Review of Carol (1990) by Troy K — 24 Apr 2016

While there are many things that can be eloquently expressed through language, certain things are better conveyed through actions rather than words. Love is definitely something that falls into the latter category, and CAROL exemplifies this to a tee.

Why can't love just be that: love? When did we become so obsessed with labels? In a film about two women who fall in love, the word "lesbian" is not uttered once, and is that much better for it.

Taking the emphasis on actions/visuals over words/dialogue further, there is much in the film that is conveyed through physical gestures and vague turns of phrase. While this could be interpreted as a nod to the time period in which the story is set (and when the novel was originally published), when certain topics either weren't discussed or talked about in "code," I think it expresses the fundamental inadequacy of language to fully capture the range of human emotion.

Also, the emphasis on visuals, completely within Todd Haynes' wheelhouse, makes the film that much more cinematic as a result. The overall style of the film is very tactile, refined, and eloquent.

Another reason why the film is so good is the talent in front of the camera. Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara make a believable couple, even though at first it feels like Carol (Blanchett) might be manipulating Therese (Mara) to satisfy her own selfish desires.

Initially, the way in which the relationship was established combined with a Philip Glass-esque score (highly reminiscent of his work in NOTES ON A SCANDAL, also starring Cate Blanchett as a woman in a relationship with a younger person) gave the impression that this was headed to darker dramatic territory than it actually turned out to be.

I wasn't quite sure I was onboard until I considered that maybe this was a way to keep the audience on their toes. Shy of that, which I eventually came around to anyway, I was fully invested in the story from beginning to end.

The only legitimate negative criticism I can levy against the film is perhaps the title. Aside from being rather non-descript, "Carol" isn't really all that accurate, as the film is as much Rooney Mara's as it is Cate Blanchett's, perhaps more so.

I also kind of like the original novel's title, "The Price of Salt," which is more suggestive and comes biblical and philosophical connotations that would probably yield some interesting analysis, or at least correlation, with the film's narrative.

Simply put, CAROL is a great film. It successfully straddles two time periods, when the story was written and when the film was actually made, without feeling untrue to either. Perhaps the title character is anachronistic (theoretically, more than literally), but she definitely was ahead of her time, and yet there was no post-modern take to rationalize her existence or the way she is portrayed.

She just is, and the relationship she embarks on just is. I cannot more highly recommend CAROL. Just give it a try and let the film speak (or show) for itself.