story. Period.
My take is that it is one of the very best movies I've seen all this year.
PS: If you were around during the era of the movie, an added bonus is a chance to revisit 1952 and remember the department stores, clothes, wallpaper patterns, etc. It brings all that back.
In the movie adaptation of Carrie Fisher's Postcards from the Edge, Meryl Streep as the main character voices the line: "I don't want life to imitate art. I want life to be art." The disconnect from what is and what should be; from what we have and what we want -- and those rare moments when that dichotomy is transcended is what this movie is all about. Not to tout the competition, but Kenneth Turan's take (in a Diane Rehm Show "movies of 2015" conversation in which Mr. Scott took part) is spot on: To call this movie a "lesbian love story" is a disservice. This movie is a love story. Period.
My take is that it is one of the very best movies I've seen all this year.
PS: If you were around during the era of the movie, an added bonus is a chance to revisit 1952 and remember the department stores, clothes, wallpaper patterns, etc. It brings all that back.
24
A thoroughly smashing film.
11
While "the candid and sympathetic depiction of gay life" may be "commonplace" now in film, Hollywood is not the real world. Don't think things have changed for us that much. Don't be so self-congratulatory. That said, Haynes', Blanchett's and Mara's reflection of the sorrow, the constant seeking, the low-grade depression, AND the exultation, was right on target. Could barely catch my breath as the credits rolled.
21
Amen! You have said it just right. I have lived this film, in my own life, coming out in 1972 and told it was "something bad your mother did to you," and a romantic life so like this film, except that the shame and abuse were heaped out in the 90's. Things have NOT changed as much as people believe they have. It is a gorgeous movie, though, with the pain as part of the worth of human love. Such is life for many people.
9
Why are people fawning over this luke-warm period piece
There is "no spark" between Mara and Blanchett and not one hint of happiness in this film at all...look I'm not looking for a Rom-com, but a balance between dour and happy is needed in all love stories or stories that feature people with some desires for each other.
Blanchett is play the same character from the Woody Allen film.
Just in a different time period.
There is "no spark" between Mara and Blanchett and not one hint of happiness in this film at all...look I'm not looking for a Rom-com, but a balance between dour and happy is needed in all love stories or stories that feature people with some desires for each other.
Blanchett is play the same character from the Woody Allen film.
Just in a different time period.
23
Reviewers are probably fawning over this because they like political morality lessons, not cinema. I haven't read the novel, but if it had been this dull, it wouldn't have sold in the millions in the '50s, even to its core audience.
This gushing review is strange: it actually acknowledges the passionlessness of the show while piling up the predetermined accolades. This comes out in meaning-free sentences like, "With sparse dialogue and restrained drama, the film is a symphony of angles and glances, of colors and shadows." How's that for a silk purse?
The reviewer also baldly asserts something that is just flat-out untrue: "Like other historical fiction, it measures the distance between then and now... 'Carol' might have been content to be an archaeology of the closet, or a pitying backward glance at the mores of a less enlightened time...But it is much more than that. Mr. Haynes is a historian of feelings, of the unspoken and invisible traces of the libido." Where do we get the "much more?" In Carol's spraying perfume on Mara Rooney's pulse points! No, really--that's it. In actuality, this film is precisely "a pitying backward glance" at the '50s, and a full-throated declaration of the superiority of today's mores, no more and no less--yet another bloodless love story ripped from the pages of identity theory. Pauline Kael would have had a grand old time taking this film down. Please don't let this "historian of feelings" near any operas.
This gushing review is strange: it actually acknowledges the passionlessness of the show while piling up the predetermined accolades. This comes out in meaning-free sentences like, "With sparse dialogue and restrained drama, the film is a symphony of angles and glances, of colors and shadows." How's that for a silk purse?
The reviewer also baldly asserts something that is just flat-out untrue: "Like other historical fiction, it measures the distance between then and now... 'Carol' might have been content to be an archaeology of the closet, or a pitying backward glance at the mores of a less enlightened time...But it is much more than that. Mr. Haynes is a historian of feelings, of the unspoken and invisible traces of the libido." Where do we get the "much more?" In Carol's spraying perfume on Mara Rooney's pulse points! No, really--that's it. In actuality, this film is precisely "a pitying backward glance" at the '50s, and a full-throated declaration of the superiority of today's mores, no more and no less--yet another bloodless love story ripped from the pages of identity theory. Pauline Kael would have had a grand old time taking this film down. Please don't let this "historian of feelings" near any operas.
28
Is Blanchette our Garbo? a stunning performance.....
28
It is rare that any film can capture so perfectly what is real for some subset of the human species. The legalization of Gay marriage is meaningless is this regard. A nice gesture, bland and hapless, as is so much of liberal America these days.
I have lived this movie--more than once--more than one "happily married" woman chose me as a lover in my prime...with a child, with a divorce, with shame and pain. And not in the '50's, my dears--I wasn't born until '58. This all happened in the 90's and in this decade.
I thank the marvelous acting of Ms.'s Blanchett and Rooney--they capture pure erotic attachment and joy, the exquisite torture of that degree of attraction. And thanks to Ms. Highstreet for giving them a happy ending, for once. The language of this review is perfect. The word "matron" is exactly right; it was a different time. My poor gay father and several of my older relatives, and even I myself, fell prey to the ghoolish psychoanalysts who thought they could cure "inversion." What is NOT realistic here is the Mrs. Aird escapes. Very very few people in her situation did.
Dr. Susan Brockman--and you have publish this, NYTIMES!
I have lived this movie--more than once--more than one "happily married" woman chose me as a lover in my prime...with a child, with a divorce, with shame and pain. And not in the '50's, my dears--I wasn't born until '58. This all happened in the 90's and in this decade.
I thank the marvelous acting of Ms.'s Blanchett and Rooney--they capture pure erotic attachment and joy, the exquisite torture of that degree of attraction. And thanks to Ms. Highstreet for giving them a happy ending, for once. The language of this review is perfect. The word "matron" is exactly right; it was a different time. My poor gay father and several of my older relatives, and even I myself, fell prey to the ghoolish psychoanalysts who thought they could cure "inversion." What is NOT realistic here is the Mrs. Aird escapes. Very very few people in her situation did.
Dr. Susan Brockman--and you have publish this, NYTIMES!
13
Happy ending? Angry, manipulative Harge steals the baby.
4
"Blue is the Warmest Color" is a different story for a different time, and also set in less puritanical France. It need not be compared to "Carol" as an either-or proposition. Both should be seen and appreciated in their own right.
Just saw Todd Haynes' beautiful film, and it has so many of the hallmarks he's become known for--lush color, gauzy dreaminess, painstaking period detail, and characters not only in turmoil, but at a crossroad.
There was no need for him to explain why these two women, Carol and Therese, were attracted to each other. Love and attraction are deeply personal, and there are many couples, on all levels of the gender spectrum, that outsiders just don't get.
No easy feat, but Rooney Mara held her own against the acting juggernaut that is Cate Blanchett. On screen Ms. Blanchett can do no wrong. I'm certain that any director who entrusts this extraordinary actor to tell their story, will never stop pinching themselves.
Thank you, A.O. Scott, for your review, which set the bar even higher for lovers of language and historical reference.
Just saw Todd Haynes' beautiful film, and it has so many of the hallmarks he's become known for--lush color, gauzy dreaminess, painstaking period detail, and characters not only in turmoil, but at a crossroad.
There was no need for him to explain why these two women, Carol and Therese, were attracted to each other. Love and attraction are deeply personal, and there are many couples, on all levels of the gender spectrum, that outsiders just don't get.
No easy feat, but Rooney Mara held her own against the acting juggernaut that is Cate Blanchett. On screen Ms. Blanchett can do no wrong. I'm certain that any director who entrusts this extraordinary actor to tell their story, will never stop pinching themselves.
Thank you, A.O. Scott, for your review, which set the bar even higher for lovers of language and historical reference.
14
Actually you bring up a good point and a great contrast to 'Carol'. While 'Blue' is set in a different time, with far different social mores, the latter has so much more life and vitality while still maintaining the subtlety of gestures, moments, and seduction of Carol. Both have an element of power that Scott fails to mention. The more experienced Carol and her counterpart in Blue, have the confidence that their lovers lack, and know what they want and are aggressive in going for it.
I found Blue fare more engaging.
I disagree with you that while love and attraction are personal, if you make a movie about it, the audience must be in on why the characters connect. In Carol, I felt she was devouring Therese, overwhelming her with her exoticness, wealth, and control. Therese never said no, as she states. This makes her a very passive and less engaging character than she could've been.
Still, the visuals are so striking, the film held my attention, but not so much with the drama. Thank god there was the dramatic issue of the child, and the 50's mores to give it social context, or I would've reacted like many other reviewers here who were bored completely.
I found Blue fare more engaging.
I disagree with you that while love and attraction are personal, if you make a movie about it, the audience must be in on why the characters connect. In Carol, I felt she was devouring Therese, overwhelming her with her exoticness, wealth, and control. Therese never said no, as she states. This makes her a very passive and less engaging character than she could've been.
Still, the visuals are so striking, the film held my attention, but not so much with the drama. Thank god there was the dramatic issue of the child, and the 50's mores to give it social context, or I would've reacted like many other reviewers here who were bored completely.
What has eluded most reviewers is that, within the forbidding culture of 1952- one that ascribes danger to women falling in love- is something that resonates with every daring foray into the world of desire. For gay people, there is usually a first brave leap, crackling with intensity, stoked by the forbidden.
It is posssible that even in modern times, where two moms are a cozy concept, there is a girl, drawn to an experience both ecstatic and secret- a leap into a look. This secret daring excitement may be part of every first love- but surely for most gay people.
So for all the commentaries that focus on this historic perversity, the shame & stigma of yore - they are missing the universal act of emotional courage - the psychological boldness that rides desire into the woods....a woods never completely illuminated by the repeal of DOMA.
It is posssible that even in modern times, where two moms are a cozy concept, there is a girl, drawn to an experience both ecstatic and secret- a leap into a look. This secret daring excitement may be part of every first love- but surely for most gay people.
So for all the commentaries that focus on this historic perversity, the shame & stigma of yore - they are missing the universal act of emotional courage - the psychological boldness that rides desire into the woods....a woods never completely illuminated by the repeal of DOMA.
22
Thank you for getting this out there better than I did in my comment! My point exactly. Same-sex love is always more dangerous, and I think it always will be.
4
Sara, you completely nailed it! I have been sharing your response with friends as a way of articulating my own. Thank you for writing the way you do. Magnificent!
3
What a fabulous and insightful comment. You capture that exact, breathtakingly dangerous moment perfectly.
If I were Carol, I'd be slapping my gloves on your counter, right now.
If I were Carol, I'd be slapping my gloves on your counter, right now.
3
Don't know if I could ever change the opinions of those who found the characters flat or unbelievable or the film boring or needing a good edit. I only know I was enthralled from beginning to end. Direction, production design, acting -- everything was superb. When I left the theater, I felt my heart had been touched, and was surprised my mind had not once said "...now wait a second..." at any point. "Carol" will be added to my iTunes library as soon as it becomes available.
34
For those of us who are of a certain age, who fall outside of the mainstream, who have been forced to make awful, dehumanizing sacrifices because of who we are, this movie goes right to the heart. The barely hidden depression, the crushing solitude within a crowd, the need to keep a large part of your life hidden, the miraculous and chance finding of one another, the furtive looks and touches, the feeling of holding the biggest and best secret in the world .... This crew, from Lachman to Haynes to Nagy to Mara to the gorgeous Blanchett, does an incredible job telling this story; it is a masterpiece of film making. When Blanchett looks hopefully at Mara, there is an entire world of unspoken wants, needs, sacrifices and hope on her face; when Mara reacts to Blanchett's hand on her shoulder, it says more than any dialogue or ten minute scene ever could. As a fan of Patricia Highsmith and her book, The Price of Salt, I figured the movie had to fall short but it didn't. I LOVE this movie. Brilliant!
57
Sadly, though the acting is wonderful, the character study lacked depth and complexity. There are breathtaking compositions of shots, home decor, and luxury clothing, but I found myself thinking more about going shopping to buy these goodies than feeling moved or close to the characters.
18
Ugh. What film did this reviewer see?!? I just left a screening by the TV Academy, and I've rarely left a film so angry, annoyed, disappointed, and irritated. The ONLY positive I can give it is, nice job on the sets, costumes, vehicles, and props. Other than that there isn't a single likable character in the film. EVERYONE is a miserable bully, or victim. The lackluster overall grey look of the film only added to the depressing feeling. This film failed on every level when it comes to attempting competent storytelling. Great script?!? It was so empty and obviously manipulative, giving us shorthand scenes where we as "enlightened" viewers are just supposed to inherently "get it.". Sorry. FAIL The acting? Please. It is all stereotypically one-note stuff. The characters are about as deep as a plate of pee. Nowhere in the story do we even get an inkling of WHY these two women were attracted to each other. What we DO get is long, way too long sad faced melodramatically acted shots. One after the other. Oh, and a completely unnecessary gratuitous nude scene (take note Mr. Skin, it about 3/4's through). Take my advice, if you want to see a good film dealing with this subject, stream "Blue is the Warmest Color" on Netflix and save your money on "Carol.". Again, ugh. A waste of a beautiful Saturday morning.
13
It appears that Mr. Pyewacket feels quite angry at this film. Why, my goodness, would he comment at least a half dozen times with the same negative message?
8
Why would angry and frustrated Mr. Pyewacket comment a half dozen times? He gives himself away below. (SPOILER: He's a filmmaker himself. Perhaps...an unsuccessful one?)
5
Cannot wait to see this gem. Take the amazing Pat Highsmith's little known novel , adapt it into one of Todd Hayne's painterly fiftes era cinematic jewels and then star Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara?
Most do not realize that this woman wrote 'Strangers on a Train" and 'The Talented Mr. Ripley". SHe must have been a force to reckon with. A female lesbian novel and film writer decades ago in a male dominated closeted world.
Looking so forward!
Most do not realize that this woman wrote 'Strangers on a Train" and 'The Talented Mr. Ripley". SHe must have been a force to reckon with. A female lesbian novel and film writer decades ago in a male dominated closeted world.
Looking so forward!
4
If A.O. Scott was not already one of the most perceptive and elegant writers in film criticism, the phrase that the camera "searches out the pain and wisdom behind the Brancusi contours of Ms. Blanchett’s face" would elevate him to the highest ranks of all times. "Brancusi contours" - no better way to describe the unique face of the unique actress.
27
This is a wonderfully directed and beautifully shot movie. Not even the insufferable old bat behind me at the Paris last night, who couldn't resist commenting throughout despite the efforts of her neighbors to shut her up, could manage to spoil it.
3
I love a good Christmas road movie.
(It's actually wonderfully directed and acted and beautifully shot. Now if only the Paris theater could screen for old bats who insist on talking throughout.)
(It's actually wonderfully directed and acted and beautifully shot. Now if only the Paris theater could screen for old bats who insist on talking throughout.)
7
Rats, I'm an old lady (well, 70), but I don't talk during movies, and I guess I'll have to shlepp down to the other theater (in the Village) that skew more to my social profile!
6
I think it’s important to point out how truly awful this film is. Focusing on just one of its poor aspects: the framing of most of the shots. It looks as though the director set up the camera and then, just before filming, kicked the tripod so that the characters ended up in some awkward far-flung corner of the frame—time and again. Please don’t tell me he was trying to do something interesting. He just has no “eye.” And don’t mix up attention to period detail with shots; they are different.
How Haynes can shoot a beautiful actress like Blanchett (camera angles are integral to film performance), who can be wonderful (Blue Jasmine) into a seething over-the-top in-heat ludicrous vamp who literally glares at her prey with smoke seeming to come out of her nostrils, well... Just imagine if she were a heterosexual man lusting after a young girl. Would this be ok? I hope not. Woody Allen is vigorously criticized for his interest in ingénues, but he is mostly being funny with them.
Despite Haynes' publicized idolizing, Sirk and Fassbinder are turning over in their graves. In Sirk’s films, the passion and the regret are under the surface and create depth for his characters in contradistinction to societal mores. Fassbinder’s comic irony runs deep in into thoughtful social criticism. Regarding a film like this as a serious depiction of repression in 1950’s society when it's no more than a poorly directed political tract is not something helpful to anyone, except for Todd Haynes.
How Haynes can shoot a beautiful actress like Blanchett (camera angles are integral to film performance), who can be wonderful (Blue Jasmine) into a seething over-the-top in-heat ludicrous vamp who literally glares at her prey with smoke seeming to come out of her nostrils, well... Just imagine if she were a heterosexual man lusting after a young girl. Would this be ok? I hope not. Woody Allen is vigorously criticized for his interest in ingénues, but he is mostly being funny with them.
Despite Haynes' publicized idolizing, Sirk and Fassbinder are turning over in their graves. In Sirk’s films, the passion and the regret are under the surface and create depth for his characters in contradistinction to societal mores. Fassbinder’s comic irony runs deep in into thoughtful social criticism. Regarding a film like this as a serious depiction of repression in 1950’s society when it's no more than a poorly directed political tract is not something helpful to anyone, except for Todd Haynes.
16
"Please don’t tell me he was trying to do something interesting."
I don't think anyone is planning to tell you anything.
I don't think anyone is planning to tell you anything.
8
Thank you. At last, someone who saw the same piece of sub-standard cinematic drivel I saw. A total waste of time.
8
Wanna see some REALLY sub-standard cinematic drivel? Try YOUTH.
1
There's this sort of unspoken thing that goes on in movie viewing, reviewing and commenting: As assumption is made that the experiences of straight characters are universal, i.e., everyone can relate to them, while the experiences of gay characters speak only to gay audiences. This is one reason why "Stonewall" rewrote history to attract a straight audience and why so many mainstream films with gay characters treat us as "other." This movie doesn't do that. There's no pandering. That can make straight viewers uncomfortable. And since it isn't cool for straight people to overtly hold their noses when inhaling a whiff of homosexuality in the arts these days, they instead obfuscate their distaste with comments like "boring," "too long," "same old same old," etc., etc. Which is my way of saying that I will be my own gay judge of "Carol," thanks, because I don't trust that straight commenters are coming from an objective, neutral place.
37
I am not gay, but i am a film maker. I can tell you, it is manipulative garbage from head to tail.
4
I hear what you're saying and I'd be interested to hear what you have to say after seeing the film.
I'm not heterosexual and I thought it was boring!!! I found myself wishing I liked period pieces more, that the story had been about Carol and Abby or that I was watching a different Todd Haynes film (he's one of my favorite directors). I kept feeling like huge chunks were missing from the script because the main characters would say or do something I can only assume I was to think meaningful but found myself not caring about at all.
I even wished I was physically attracted to Cate Blanchett because all the great glamorous views of her could've then, at least, provided me some eye candy joy. Which leads me to why this review doesn't work for me. I don't think the notion of mutual attraction was shown. What we had was a reversal of gaze. We're used to May/December romances fixing the gaze on the younger person but here it was fixed on the older. The visual focus on Carol gave me a glimpse of why Therese might be attracted to her but then there was no substance to Carol's attraction except maybe we're supposed to think her youth is reason enough. And, they had no screen chemistry!
I found myself wishing it be over soon but I was fully willing to hang out for the possibility something would happen between Therese and Carrie Brownstein only to wonder why Brownstein 's name appears in the opening credits considering she barely appears. Ugh, frustrating film.
I'm not heterosexual and I thought it was boring!!! I found myself wishing I liked period pieces more, that the story had been about Carol and Abby or that I was watching a different Todd Haynes film (he's one of my favorite directors). I kept feeling like huge chunks were missing from the script because the main characters would say or do something I can only assume I was to think meaningful but found myself not caring about at all.
I even wished I was physically attracted to Cate Blanchett because all the great glamorous views of her could've then, at least, provided me some eye candy joy. Which leads me to why this review doesn't work for me. I don't think the notion of mutual attraction was shown. What we had was a reversal of gaze. We're used to May/December romances fixing the gaze on the younger person but here it was fixed on the older. The visual focus on Carol gave me a glimpse of why Therese might be attracted to her but then there was no substance to Carol's attraction except maybe we're supposed to think her youth is reason enough. And, they had no screen chemistry!
I found myself wishing it be over soon but I was fully willing to hang out for the possibility something would happen between Therese and Carrie Brownstein only to wonder why Brownstein 's name appears in the opening credits considering she barely appears. Ugh, frustrating film.
1
Scott's use of the sculpture Brancusi is wonderful when he applies it like the great artist would apply it to Carol's face. She is a bird in flight from her husband and is free to soar with the eagles. Well done my boy, well done.
7
Did we see the same movie? Saying it is beautifully shot and coiffed is true. But this film, like Brooklyn, with their incredibly passive and one-note characters who stroll (or drive) from one scene to the next, bores more than entertains or enlightens. Both actresses light up the screen, but it's too bad that the characters they each play are as flat as a checker board, and hardly more interesting. Don't be fooled by the critics. If you must see, see it on Netflix.
18
Hmmm, I didn't think Brooklyn was like that. Are you perhaps not aware that both are meant to tell tales of the 1950s (approximately)? It was a different time, that's for sure; believe me, I lived through it.
5
Or better yet, stream "Blue is the Warmest Color."
yes- Blue is the Warmest Color was deeper; we lived behind the eyes of the protagonist. In Carol, Therese's inner struggle is even more elusive than in the book- which was rather spare. Carol herself mostly wears a mask in the film --until the last 5 minutes. In the book, she is utterly opaque. But somehow a haunted sense emerges after seeing this film - suggesting it is more an evocative metaphor than furtive romance. It had an echo of Peyton Place, Splendor in the Grass and Persona.
3
Yes, the production design, costumes, and make-up are perfect. And it's fun to watch Cate Blanchette act -- or better yet -- strike a series of fascinating movie star poses. Rooney Mara counters effectively with a gamin presence inspired by Audrey Hepburn (particularly in Funny Face).
But they are not playing real characters and this is not a good movie. The story is more about types and sounding political notes about the injustices against gay folks in the 50s (and beyond), but there is no inner life to these two women. In stock situations they leave their men, drive incessantly and play at movie love making all in a surprising staid manner (their kissing looks especially antiseptic). The pace is exceedingly slow, though, I admit, I did not walk out. I kept thinking there'd be a surprise to the plot, or some unexpected character reveal. There is neither. Overlong by 20-30 minutes even for those who might want to "gaze" at the movie (a la A O Scott) and do not require emotional involvement, the film is, ironically, a plastic pastiche, like so much else of Ike's America. The pressure cooker of the 50s can lead to good films, old and new (The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit; Revolutionary Road), but this staid piece, lacking in real conflict (except a nasty divorce) is, together with Brooklyn, another film lacking in dramatic tension, more than a disappointment. After all, Todd Haynes doesn't make exciting films. But Patricia Highsmith's novels usually do.
But they are not playing real characters and this is not a good movie. The story is more about types and sounding political notes about the injustices against gay folks in the 50s (and beyond), but there is no inner life to these two women. In stock situations they leave their men, drive incessantly and play at movie love making all in a surprising staid manner (their kissing looks especially antiseptic). The pace is exceedingly slow, though, I admit, I did not walk out. I kept thinking there'd be a surprise to the plot, or some unexpected character reveal. There is neither. Overlong by 20-30 minutes even for those who might want to "gaze" at the movie (a la A O Scott) and do not require emotional involvement, the film is, ironically, a plastic pastiche, like so much else of Ike's America. The pressure cooker of the 50s can lead to good films, old and new (The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit; Revolutionary Road), but this staid piece, lacking in real conflict (except a nasty divorce) is, together with Brooklyn, another film lacking in dramatic tension, more than a disappointment. After all, Todd Haynes doesn't make exciting films. But Patricia Highsmith's novels usually do.
37
DD--I saw this film this afternoon, and I partly agree with you, particularly as to the length. I liked the film and thought it well worth the lengthy drive across the county to see it. But I think a much tighter edit would have helped immensely, and I found myself fighting off boredom and tedium during some of it. But I see fewer than half a dozen films a year, and this was one of the better ones for this year. Ralph L. Seifer, Long Beach, California.
5
Agree.
1
I read 'Carol' in the 1990 while stationed in Germany while serving in the US Army. I had to hide this book in my tiny cube because I was gay and this was a lesbian love story and if I was found with it, I would be kicked on an dishonorable discharge. Despite this, I reread this book dozens of times, which kept me sane for three very long years. I found the book absolutely enthralling. The first scene where Therese gazes on Carol and is blinded by her beauty has always been a touchstone in my life. I can hardly wait to see this film on the big screen, starring such a perfect cast to play Therese and Carol. Its really a dream come true for me.
61
I, too, read the book in the '90s. Lower your expectations are you will be disappointed in the movie. It doesn't come close to conveying the intensity of the novel.
4
Now that you have seen the film, what do you think of it? How does it compare to your experience of the novel?
If this review simply said, " There is a new film starring Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara" --period, it would quickly be at the top of my list to see. For me, that is enough said.
10
Well, prepare to be thoroughly disappointed.
4
When readers respond by talking about how "great" The Talented Mr. Ripley film -- which is a REMAKE of a much better written and filmed and scored movie from the early 60's called "Purple Noon." (In French with English Subtitles.)
I guess they never heard of it. But with Nino Rota's fantastic score, and a gorgeous young Alain Delon -- he played "TOM", who impersonated Ripley.
They seem to think that Matt Damon is also MR. Ripley. But no, he is just "Tom" the fellow who wants to be Mr.Ripley.
If you see the ORIGINAL film based on Highsmith's novel you will experience a wonderful recreation of the novel. Full of SUSPENSE and SURPRISE.
The "Matt Damon" remake actually is very FLAT and the relationship between the "blond" is never developed. And note how flaccid the "new" ending is compared to Purple Noon's! Think I will go watch that wonderful film right now.
I guess they never heard of it. But with Nino Rota's fantastic score, and a gorgeous young Alain Delon -- he played "TOM", who impersonated Ripley.
They seem to think that Matt Damon is also MR. Ripley. But no, he is just "Tom" the fellow who wants to be Mr.Ripley.
If you see the ORIGINAL film based on Highsmith's novel you will experience a wonderful recreation of the novel. Full of SUSPENSE and SURPRISE.
The "Matt Damon" remake actually is very FLAT and the relationship between the "blond" is never developed. And note how flaccid the "new" ending is compared to Purple Noon's! Think I will go watch that wonderful film right now.
4
Gilberto, darling, you might want to check out your CapsLock key...it appears to be doing very strange things.
8
Exquisite movie, showing Todd Haynes at the height of his powers, with a virtuoso performance from Cate and a breakthrough turn from Rooney. The final scene is truly breathtaking, even after the fourth screening.
38
Beautiful film in every way. Maybe the best depiction of "forbidden" love on film ever. Timely and timeless. If anyone could pull up something new from the "Well of Loneliness" it had to be Mr. Haynes.
20
The book strangely lacked the voluptuous tension observed in this film. This may be an instance where the richness of a modern historical retrospect unleashes an added dimension to this 'dangerous' tale...palpable erotic heat.
15
It lacked a lot more than that.
3
I had been debating seeing this film as I was worried it was yet another tragic lesbian romance, but you sold me at "voluptuous tension."
Bell, Book and Candle
1
"Therese’s camera as well as Mr. Haynes’s — searches out the pain and wisdom behind the Brancusi contours of Ms. Blanchett’s face."
Beautiful description. I can't wait to see the movie. I recently rewatched The Talented Mr. Ripley and was reminded of how great it was. This promises to be another one.
Beautiful description. I can't wait to see the movie. I recently rewatched The Talented Mr. Ripley and was reminded of how great it was. This promises to be another one.
11
I was pleasantly surprised to discover, beyond the hype, this is not Cate Blanchett's movie at all. This one belongs to Rooney Mara. She is a force of nature.
12
What a beautifully written and insightful film review! I'm going to read it again just for the pleasure of it.
28
Indeed! I knew I wanted to see Carol before, but this lovely review heightens my interest. Yipee! A film for grown ups!
9
love the sound of your tongue poking the inside of your cheek! I can't wait to see this movie (but then I love more-or-less accurate depictions of the '50s, and serious lesbian flicks, especially w/ people as lovely as Ms. Blanchett!
1
Great! You do that, and imagine how great this film could be. Then, go about your day and forget about it, because this flowery review is false and misleading. This film would be a phenomenal waste of your precious time. Trust me, I lost my Saturday morning to it today. Two hours I'll never get back.
1
Can't wait to the release of this film noir here in Maine. Cate's alluring style endures.
7
Hope there's a sequel called Harge in the works!
3
Three- dimensional women....together. Great film!
20
A.O.,
"...played with almost metaphysical movie-star blondness.."?? "Blondness" ?? How does one act "blondness"? It's insulting to Cate Blanchett (and any other actress) to reduce her craft to hair color. Would you ever describe a male actor's performance as a function of his hair color? I think not. Hair color says nothing about a woman's character, despite what the movies may try to tell us.
"...played with almost metaphysical movie-star blondness.."?? "Blondness" ?? How does one act "blondness"? It's insulting to Cate Blanchett (and any other actress) to reduce her craft to hair color. Would you ever describe a male actor's performance as a function of his hair color? I think not. Hair color says nothing about a woman's character, despite what the movies may try to tell us.
The next line speaks of Carol's "post war glamour incarnate". Scott is speaking of an era when female movie stars were expected to be movie star blondes. We have gotten past the '50's era that the movie portrays but apparently not past the need to be insulted by references to it.
47
thank GOD someone explained this to that other person.
27
I think Hitchcock and his "blonds" would disagree.
13
How come no one talks about Todd Haynes as Best Director for this film. Mara and Blanchett might have the juicy acting roles but a Director brings this together and connects the dots. All three should be recognized during Awards season instead of the Usual Suspects.
13
It isn't awards season yet. Let's wait to complain about that until you have something to complain about.
Hey I seem to be the only one (or just the first?) to notice how irrelevant this film is. Stylish, pretty, intoxicating, but ultimately an exercise in historical navel gazing (although the navels on offer are rather appetizing).
Titillation is just that, after all.
Titillation is just that, after all.
6
Have you seen the film? Or read the book?
Are you claiming that only films made about our own time period are relevant and worthwhile?
Are you saying you personally find the notion of same-sex romance titllating?
Or are you just posturing as a cynic?
Are you claiming that only films made about our own time period are relevant and worthwhile?
Are you saying you personally find the notion of same-sex romance titllating?
Or are you just posturing as a cynic?
42
Saw the film, knew nothing about the book.
No I'm just saying the evident effort put forth by the very talented Haynes and the excellence of the resulting film are in service to a story about two relatively privileged and attractive white women who want to get it on (and do). At a time in the world when there are rather weightier matters to grapple with. Your reply suggests that you think that is a completely unreasonable claim. Okay, you are entitled to your opinion.
Yes I found the film titillating in places; apparently you do not think I should find lesbian love titillating. Perhaps you are also implying that titillation was not a part of Haynes' aim? To have us walk a bit on the wild side? Or maybe you think that this film should be viewed with a pair of Puritan glasses on so as to avoid the messy facts of our titillation?
As for cynicism, I meant to criticize the film for the sake of discussion, and did not mean to impugn the filmmaker or the producer's motives for their choice of material.
The only cynic in this exchange is you.
No I'm just saying the evident effort put forth by the very talented Haynes and the excellence of the resulting film are in service to a story about two relatively privileged and attractive white women who want to get it on (and do). At a time in the world when there are rather weightier matters to grapple with. Your reply suggests that you think that is a completely unreasonable claim. Okay, you are entitled to your opinion.
Yes I found the film titillating in places; apparently you do not think I should find lesbian love titillating. Perhaps you are also implying that titillation was not a part of Haynes' aim? To have us walk a bit on the wild side? Or maybe you think that this film should be viewed with a pair of Puritan glasses on so as to avoid the messy facts of our titillation?
As for cynicism, I meant to criticize the film for the sake of discussion, and did not mean to impugn the filmmaker or the producer's motives for their choice of material.
The only cynic in this exchange is you.
1
The phrase, "...I seem to be the only one...to notice..." comes across as a bit superior and condescending. Like people who enjoyed the movie missed something you got. You might have sounded less cynical if you'd found another way to put it.
8
Carol is a mesmerizing and very well crafted film.
12
I loved this movie and was particularly moved by Ms. Mara's performance. The early scenes, though evocative of a specific period were a bit jarring and I found myself looking AT the movie instead of feeling engaged WITH the movie, but then something magical happened. The longing, desire and emotion of both these amazing actors transmitted through facial expression and body language was simply exquisite. I admire Mr. Hayne's work, but this is my favorite of his films to date. Beautiful story.
16
Wouldn't this film have been even better if entitled "The Secret in Their Eyes"...
7
No!!
2
I can't wait to see this film on the big screen. I adore Patricia Highsmith's books. I was shocked to learn about her persona and beliefs upon reading her biography after having read almost all her books. My fascination began after seeing the brilliant film The talented mr ripley which was cast with an attractive group of young actors including Ms Blanchett. Sounds like a must-see.
10
So I went and saw it the weekend I wrote about - at no less than the wonderful Arclight Cinema in Hollywood! (How I wish we had a theater like that in new yawk! Fantastic sound, cushy seats and reserved seating - with a concession stand that serves delicious treats and drinks!) I was duly floored and will want to see it again (and again). Wonderful production design, cinematography, lighting, costumes, actors and dialogue. While it is just a snapshot of forbidden love in the early 1950s I can see why it is also a subtle political statement today re tolerance of those who are different from ourselves. Bravo!
4
Patricia Highsmith, such a curious treasure chest from last century. Every time someone unlocks her they seem to find something different. It always reminds me to go back and reread her.
29
Agreed; Reading her is a treat, and seeing a well made film based on her works is even better. Matt Damon was perfectly cast as Ripley and it's a shame we don't see more of that series. Instead Hollywood cranks out movie after movie based on Marvel comic books.
30
Absolutely one of my favorite novelists. Highsmith's deceptively brief and spare prose reveals layer upon layer of depth on re-reading. if you dig deep enough through Highsmith's seemingly straightforward but always interesting narrative, you'll find exactly what she thinks of her characters.
I'm encouraged by this review not only to see the movie, but to enjoy yet another reading of "The Price of Salt."
I'm encouraged by this review not only to see the movie, but to enjoy yet another reading of "The Price of Salt."
15
I find her stories to be drearily formulaic and the same...
1