Carol (2015) - One step below masterpiece. Why so?

I ended watching this film with a mixed feeling of admiration, melancholy and bewilderment, the first two naturally owing to its outstanding qualities and the latter caused by an obscure an untraceable internal whisper indicating that something was at a loss in the whole mechanism of the narrative.

 

Of course, this may sound very presumptuous in the light of such a magnificent display of scenario, acting, setting, photography, score and so on so forth. Nevertheless, I couldn’t help to think about it as I went to bed (I got to watch this movie on a Saturday night). Furthermore, this idea kept lingering as I first awoke the following morning, my mind undoubtedly seeking for a smooth resolution of the trap it had fallen into, however already reaching to some compromise on the matter.

Certainly, my emotional state was certainly prejudiced by my previous knowledge of the story. As the movie was released, with great impact at both critics and audience, I took it upon myself to read the book on which the story is based (Prize of Salt of Patricia Highsmith, published under pseudonym in 1952). I proceeded as planned but could not make it beyond half of the book. Probably I was not in the mood as it is often said when lacking explanation for something. This said, I must bow to the fact that the account of a love story between two women could cause a lot of disturbance at the beginning of the fifties in the United States. Furthermore, it shows great courage and audacity for the young and upcoming writer Patricia Highsmith, after collecting great success with Strangers on a train (in view of this, it appears that the editor imposed on her to publish the book under a pseudonym).

Despite of my lack of persistence one thing was clear to me from the book. The story had to be told from the point of view of Therese, a girl in her first twenties, which has made her way to New York to apparently escape her country origins and environment (which includes a mother with whom there is no contact). Nonetheless in New York she lives a dull life working as salesgirl in a big department store and keeps a relationship with his boyfriend Richard (to whom he obviously does not love) by mere inertia.

These are the elements that underpin the first encounter of the two women in the novel (as shown below) in a crowded toy department before Christmas attended by Therese, where a glamorous, sophisticated, dazzling, upper class and mature woman (Carol) shows up and not only catches Therese’s eye and attention, but literally all of her senses:

Their eyes met at the same instant, Therese glancing up from a box she was opening, and the woman just turning her head so she looked directly at Therese. She was tall and fair, her long figure graceful in the loose fur coat that she held open with a hand on her waist. Her eyes were gray, colorless, yet dominant as light or fire, and caught by them, Therese could not look away. She heard the customer in front of her repeat a question, and Therese stood there, mute. The woman was looking at Therese, too, with a preoccupied expression as if half her mind were on whatever it was she meant to buy here, and though there were a number of salesgirls between them, Therese felt sure the woman would come to her. Then Therese saw her walk slowly toward the counter, heard her heart stumble to catch up with the moment it had let pass, and felt her face grow hot as the woman came nearer and nearer. "May I see one of those valises?" the woman asked, and leaned on the counter, looking down through the glass top. The damaged valise lay only a yard away. Therese turned around and got a box from the bottom of a stack, a box that had never been opened. When she stood up, the woman was looking at her with the calm gray eyes that Therese could neither quite face nor look away from. "That's the one I like, but I don't suppose I can have it, can I?" she said, nodding toward the brown valise in the show window behind Therese. Her eyebrows were blond, curving around the bend of her forehead. Her mouth was as wise as her eyes, Therese thought, and her voice was like her coat, rich and supple, and somehow full of secrets. "Yes," Therese said. Therese went back to the stockroom for the key. The key hung just inside the door on a nail, and no one was allowed to touch it but Mrs. Hendrickson. Miss Davis saw her and gasped, but Therese said, "I need it," and went out. She opened the show window and took the suitcase down and laid it on the counter. "You're giving me the one on display?" She smiled as if she understood. She said casually, leaning both forearms on the counter, studying the contents of the valise, "They'll have a fit, won't they?" "It doesn't matter," Therese said.

Of course, Carol is perfectly aware of the impression she has made on Therese and, as of this moment, the young girl becomes an easy prey for her (as, adding to her age, she has already experienced female love with her friend Abby). It remains only now to know when and how the love affair will consummate, since Carol is well aware that a swift approach will surely be backfiring. After all, many mental barriers need to be overcome by Therese to reach to this point, as it she seems rather unaware of what’s going on in and around her (or at least, she is mentally blocked to recognize it) while Carol’s initiatives and approaches display towards the desired goal.

Said the above and let me be clear on this, Cate Blanchett is by far the center of the movie. Her character irradiates all the strength and magnetism required to drives Therese to follow her blindly and perform acts (ultimately, female sex intercourse) that otherwise she would have not dared or even imagine realizing. In hindsight, we come to realize that her inevitable fate was to dwell in an unhappy (heterosexual and conventional) marriage, considering her feeble temperament and the prevailing social rules in mid-fifties America (where such behavior, even for New York standards, could have only be kept secret and clandestine).

At the same time, the whole plot revolves around Therese’s experiencing inner violent, unmanageable and contradictory feelingsduring her different encounters with Carol (at a restaurant, at her home, at the trip by car). The ultimate goal of the story is that we, as viewers/readers experience Therese’s perspective and, naturally, fall in love in our turn with Carol, thereby acknowledging, as a logical and obvious conclusion, that love feelings cannot be confined or prevented, even though this involves two women of unequal age and background.

Reverting to the movie, this premise to the story is abandoned from the first scene. We meet both women having tea at a hotel bar, in a sort of epilogue, once all the events have between them have taken place and is time for readjusting the relationship. Therese has gone through the pain of forced separation from Carol and is therefore wiser and more cautious. Therefore, she is unwilling to accept, at least in first instance, Carol’s proposal to move with her (once she has cleared her divorce terms with her husband). This is fine, of course and adds much more credibility to the story (which ultimately ends with a new beginning between the two lovers, on more equal grounds). However, the fact that this scene is anticipated in the movie already predisposes our experience as viewers. We don’t see Therese in the same way as the plot goes back in time to the day the two women first meet in the toy department (in a sort of remembrance of Therese as she is driven in a taxi cab from the bar to a party with her new circle of friends). As a result, we fail to empathize with her (or let’s say, be her) from that founding and crucial moment (which, by the way is the key contribution of Patricia Highsmith to the story, drawn from her own experience). Secondly, the script chooses to follow both women separately, whilst in the book we only know about Carol and her life and troubles with her husband through what it is conveyed to Therese or what she finds out herself during her interactions with Carol.

            As a conclusion, we are bound to contemplate the story as a stranger who would be peeking through the keyhole in the domestic life of the two women and, at the same time, as if this was being referred by one of the characters, instead of experimenting the story ourselves.

            Well, I hope I have explained myself. Otherwise I only have compliments for the movie -which, in my opinion, greatly overcomes the original book- and, in particular, for Cate Blanchett as leading role: she is simply fascinating and, personally, I could have not endured madly falling in love with her had I been in Therese’s place (and, honestly, does it matter whether I am a male or female?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEBRASKA (2013) Just another instant classic from Alexander Payne

And so far amounting to three. Previously he had already delivered About Schmidt (2002) and Sideways (2004). I will talk about these at some point. This is what happens to classics. You wish to revisit them again and again and you wonder why you find out new things every time you get back to them. Furthermore, I bet that a lot of people of the movie industry would give away one of his arms to have half of this man's talent.

 

 

Alexander Payne, both script writer and director, has priced us with a most personal and evocative story that has to do with the circle of life and second chances, but not in the sense we are used to, certainly not what you could expect from an American way of life perspective.

 

In my view this is what renders this film exceptional. Payne is playing with our perceptions because he knows that we, people, primarily choose to be fooled instead of seeing things as they are played out in front of our eyes. At the end of film, like a wizard who is disclosing his techniques to the audience, you could very well listen: I told you from the beginning, my intentions were crystal clear, if you thought there was going to be a moral to the story, a renaissance, a successful come back or a final reconciliation, you simple misled yourself. You made it all up in your mind!

Well, this may sound a bit out of context for the time being. Let’s focus on the story. An old man, at the very first stages of a senile condition, wish to travel from his home (in Billings, Montana) to Lincoln, Nebraska, a city a thousand miles away to pick up personally a reward he has received by post. The problem is that there is no such reward (of 1 MM $, a mythical figure in the public imagination, by the way). This is just an old and obvious commercial hook to capture the reader’s attention. But the old man takes this message literally and all attempts to talk him out by his two sons and wife are unsuccessful. As a result, he will sneak out several times and start walking to his destination with two fixed ideas: to buy a truck and a compressor with the proceeds of the reward.

His younger son finally decides to take a few days off at work and drive him to the city in question. But during the journey the father has an accident and they must stop somewhere in between, precisely at his hometown in Hawthorne, Nebraska. This is the place where he was born and grew up in a farm in a large family. The place where a brother still lives and wherefrom he and his wife left when his younger son was a baby. A place inhabited by old people where nothing ever seems to happen, shaken by the news so willingly disseminated by the newcomer: he is a rich man!

The younger son is the other main character of the story. Played by Will Forte he is the perfect partner for Bruce Dern (playing the father). He is not so young any more, probably somewhere in his late thirties. We know that he was cute and adorable as a baby and child, but this gifts have abandoned him as an adult. He is indeed a handsome man, but nothing to do with what he once was. This appears to have caused him a state of permanent confusion, as if these gifts were the only resources for him available to tackle life. As a result we learn that his skills as a salesman in a big electronic store are not working. Also, his fiancé broke up with him a few months ago. Not that she doesn’t love him, she simply doesn’t know where their common lives are heading to.

So, what is the film about? At first it is difficult to figure out. Certainly what it is left at the end of life and the passing of time, but also the father and son relationship as well as family ties in general, not to mention the trace you leave behind when you die. On top of it the whole story is underpinned by a way of life (based on traditional farming) that has gone forever, leaving behind but deserted towns wherefrom young people run away never to return.

Actually all of this is touched in the film, but the main theme underneath, quoting one of the characters, and old pal and partner from the father, is about “to even scores”. This accounts for almost everything that is displayed in the film: the father (or what remains of his awareness) wishes to recover something linked to his farming life as a child –the truck and the compressor- to bequeath to his sons; the younger son wishes desperately to feel the love of his father, which he never felt as a child; the mother quarrels and yells at him now that he cannot defend himself, pretending she doesn’t love him any more, not being but a burden to her, while in fact her anger stems from the fact she was able to pull him away from another girl but didn’t receive his love throughout their married life over 40 years; and last but not least family and acquaintances wish to cash old debts –imagined or real- now that he has become a wealthy man (or so they wish to believe by all means).

 

This is told in such a plain and fine way that the film works just as perfect machinery. There is this first and superb choice of using black and white photography. It is bold but couldn’t be other way. Black and white just renders this incredible touch of bitterness and outmost reality that the film transpires. On the contrary to what you would be prone to think this is not a matter of extremes, precisely black and white shows us multiples nuances of grey. And grey is not definitive, it could be one colour or another, it depends on the viewer’s perspective, exactly what happens to the events told in the film.

 An exceptional praise is to be made to the music chosen for the film. It comprises several pieces previously composed by Mark Orton and his band (Tin Hat), rearranged to match with the film scenes. Instruments such as violin, harmonica, accordion and trumpet play together to form a sound both evocative and haunting, sort of a blend of jazz and folk that enhances the film atmosphere to its outmost peaks. Two main themes “Their pie” and “Magna Carta”, alternatively played by different instruments, are just superb. Follow my advice, if you like this music just buy the CD and you will not stop to wonder what a fine piece of music this is (don’t be satisfied with mp3, this is far below the optimal sound quality).

 So, according to the film, is there any hope to recover lost time, lost opportunities with the family and friends or catch up with life in general? No, of course not. But what about what is next to come? Can we make up for the mistakes of the past? I mean, the essential mistakes of the past, the ones you realize when you look back into your life from the mountain of the years. In the film, these mistakes are embodied in the missing father-son relationship, the wrong choice of the life lasting love partner and the stranger’s relationship with those who once were the significant others (i.e. the brothers). No, that’s not possible either.

 

However, there is a tiny and momentary sparkle of hope. The father, just about to fade away in oblivion (as the promoting picture above shows, only his profile remains visible), finds his youngest son at the other end. The father and son exchange roles: the son becomes the father and the father becomes the child. The son-father makes his father-son happy and fulfils his wishes, without minding how absurd they are, just as any father would do with his child. Most significant is letting the father-son drive the new bought and useless truck, on his own, through the village main street, showing off in front of his old neighbours and friends. And now we see the son-father smiling, truly satisfied for the first time at the end of the story while observing his father-son so pleased.

 

And this is it. Maybe things now will work out for the son. After all he is still young and has sufficient time ahead to make something out of himself. Or maybe not. Who knows? But who cares! This was not the point of the story. Now I finally understand what a fool I was all along.

 

 

 

 

ARGO (2012) What I liked and what I didn’t like

During the foggy days of the Hostages Crisis in Iran, as a result of the Ayatollah's revolution in 1979, a brink of hope arises that stirs up USA’s depressed emotional public opinion. At least a good new! Something to grab on and fall back to, and recover Americans’ self-esteem, after the long and unending occupation of the embassy in Teheran.

 

At first short but necessary historical introduction. Nowadays most of the people don’t know who the Shah of Persia was and what role he played in the Middle East, as close ally to the USA. There is a scene in the film portraying a discussion between the CIA people involved that reflects this very well. It’s another version of a citing by a Secretary of State about a bloody South American dictator: “He is a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch”.

 

 

Then, the atmosphere. Perfect. The resemblance with reality is practically seamless. It is a true reproduction of the photographs of the events taking place in and around the embassy. The titles at the end of the film match both photographs and reality. Just judge yourself!

And this first event, the assault of the embassy, really defines and remains throughout the film, as an echo that is never unheard. Shot from the embassy’s people perspective you come to feel their rush, hustle, fear as well as panic during the tense and nerves killing minutes the embassy is taken over by the Revolutionary Guards. And what is most important, you take your side on this story, the all mighty and powerful United States is no longer present, we only see ordinary people being captured, insulted, yelled at, vexed and beaten down by an ugly, brown tanned, bearded, black dressed crowd.

 

Of course you wish these people to be not treated like that. You get angry at the sight of this injustice. Bravo! You are now part of the team. The team that will rescue the six Americans that remained cold under pressure and took advantage of their situation in the embassy’s buildings, making his way through a secondary deserted street and finding refuge in the Canadian embassy, where they long their days and the group unity and moral is starting to become dangerous for its survival. This part is also excellent.

So, as part of the team you will now suffer with CIA special agent Tony Mendez the events leading to the escape from Teheran. He is the good guy. He knows very well what to do and will take the right decisions at all times. Starting by convincing his superiors to meddle into the Hollywood alternative. Well I can’t but admire the guts of a person who is willing to risk his life like this, but here is where you start to think that reality and fiction deviate...

 

My suspicions were confirmed with a quick search in the Internet. You learn that all the “last minute” events leading to the escape of the six Americans, in particular the scenes in the airport that fill the last part of the film, did not happen in reality. Though, surely, there was a tense and unbearable feeling by the Americans freed all the way through the sequence of events from entering the airport and leading to the plane (control after control by different clerks and security). Risk of death. This is what you feel. You know how I know? Because I would have felt the same.

 

In the meantime, I like the scenes where it is shown how the decision to rescue the six Americans is made among the circles of the CIA and department of State and up to the White House. I must confess that I am a fanatic of political plots that tells us what happens behind the scenes. Power is shown naked and reaffirms us that is one of the strengths for human behaviour (love and sex are the other ones; money is just a variation of power).

 

But coming back to the previous point, inevitably this is the part where I feel tricked. Everything was very exciting up to this point: contemporary history, political drama and human factor involved and mixed together. How this will unfold? What we receive from this point is a conventional but most effective thriller that plays by the book all resources needed to keep attention and attachment from viewers. Resources that we have watched and experienced a thousand times, starting from the movies of the great master of all –Mr Alfred Hitchcock- (and that was 50 or 60 years ago!). How in the world can we be so stupid and still being caught? Well, it probably has to do with the fact that human beings need stories and never get enough of them. Once you master the basics of the story telling captivating the listener attention is not that difficult.

 

You could say, well, what are you complaining about? You had your fun and entertainment for two hours. Now move on. This is how the show business works and what Hollywood is all about.

Yes and No.

 

I certainly give credit to Ben Affleck as Director, but not so much as actor (certainly a very flat performance for a role that required a stronger personality, which I am sure in this case matched with special agent Tony Mendez). As Director he is very good a his job. He is able to make us feel so bad during the rescue mission. Further credit I give to him because of his previous work to create an atmosphere and forcing us to take side. Empathy for the six American people and their point of view are assumed by us at the beginning of the film. Consequently, from that point on we are also “hostages” of the Director and the movie plot. He has definitely set the grounds for what is to come, though this is rather conventional but effective (thriller), caricaturist but not misleading (the portrayal of the Iranian people from the revolution days) and manipulative but not enough (in relation to what really happened back in those days).

Thus, my great objection is the potential of the film. During the first 20 minutes, I was thrilled. As I said, all the elements were on the table -human, political and historical- to deal with main issue that underpins the film: how the USA manages its super power for perpetuating its prosperity and influence (at least, what all empires have done in history) without being cruel and feel bad about it (and this is only contemporary issue). Isn’t this actual enough?