![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So I went to the movies yesterday and ended up seeing "Carnage" because it was the last showing at my local Cineworld. It was the cast that drew me in - Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C Reilly. I knew that it was based on a theatre play and that the 4 main leads were the only performers, and that it was directed by Roman Polanksi. The plot was basically two New York couples meet to discuss their sons getting into a fight. I figured if any cast could pull this movie off it was this one so I gave it a watch.
Penelope and Michael Longstreet (Foster & Reilly) have invited Alan and Nancy Cowan (Waltz and Winslet) to their apartment to discuss the Cowan's son hitting theirs in the face with a stick. (We see this incident during the opening credits). We join them as they have apparently resolved the issue and the Cowans are on the verge of leaving. But for various reasons they don't and the longer they stay, the more the polite veneer of both couples is stripped away and the ugliness and fragilty of all revealed.
First of all, I have to reiterate the cast are outstanding. Winslet was my pick of the women - I felt Foster got a bit OTT towards the end - and Waltz I thought was the pick of all of them. The more I see of him the more I'm impressed. I'd kill to see all 4 of them perform this play on the stage :)
And therein lies my main problem with the film. I have a big issue with movies that are based on plays. It seems to me that you shouldn't do it unless you can use the movie to open the play up, take the characters to places and locations that you simply couldn't do on a stage. Some work - "Frankie and Johnny", the movie version of the play "Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune" is a good example. Some work but annoy me - "Chicago" basically never took the musical off the stage. (Think about it).
This is based on the play "God of Carnage", a huge hit a while ago. This isn't a movie play. If I'd gone to a theatre and seen this, I'd have been enthralled. But for the first 20 minutes of the film, I was bored. In fact, two people in the cinema did leave, and I nearly went with them. But I stuck it out. The reason is it really is 4 people just talking for 80 minutes (the movie, like the play, takes place in "real time"). And it starts slooooow which never helps. It also doesn't help when you're sitting there willing the Cowans to just leave already, even though you know they don't or the film would only be 10 minutes long. The entire movie takes place in the Longstreet's apartment (opening and closing credits excepting) and I just felt that it wasn't a play that NEEDED to be made into a movie. This was a play that should have been filmed on the stage instead. The movie couldn't bring anything to the play that we wouldn't have got in the theate and, frankly, would probably have enjoyed more.
As far as I know, dialogue-wise, the movie is faithful to the play, so I assume my grumbles about the content can be directed at the original playwright. But it's worth noting before I go on that the original play was in French and so we're dealing with a translation. It's possible, therefore, that there are cultural and liguistic naunces we're missing because of that. That said, I came out wondering what the heck the playwright wanted me to take away from the movie. That society is a polite fiction? That nothing is what it seems? That everyone has problems? None of that is particularly revelatory or new and the movie didn't offer up anything I haven't seen or heard before in other contexts. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to sympathise with any of the characters because I really didn't, at least not all the time. Just as you feel sorry for a character, they say or do something that completely changes your mind. It's tough to watch something emotional when there's no emotional compass. In fact, the whole thing reminded me more than a little of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?", except that play did it far, far better.
One thing I should add - the closing credits plays out over shots of the two kids that are the centre of the adult's arguments calmly playing together, clearly having made up and moved on, and presumably without parental interference. This I'm guessing was Polanski's addition, his way of highlighting the shallowness and pointlessness of the angst and woe we'd just watched. It was a nice touch but I'd have been happier if he'd found ways of beefing up the preceeding eighty minutes.
It must sound as if I hated the whole thing. I didn't, I just felt disappointed. I don't necessarily want a movie of this type to preach to me or beat me over the head with a deep and meaningful message, but I like it when it says something (anything) pertinent and/or makes me think. This didn't do that. What it DID have, however, was 4 superb actors at the top of their game and that's the reason I stuck it out to the end. I don't recommend paying cinema prices for this, or even buying the DVD unless it's like a couple of quid or something, but I'd definitely suggest it as a DVD rental because it isn't often you get a powerhouse cast like that and that alone is worth a watch.
Verdict: 3 stars out of 5 (for the cast).
Penelope and Michael Longstreet (Foster & Reilly) have invited Alan and Nancy Cowan (Waltz and Winslet) to their apartment to discuss the Cowan's son hitting theirs in the face with a stick. (We see this incident during the opening credits). We join them as they have apparently resolved the issue and the Cowans are on the verge of leaving. But for various reasons they don't and the longer they stay, the more the polite veneer of both couples is stripped away and the ugliness and fragilty of all revealed.
First of all, I have to reiterate the cast are outstanding. Winslet was my pick of the women - I felt Foster got a bit OTT towards the end - and Waltz I thought was the pick of all of them. The more I see of him the more I'm impressed. I'd kill to see all 4 of them perform this play on the stage :)
And therein lies my main problem with the film. I have a big issue with movies that are based on plays. It seems to me that you shouldn't do it unless you can use the movie to open the play up, take the characters to places and locations that you simply couldn't do on a stage. Some work - "Frankie and Johnny", the movie version of the play "Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune" is a good example. Some work but annoy me - "Chicago" basically never took the musical off the stage. (Think about it).
This is based on the play "God of Carnage", a huge hit a while ago. This isn't a movie play. If I'd gone to a theatre and seen this, I'd have been enthralled. But for the first 20 minutes of the film, I was bored. In fact, two people in the cinema did leave, and I nearly went with them. But I stuck it out. The reason is it really is 4 people just talking for 80 minutes (the movie, like the play, takes place in "real time"). And it starts slooooow which never helps. It also doesn't help when you're sitting there willing the Cowans to just leave already, even though you know they don't or the film would only be 10 minutes long. The entire movie takes place in the Longstreet's apartment (opening and closing credits excepting) and I just felt that it wasn't a play that NEEDED to be made into a movie. This was a play that should have been filmed on the stage instead. The movie couldn't bring anything to the play that we wouldn't have got in the theate and, frankly, would probably have enjoyed more.
As far as I know, dialogue-wise, the movie is faithful to the play, so I assume my grumbles about the content can be directed at the original playwright. But it's worth noting before I go on that the original play was in French and so we're dealing with a translation. It's possible, therefore, that there are cultural and liguistic naunces we're missing because of that. That said, I came out wondering what the heck the playwright wanted me to take away from the movie. That society is a polite fiction? That nothing is what it seems? That everyone has problems? None of that is particularly revelatory or new and the movie didn't offer up anything I haven't seen or heard before in other contexts. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to sympathise with any of the characters because I really didn't, at least not all the time. Just as you feel sorry for a character, they say or do something that completely changes your mind. It's tough to watch something emotional when there's no emotional compass. In fact, the whole thing reminded me more than a little of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?", except that play did it far, far better.
One thing I should add - the closing credits plays out over shots of the two kids that are the centre of the adult's arguments calmly playing together, clearly having made up and moved on, and presumably without parental interference. This I'm guessing was Polanski's addition, his way of highlighting the shallowness and pointlessness of the angst and woe we'd just watched. It was a nice touch but I'd have been happier if he'd found ways of beefing up the preceeding eighty minutes.
It must sound as if I hated the whole thing. I didn't, I just felt disappointed. I don't necessarily want a movie of this type to preach to me or beat me over the head with a deep and meaningful message, but I like it when it says something (anything) pertinent and/or makes me think. This didn't do that. What it DID have, however, was 4 superb actors at the top of their game and that's the reason I stuck it out to the end. I don't recommend paying cinema prices for this, or even buying the DVD unless it's like a couple of quid or something, but I'd definitely suggest it as a DVD rental because it isn't often you get a powerhouse cast like that and that alone is worth a watch.
Verdict: 3 stars out of 5 (for the cast).
thoughtful