The movie "Carol" w/Cate Blanchett (film, script, action)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why oh why did they not spend the few extra dollars to hire somebody who knew what times were really like in the 40's. Most any old geezer would have done and would have made this movie much more authentic.
Examples:
People did NOT drink beer straight out of the bottle in bars and restaurants in the early 40's.
People did NOT say "Love you," when leaving each other.
Waiters did NOT say "Enjoy" when leaving the dinner plates for each diner.
I could go on and on. Does anyone else get annoyed by this stuff or am I just being too picky? Either it's authentic or it's not.
Any subject matter expert could drive a locomotive through the holes they find in a film of their expertise. Sometimes it just comes down to you can't think of everything. Take the Robert Redford movie All is Lost (2013). Any one worth his or her salt wouldn't have embarked on that journey without some type of emergency signalling device (EPIRB). The majority of people don't know who or what an EPIRB is - but the SME's (subject matter experts) sure has heck do. Say the SME on the set brings this up - a major rewrite of the script, because now All is NOT Lost. Yeah, that'll go down all right.
I see what you mean...it was in the early 50s, btw...but still.
Women...of money ...drinking out of a bottle, even in a motel?
( Even the middle class out of a beer can, painting her apt, not sure how liberated
women were in '53...a can?)
My mom was appalled in 1980 that I did!! Really.
Todd Haines did a great job, tho...it is a bit over the top that almost 80% of shots are
thru a window or using it's reflection...bored with that? ...let's use a mirror then.
He was spot on in more ways than not.
Sorry tho, women kiss much 'wetter'...'little stiff there, gals'.
Oh, to ans your ques...no, I do not get annoyed at these things...my God do I ever
have other things I am challenged by.
Took me 3 decades to 'choose my battles'.
Like remaining calm when starved and i've asked for ketchup before hand and STILL
the waitress places the hamburger and fries down and has to go get it...come on ...THAT's a battle to overcome!
Curious how old you are to know what they didn't do in the '40s, cuz you're right.
They took a lot of trouble with atmosphere, both visual and sound. That's why the various slips were so regrettable.
there is such a thing as poetic license you know. I think a lot of what went on was outside the norm of behavior for those days. I think the movie sought to portray a risque relationship and did it very well. Id have to watch it again but I loved the movie and there was tension and the drinking I suppose added to it.
there is such a thing as poetic license you know. I think a lot of what went on was outside the norm of behavior for those days. I think the movie sought to portray a risque relationship and did it very well. Id have to watch it again but I loved the movie and there was tension and the drinking I suppose added to it.
Dave
I really didn't see the relationship as 'risque'; outside the norm for those days, most definitely, especially for an upper-middle class woman in a conventional marriage. I thought the movie simply conveyed the idea that the heart wants what it wants, and our social trappings offer us no protection from that situation. The question is, how willing are we to take on the risks associated with giving into it?
I smiled when I read the OP, because I'm pretty compulsive about such things as well when watching a film. I was in this case willing to overlook the minutiae, because I liked the story; however, two things did bother me. First, I didn't really feel the erotic charge between the two women that was supposed to be at the heart of the whole story; it felt too maternal for me (for a better depiction of a story of inconvenient attraction between two women, check out Desert Hearts). Second was the sordid divorce and custody proceedings between Carol and her husband. In that day, would he really be willing to take this matter to the level of public spectacle, especially when it would likely have serious repercussions for his own social and professional standing? He would end up being as much of a pariah as she...murmurings that called into question his own manhood ("Guess he couldn't satisfy her") would no doubt ensue. For that reason, I thought his reaction to the situation was unrealistic for repressive 1950's America.
First, I didn't really feel the erotic charge between the two women that was supposed to be at the heart of the whole story; it felt too maternal for me .. Second was the sordid divorce and custody proceedings between Carol and her husband. He would end up being as much of a pariah......
i didn't think the relationship had much to do with an erotic charge.
A young woman is fascinated by a gorgeous, rich, confident blonde...in the 50s she must have
seemed like a Marilyn Monroe...notice all the drab people in the Dept Store?
Then, in walks Cate Blanchette! A woman Theres probably wished she could be when she grew up.
Then, the bored, isolated rich house wife...with an attractive young woman thinking she was a goddess.
It was not about sexual attraction or eroticism to me.
All about emotional needs unfulfilled, to me.
And yes, there was a mother /daughter element there...read about Oedipus lately, haha...classic attraction.
Girls marry their father and boys marry their moms...basically.
it is hard to believe, yes, that Rindy would eventually know why her Dad got custody...and also,
he would be a pariah, yes....seems he would have taken a different route.
The fault of Patricia H the orig author....you guys know she wrote The Talented Mr. Ripley, right?
i didn't think the relationship had much to do with an erotic charge.
A young woman is fascinated by a gorgeous, rich, confident blonde...in the 50s she must have
seemed like a Marilyn Monroe...notice all the drab people in the Dept Store?
Then, in walks Cate Blanchette! A woman Theres probably wished she could be when she grew up.
Then, the bored, isolated rich house wife...with an attractive young woman thinking she was a goddess.
It was not about sexual attraction or eroticism to me.
All about emotional needs unfulfilled, to me.
And yes, there was a mother /daughter element there...read about Oedipus lately, haha...classic attraction.
Girls marry their father and boys marry their moms...basically.
it is hard to believe, yes, that Rindy would eventually know why her Dad got custody...and also,
he would be a pariah, yes....seems he would have taken a different route.
The fault of Patricia H the orig author....you guys know she wrote The Talented Mr. Ripley, right?
Really great take on it, MH.
Yes, and I love the Ripley novels...Highsmith was brilliant. The novel upon which the movie was based was titled The Price of Salt, which would have been a terrible movie title.
The novel itself did focus more on the erotic element; hence the title. "Salt" is a metaphor for sexual feeling; Highsmith suggests that we can consume the food of life without it, but if it's on the table, it's hard to resist adding the flavor to your meal.
Check out the original cover (ooh la la). I'd forgotten that Highsmith wrote this under a nom de plume (too controversial to do otherwise), or that this was based on her own lesbian affair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.