| 
| 
Is it worth $10? Yes
The story of “Carnage,” or what there is of it, is very simple: Two couples get together to discuss a fight that their sons had the day before. The couples are Penelope and Michael Longstreet (Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly) and Alan and Nancy Cowan (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet). They meet in the Longstreet’s home in Brooklyn to have a civilized discussion on how to handle the situation in which the Cowan’s boy struck the Longstreet’s boy with a stick and knocked out two of his teeth.
What transpires over the next eighty minutes is only occasionally on that topic. Sure, it’s the reason they are there, and every once in a while they bring it back up. But for the most part, this is a film about the personalities, philosophies, opinions, and temperaments of the four people we’re watching, and how they do or don’t mesh with one another.
“Carnage” is based on the play “God of Carnage” by Yasmina Reza. The film is directed by Roman Polanski, who does little with his camera to take away from the staginess inherent in plays. The camera doesn’t move much, and many of the shots are set up from a distance, so as many of the actors can be in the frame as possible. This would be a bigger issue in a more open space, but the room that the actors have to maneuver in is so close and the dialogue moves back and forth from one character to the next so fast that it makes sense as a stylistic choice. It becomes an even more powerful choice when Polanski does decide to move into a close up. The words that characters are speaking are given special reverence and attention when their face fills the screen. It’s an advantage that films have over live theatre, and Polanski exploits it quite well.
The downside of filming in a lot of wide shots is that it can show a lack of chemistry between the actors. Of this, “Carnage” is at fault. Individually, Foster, Reilly, Waltz, and Winslet are all at the top of their game. Each one of them gives their most passionate all to truly embrace their characters and his or her point of view. But as good as they all are on their own, they don’t play off of each other very well. Dialogue among characters should be like a game of tennis. Someone serves, then there is a back and forth until a point is won. Following this analogy, in “Carnage” it’s almost as if one character serves, then instead of hitting the ball back, the other character just grabs the ball and does their own serve. The actors never hit a stride with a strong tit for tat, and Polanski is a good enough director where he should have worked on that a bit more.
The situation that keeps the Cowan’s at the Longstreet’s apartment is also a bit contrived, particularly in the case of Alan, who is very busy and obviously wants to get out as fast as possible. The fact that he stays around and engages in the conversation stretches credibility to the point of almost breaking.
Whatever the gripes may be, they pale in comparison to what’s at the heart of “Carnage”: the characters. These are four fully rounded people, each with an individual sense of self and a fully formed world view. We watch as the façade of civilized discourse fades away, and each reveals his/her true self. Nerves are tested, tempers flair, beliefs about life, marriage, work, and the state of the world are all passionately discussed. A ticket to see “Carnage” is an invitation to watch a great debate. In it, we can all see something of ourselves, and hopefully, something of others as well.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
