Movie Review: "Carol"

Carol (2015)

R

4.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Todd Haynes
Writer                                   Phyllis Nagy (screenplay), Patricia Highsmith (novel)
Cinematography                 Edward Lachman
Music                                    Carter Burwell
Art Direction                        Jesse Rosenthal
Costume Design                  Sandy Powell
Set Decoration                    Heather Loeffler
Cate Blanchett                    Carol Aird
Rooney Mara                      Therese Belivet
Kyle Chandler                      Harge Aird
Sarah Paulson                      Abby Gerhard
Jake Lacey                            Richard Semco
John Magaro                       Dannie McElroy
Sadie Heim                          Rindy Aird

 "Now what happened with Therese…I wanted. And I will not deny it.”

Carol

The most notable thing about director Todd Haynes’ 2015 movie “Carol”, a movie about two women in love isn’t (surprisingly) the quality of the film, its six Oscar nominations, or even its topic of gay love in 1950’s America. No, its most amazing fact is that Hollywood didn’t want to produce the movie because it only featured two women leads. Perhaps even worse to certain corporate sensibilities was that these two women also refused to acknowledge any kind of guilt over their love as well refusing to focus their lives in any way towards a male character. For a movie that began development in 1997, that is in these enlightened days of letting people live the lives that they choose to live, to have the single most important fact delaying production for this story be that it featured two women and no men, is to me the most incredible part of the movie’s legacy.

The roots for “Carol” the movie began with Patricia Highsmith’s 1952 semi-autobiographical novel, “The Price of Salt”. In the novel, the older woman, Carol was seen exclusively through the eyes of a younger woman, Therese – the character standing in for Highsmith, herself. The movie screenplay written by longtime Highsmith friend, Phyllis Nagy sought to find a cinematic way of transferring the book’s use of Therese’s 1^st person narrative and obsessive view of Carol into film. Also important to Nagy was her desire to show that both women loved the other, and did so shamelessly. Nagy worked hard to not seek to make a political point of view; Nagy wanted the movie to be at its heart, simply a romance. Her screenplay does explain Carol’s marital situation and alludes to a previous liaison with another woman, Abby, but the details of how Carol comes to be the woman she is when she meets Therese for the first time is left largely unclear. In the book and to some degree in the movie, Carol is a kind of cipher, one that Therese has focused both her camera and her heart on. It is in the book a kind of one-way romance between a young woman and the object of her affection. The movie fleshes out Carol to be less of a cipher to help design a romance that flows in two directions – at least by the end of the movie.

“Carol” begins with the meeting between a young department store shop girl, Therese (Rooney Mara) and an elegantly dressed 40ish woman, Carol (Cate Blanchett). Carol is searching for a Christmas present for her five year old daughter Rindy (Sadie Heim). Carol will leave her gloves by “accident” at Therese’s checkout stand. Therese feeling something about her encounter with Carol, she is not sure what, will seek Carol out and return the gloves to her. In doing so, she will learn Carol is in the process of a divorce from her husband Harge (Kyle Chandler). (The names of the eastern rich always amazes me: Harge and Rindy, really? Who names their children such names?) In the ensuing days, Carol’s relationship to Harge deteriorates further, even as her attraction to Therese strengthens. After Harge threatens Carol with the loss of her access to Rindy, the two women will take a road trip together to help Carol ease the tension over her fraught situation. Their relationship will mature over the next week from tentative social probing to one of fiery passion. But when threatened by Harge with the complete loss of access to Rindy, the two women’s bond seem to wither for a while. But it is Hollywood, you know, so….

The key element of the screenplay is that these are two women that come to be deeply in love with one another. They don’t circle any man in an effort to find meaning to their lives. This point is made abundantly clear during a pre-trial meeting between Harge, Carol and their lawyers. Carol’s lawyer wants to fight Harge’s lawyer over some explicit tapes that exist of Carol and Therese. Both lawyers know that in 1950’s America, Carol will lose all her rights of access to Rindy if these tapes are used in their divorce trial. But Carol has had it with men arguing with her and over her, trying to make all her decisions; furthermore, she is not in any way ashamed of her love for Therese. Both of these points are important, but the latter is very much so. This is a story written about two gay women in 1950’s America that are not ashamed of their love. (So, maybe the story is a little political after all.)

That does not mean however that they can flaunt their relationship. The time frame of the Eisenhower Administration and the witch hunts of the House Un-American Activities Commission was surely chosen with care by Nagy and Highsmith. To be sure, Nagy wanted her screenplay to be true to the novel, but by using the 50’s, it also serves a second purpose by using a time in America when suspicion of the “other” and heightened paranoia in the general public was widespread. The effects of such attitudes would have been very intimidating for gay Americans. This aspect of the movie is made clear through the admirable work of cinematographer Edward Lachman and music director Carter Burwell. The most frequently (perhaps too frequently) used cinematic technique by Lachman on the subject of the 2^nd class citizenship of gay Americans is the window, most often a weather-coated car window. Therese is shown on several occasions staring with a wondering eye as she looks out at heterosexual couples walking on a sidewalk, out in the open and clearly in love. Such a simple privilege she knows that will never be hers. The metaphor of someone, a gay someone looking out at the rest of the world is both poetic and heartbreaking. These scenes as the car moves from left to right (always left to right for some reason) are filled with musical emotion from Burwell’s score that brings even more a sense of unsanctioned love. The score and camera-work align perfectly in this movie.

Other strong features of the film are the set design, costume and art direction. This movie’s sets range from Carol’s mansion in the suburbs, to Therese’s small apartment, to fancy hotels and dingy roadside motels. All are done to perfection in an effort to serve Haynes’ desire for 50’s American verisimilitude. Consistent with these trappings come some remarkable costume designs, most especially for Carol, but also in some cases for the other characters. For example, look carefully at how a minor character like Richard is diversely and fashionably attired; one would be forgiven for thinking him a clothes horse. Therese (a character that is written to be in the background with her shy and reluctant attitude) on the other hand wears simple dresses, without frills, always done in browns and taupe. This works well to visually push her towards the wall; the place where she presumes normally hides against. Her clothing will brighten some as her relationship with Carol matures, but not too much. My only criticism of the costume design is that it all looks completely new. This seems reasonable for a rich person like Carol, but is out of place for the poorer characters.

And finally, the premier reason to watch this movie is the direction of the acting of its two stars: Blanchett and Mara. As good as Mara is at playing a young woman in awe of her powerful and older lover, it is Blanchett’s performance that is overwhelming – it is simply stunning. It begins with the artful way she works her way into Therese’s life. But the best summary of how great, how nuanced is Blanchett’s acting (and the corresponding direction) is the closing scene: Therese stand unobserved by Carol in the middle of a restaurant; the camera plays across Carol as she talks to her dinner companions; after a moment she sees Therese; and a small smile slowly, surreptitiously (remember she is in the public) grows, but only just so much. It is incredible. There is never any doubt as to who is in control of the scene or the situation at the movie’s start, but by its end, there is no doubt that the issue of control has fled; what is left is simply two women in love.

This movie has a few flaws in the pacing during its middle reel, one or two too many uses of the window metaphor, and a few logical inconsistencies with the costumes, but they add up to little. Bottom line: go see this movie. It is a work of art.

Movie Review: Blue Jasmine

Blue Jasmine

2013

Drama

3.5 Stars out of 5

Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine was both a disappointment and a pleasure. The story line lacks any sense of subtlety or depth, but the bravura performance by Cate Blanchett in the title role of Jasmine is more than reason enough to watch this movie. Writer/director Allen has created a story to mirror “A Streetcar Named Desire” by exploring the aftereffects of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. He creates a parallel to Blanche DuBois’ mental problems by imagining the fiscal and mental disintegration of a Madoff-like wife in the form of Jasmine. Additionally he contrasts the glamorous rise and disastrous fall of Jasmine to her far more pedestrian, adopted sister, Ginger. As noted, there are strong parallels to the 1947 play by Tennessee Williams’ “A Streetcar Named Desire”, though Blue Jasmine stands on its own.

The movie is essentially a character study, with little story arc to propel it. Jasmine channels the high society Blanche DuBois from “Streetcar” as Sally Hawkins plays her blue collar sister Ginger/Stella to great effect. Ginger’s boyfriend Chili/Stanley (well sort of a Stanley) is played by Bobby Cannavale. As in “Streetcar”, the two sisters come from very different worlds: high society for Jasmine, blue collar for Ginger. In a similar manner Jasmine and Chili are immediately at odds with one another, though the Chili character lacks much of the animal-like sexual magnetism of Stanley. In both cases, the Jasmine/Blanche character is devolving into a state of serious mental disarray. And in a similar fashion, the Ginger/Stella character does her best (and despite the endless criticism from Jasmine) to defend and support her big sister.

The key similarity though is the mental disintegration going on with Jasmine/Blanche. Blanchett plays her flawlessly as she moves from talking to herself in public, to haranguing her younger sister for her lack of self-respect, to trying to destroy Ginger’s one vague hope that exists in the form of Chili, to finding a new husband for herself, and back to talking to herself in public. Jasmine appears to be living constantly on the edge of a complete and perhaps irreversible mental breakdown. The final camera shots of her on a park bench gives the impression she has finally moved past that edge; Jasmine is now doomed to a life on the streets as one more homeless, crazed and hopeless street person.

The story is based on various contrasts: the fabulously rich Jasmine married to the schemer Hal (Alec Baldwin) vs. the delusional homeless person; the carefully dressed (at least at the movie’s beginning, much less so by the end) Jasmine vs. her plain Jane sister, Ginger; the crafty scheming Jasmine as she closes in a new beau, Dwight (Peter Sarsgaard) vs. the shortly thereafter scene of her in a state of complete disassociation on the park bench. So many moods and motivations make for a rich playing field by Blanchett, and she makes great work of it; a well-earned Oscar award for best actress.

There is great acting by Blanchett,  good acting by Hawkins, even fairly good acting by Andrew Dice Clay as Gingers ex-husband, Augie and some unusual casting with Louis CK as Ginger’s back-up boyfriend. But the story itself lacks the emotional crescendo and impact of “Streetcar” even as it seems to take so much of its early storyline. This is a fairly good story with great acting, worth seeing for Blanchett’s acting alone.