I love Todd Haynes’ work and Carol is very very good. One of the most beautiful-looking films of the year. Painful and poignant. Had one issue with it, but overall, it’s gorgeous and profound.
Based on the novel The Price of Salt
, by the great Patricia Highsmith (she who gave us Tom Ripley), Carol tells the story of a romance between a shopgirl and a housewife in 1950 when such a thing was forbidden. Highsmith based this on a real experience she had: she, too, worked behind a toy counter and met an elegant woman, and fell passionately in love with her – love at first sight. But in real life: the interaction at the counter was their ONLY interaction. It never went further than that and Highsmith never saw her again. Highsmith once drove out to New Jersey to stalk the woman’s house – Highsmith was a brilliant and compulsive stalker. Like all great artists, Highsmith took her fantasy of what MIGHT have happened with that woman (in a perfect world, she would have gotten to at least sleep with that gorgeous creature) and then spun it out into a novel. The novel is an act of wish-fulfillment. If you haven’t read The Price of Salt, I highly recommend it!
Phyllis Nagy’s script adaptation stays very close to the novel, with a couple of alterations (some that work very well, and one that doesn’t.) The Price of Salt is not only a wonderful and groundbreaking queer novel but a great work of fiction no matter the genre. Highsmith was in a panic about publishing it under her own name. She never wanted to reveal too much of herself. Besides, the book was deemed far too explosive in any case by many publishers. It was published under a pseudonym in 1952.
Highsmith would make her name with a series of homoerotically charged novels that feature the best portrayals of the sociopathic mind (from the inside) in literature, topped only by Dostoevsky: Strangers on a Train
, The Talented Mr. Ripley
, The Boy Who Followed Ripley
, Ripley Under Ground
, Ripley’s Game
.
It’s thrilling (and perfect) that Todd Haynes, that master of repression, would direct this story.
My review of Carol is now up at Rogerebert.com.
Sheila
I was excited to see this! But didn’t feel too crazy about it! It was cold (that’s okay, but I don’t find Patricia Highsmith cold even though half the time she wants to kill everybody or take a break and just screw around with their heads! I felt it wasn’t the actress’s fault, they were doing all they could, or everything looked good on the surface. I liked some moments like when KB said “Just when you think it can’t get worse – you run out of cigarettes”. That made me laugh and I wanted more moments for KB like that.
I wanted both of the men to be less buffoonish.
I think there is a coldness in Todd Haynes work that I’m just not a fan of though.
Regina – Bah, I totally missed this comment over the holidays!
I loved the “you run out of cigarettes” moment – her back to the camera – what my friend Mitchell calls “back-ting.” I love a good back-ting moment!
I didn’t find the men to be buffoonish actually – although they’re much more fleshed out in the book – and Therese is much more conflicted about her relationships – she doesn’t like sex with men (the film made her a virgin – with both genders – hmmmm – I hadn’t even thought of that) but she thinks maybe she just doesn’t get it yet, maybe sex will get better for her. But she’s still drawn to all these different guys. I guess they got that in the movie too. My favorite man in the film was the New York Times reporter with the tough-guy accent who asks, innocently, if she went off with Carol because he tried to kiss her that one time. He doesn’t say it arrogantly – he just doesn’t know better – and he really wondered. He’s friends with her. I very much liked that you got at least SOME sense in the film that Therese has a lot going on outside of her relationship with Carol – a busy social life, artistic projects, goals/plans … she wasn’t just an unawakened creature who suddenly comes to life with Carol. I mean, there is that first-love element to it – but Haynes/Nagy still showed her outside of that context, and I was glad of it.
I think that coldness you speak of sometimes works, sometimes doesn’t. I loved Far From Heaven, and its homage to Sirk – but there is something in the Sirk that is superior … I’m not sure I can put my finger on it. Maybe it is just that our culture has changed so much.
Safe is my favorite of his.
What did you think of his Mildred Pierce?
Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving!
Sheila!
Well I’m alone (except for husband) in not liking this one! All good friends of mine are saying “what are you tawking about?!” When I said, I wished it was funnier, “I was laughing my head off!” Or the men were buffoonish. And they were not all big Haynes fans either.
In that “back-ting” moment I loved KB’s character and her as an actress. I could feel her intelligence and wit so easily. “Back-ting” is a good word! Not only physically but how KB can easily throw out something without telegraphing everything, if the movie or director would let her go. I did like Therese’s character too though, in the same way you mention, she’s not some shy little creature. She’s weird and different but confident and brave. She almost doesn’t know she’s all that, or she’s on the verge of it. She will, she’s just young. She likes men, she identifies with them, she just doesn’t like sex with them! I also love Rooney Mara from only seeing The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. She’s original in a part that you would just die to have as a young actress. I am always ambivalent about Kate Blanchett. It’s all too conscious. I know she’s talented and intelligent and all that but it never quite lets go.
And maybe Sirk was Sirk. That was what he was and what he loved. Haynes is like Blanchett, very talented and smart but it doesn’t come from that weird deep place (that I think Mara comes from and Highland)
Also, maybe the movie was good and I’m being too critical! Maybe not every movie has to be the end all be all. We just saw this after By the Sea, and even though most people hated it (except for you!) I thought it had all this stuff. Going to deep weird places, realness, mixed with their real lives and them playing around with their identities and taking big chances.
I haven’t seen Mildred Pierce though, will check it out!
P.S. I just realized how many times I used the word weird here.
And P.S.S. Yes, Happy Thanksgiving! And I know from reading you so long you had a birthday (Happy Birthday!) and you are Sagittarius! Me too! I don’t know what that exactly means but husband says, “Look up the word stubborn in the dictionary” or “One who likes to start fights for no reason.” haha! Not true!
// “Look up the word stubborn in the dictionary” or “One who likes to start fights for no reason.” //
hahahahaha He’s actually right!!
Okay, so this is weird (that word again) but bear with me: I watched Brooklyn yesterday. I kept meaning to see it in the theatre (and it’s still out), but then a friend gave me his screener. I’m in the process of writing a couple of Top 10 Lists for various sites for 2015, and I knew I had to see Brooklyn because it’s been getting such great reviews, as well as a couple of awards.
Regina: it knocked my SOCKS OFF.
And – interestingly – I kept comparing it to Carol. Perhaps unfairly. Maybe it’s just because I saw them almost back to back. And they’re both period pieces (the same period) that take place in New York. And they’re both romances fraught with danger – although Brooklyn does not have the literally “this love is ILLEGAL” danger.
In my opinion, Brooklyn is the far superior film (again: apples and oranges, sorry.) It created this enormous emotional impact – I wept numerous times – and had all this complexity to it – that was there in Carol, but just not as palpable. Maybe because the characters in Carol were repressed (they had to be). Carol ends up being about the triumph of love over adversity – at least that’s how I took that final eyes-meet-across-crowded-room moment … and so is Brooklyn, but Brooklyn had a much more taut energy, making parts of it nearly agonizing. I invested so much in the love affair in Brooklyn – or it MADE me invest due to the beauty of those two performances (as well as the writing) – that when it seemed like maybe it wouldn’t happen, or something would go wrong … I was upset in an anticipatory way. I almost laughed at the intensity of my investment … like, Holy shit, look at how much they have made you CARE.
Some of this may have to do with the Irish-ness of the story, and how it connects to my own family’s history of emigration, which echoed the Brooklyn story to the letter. There’s so much silliness in the portrayal of Irish-ness in film – it’s usually a stereotype (good or bad: Irish people are lovable leprechauns or tough dirty terrorist-boys). What Brooklyn has is a deep affection for and knowledge of Irish-ness: what it meant to leave Ireland in the days before transatlantic travel – the finality of the goodbyes – the dead-end-street that was Ireland in the 40s, 50s … people HAD to go. (The Celtic Tiger changed all that – although now probably emigration is up again once that bubble crashed). But most moving was the portrayal of the Irish immigrant experience in New York: the disorientation, the homesickness, but also the fact that so many – so many – Irish people emigrated to Brooklyn (and they’re all still there!!) – that it was almost like “being at home.” Although … it’s not. It’s America. There are people OTHER than Irish people in Brooklyn. And so our lead character is thrust into a wider world. Another film may have capitalized on her vulnerability – she would be the prey of some man – like James Gray’s The Immigrant (which I didn’t like). And yes, of course, immigrant women are very vulnerable and bad things happen. But that’s not the ONLY story to tell. Many many more immigrant women come to America, enroll in night school, miss their families, maybe start dating someone they never would have dated back home, and start to become … more American than their nation-of-origin. The film shows that process, step by step.
ANYWAY. Have you seen it??
The coldness that you mention in Carol – which I agree is there – is completely not present in Brooklyn. Granted, it’s a different story and context. But in terms of story structure, they’re very similar. Eilish (the lead in Brooklyn) finds herself thrust into a brand-new world in America – like Therese in New York – and suddenly she meets a person who seems almost impossibly glamorous and so so different from Irish boys – an Italian kid, who works as a plumber, loves baseball, and has such a crush on her that he pursues her with a vulnerability (and nervousness) that makes him blush (literally: this tough guy blushes, ACTUALLY, on screen during one scene). And so Eilish finds herself going to baseball games and Coney Island … and everything is unfamiliar, and she feels like a tourist, and she is shy about wearing a bathing suit and a more sophisticated girl tells her she’ll need to “shave down there … I’ll get you a razor …” But slowly … she starts awakening to herself, to love … and leaving her past behind, accepting the present.
It’s a huge huge hearted film (Glenn Kenny’s Roger Ebert review called it ” big-hearted” so I’m stealing that) – and completely flattened me with its emotion.
So take that for what it’s worth. I admired Carol, and I love the look of it, and I love the performances. (I find Blanchett to be pretty facile a lot of the time, actually, although that is heretical to say in some circles. I think she works too much and she doesn’t work carefully enough. She was awful in Truth, which I just saw – she completely over-acted and over-stylized the whole thing. Maybe she’s better onstage. But in “realistic” contexts, I find her way over-done. Here, she got to play to her strengths. It was a stylistic performance – not just because of the period – but because Carol had to “act” in order to “pass” in the world as a regular heterosexual mother/wife.)
But Carol lacks the heat of Brooklyn, which damn near burned me up. I’m not sure what it’s missing … maybe the adaptation was too loose – or too close to the original – it could be either one. I still think it would have been stronger if we hadn’t been “let into” Carol’s experiences away from Therese. In the book, Carol remains mysterious almost to the very end. Therese is constantly trying to guess what is happening. In the film, some of that tension is lessened because we SEE what Carol does when she’s not with Therese.
Not sure.
Again: probably unfair to compare the two films – I usually don’t do that – but the period evoked was so similar, and yet it had the warmth (sometimes alienating to Eilish, used to cold wet Ireland) that helped tell the story. Something beckoning to her beyond the cold-ness – and while Ireland has many precious qualities (an essential part of her history and personality) … she had to find a way to reconcile herself to “the new.” That’s the real process of the film, the real story. The love affair is PART of that – but it’s scope is much much larger.
So maybe that’s what’s missing in Carol?
Lesbians, perhaps, will feel very very differently – and I totally understand why. This is the large-scope of life in the closet, before there were even words to describe same-sex attraction. Or, there were words, but those “passing” in the straight world would have no access to that vocabulary.
Enjoying the conversation, Regina, as always. Outside of critics, I don’t know many other people who have seen Carol, and a lesbian friend of mine in RI is fits of agony because Carol hasn’t opened in RI yet. She texted me last night: “My God, this is killing me. When is it coming here??” (haha as though I work for the distributor. I assured her it was only out in limited release right now – probably to make it eligible for awards – which it is winning – and then it will go wide.)
Sheila
I had never heard of Brooklyn! I will look for it!
And thanks for all this!!
I wasn’t feeling like, “Oh Carol is awful!”, I just had some reservations. I think I might have been a little surprised that I didn’t go head over heels for it, that’s all. I didn’t want to compare it to other films either. I mean, I love Fellini and Bergman and they are totally different.
And most of the people I talked to about Carol happen to be gay women. I think they were just surprised too how I felt. Although with some people I knew I couldn’t say anything negative about Haynes or explore it. It’s “heretical” to say so about him in some circles too!
I also had the thought that maybe the stage is where Kate Blanchett really shines too.
I read The Price of Salt but a while ago. I wanted to read it again and I couldn’t find it on my (horribly sloppy, you would slap me for) shelves. So I think I have to go out and buy another copy to see the difference where Carol is more mysterious. Maybe they wanted this to be a star vehicle for Blanchett and you couldn’t do that with how it was written.
I really think you will dig Brooklyn. Excellent story, amazing acting, beautiful atmosphere and a real gutsy heart. New York! Immigrants! Coney Island! Church dances! And homesickness so huge it’s unbearable.
// I think I might have been a little surprised that I didn’t go head over heels for it, //
I know what you mean.
// It’s “heretical” to say so about him in some circles too! //
Oh good Lord, I know. And Blanchett too.
// Maybe they wanted this to be a star vehicle for Blanchett and you couldn’t do that with how it was written. //
That’s a really interesting point.
I don’t know if you’ll ever read this comment because it’s too late now..But I just saw carol and read your review of it and then somehow ended up here…So, I don’t know if its worth anything..But I think CAROL IS A MASTERPIECE and UNFORGETTABLE while BROOKLN although featuring an extraordinary performance by SAOIRSE RONAN is…well..I liked it…but it comes nowhere to achieving grateness..Its sweet and Okay…When I saw carol..I felt that I had to see it again..not because I found I great..but because I felt I was missing something..When I saw it again…its emotional force struck me in the heart..and it was overwhelming..I don’t compare tears with emotional involvement and while I did cry during Brooklyn I didn’t feel it had shaken me the way carol did..I thinks its because Todd Haynes is a BETTER director than John Crowley..And because I think his decisions for directing the movie through visual motif is genius..its a period drama film that looks nothing like those types..And the coldness that you mention..I didn’t for one second thought the movie was cold..There are specific scene that I’ve wanted to rewatch because there’s so much going on in them except lines of dialogue… Which is the genius of the script..to let the two extraordinary actresses do the work..this movie..for me..is the best romance movie I’ve seen in years..and there are things I could talk about it..but that’s it..would be glad if you replies…PS: I also don’t find Care blanchett facile..She is one of the great actresses of our time…but that’s just my opinion!!!!