Directed by:
Roman PolańskiCinematography:
Pawel EdelmanComposer:
Alexandre DesplatCast:
Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C. Reilly, Elvis Polanski, Joseph Rezwin, Tanya Lopert, Julie AdamsVOD (1)
Plots(1)
After two boys duke it out on a playground, the parents of the "victim" invite the parents of the "bully" over to work out their issues. A polite discussion of childrearing soon escalates into verbal warfare, with all four parents revealing their true colors. None of them will escape the carnage. (Prime Video)
Videos (13)
Reviews (12)
Apparently, it doesn't take much to make a good and interesting film. And it doesn't need to burn either a budget or time. One apartment, four people, and well-written dialogue, where you know where it’s going but you still enjoy it. I was expecting a slightly different ending, God knows why, but I'm certainly not complaining. Pretty good, a strong 3.5 stars.
()
Polanski et al. have the misfortune that I saw Carnage at the theatre. There, it made me almost die in laughter, at the cinema, however, I smirked amusingly here and there (mostly over Christoph Waltz’s smirks) and laughed (reminiscing the theatre play). It’s a good film, no doubt, with good performances and direction, but I can’t avoid being disappointed, even though I’m rationally aware that comparing a theatre play with a film is stupid. Though in this case is not that stupid actually, because you can really see the theatrical origin of the film… Some lines are clearly not uttered by a normal film character, but very “theatrically” by a character in a play.
()
In life, we put on various masks and suppress our emotions and instincts in order to avoid confrontation with our surroundings and not jeopardize our interests and social status. Only in exceptional cases do we take off the masks and reveal our inner selves. In Carnage, this happened to four participants of a meeting that was supposed to serve as a reconciliation. However, vanity, anger, and alcohol led to the abandonment of the civilizational shell and exposed what we usually hide from our surroundings. Carnage is a black comedy about what happens to people when they lose control and become dangerously honest. It would probably be more suitable for theater stages, where it ultimately belongs, but Roman Polanski managed to gather four top actors in a small space, and thus the theater layout doesn't really matter. I had a great time, and as I think about it, it's actually a pity to originally give it 4 stars, so I'm adding a fifth one. Especially considering the two ladies who thoroughly enjoyed playing their hysterical and poser characters. Overall impression: 90%.
()
Closer was a theater play adapted to the screen, i.e. translated into film language. Carnage is not an adapted theatre play, but rather a theater play shot and edited for the screen. Theatre actors cannot rely on their facial expressions (which the audience cannot see from afar), and that’s why they are forced to overact – they must resort to exaggerated body language and loud voices. Carnage doesn’t translate the original play into film language and statically captures theatrical acting on the screen (while showing the actors’ faces from up close). That’s why some viewers say it’s an unnecessary film. For me, however, it is not unnecessary for two reasons: 1. Even if someone made me see the play in the theater, I’d hardly get the chance to see it with these four actors. 2. To watch these four actors while knowing they’d be happy to perform for Roman Polanski even without a paycheck is nothing short of an honor.
()
“My Kokoschka!“ With films such as Repulsion, The Tenant and Death and the Maiden, Polanski demonstrated that he can build tension with just one room and a few actors to the point where we are ready for anything while having no idea what to expect. Carnage is made up of concise scenes, yet it continuously puts great effort into the absolute deconstruction of civilisation (which, together with the enclosed space, is reminiscent of the darker The Exterminating Angel). ___ The quartet of sufficiently different people who are, however, afflicted with the same social pretence gradually forget the basics of polite behaviour and even what social group they belong to. They lose their cool, inhibitions and even control over their own bodies, driven by concealed aggression and instinct (grunting laughter, automatic reactions to a ringing telephone). ___ In contrast to the original plan (a calm discussion in a setting decorated with tulips from Holland), the non-observance of which will most adversely affect Penelope, they begin to reveal their own transgressions and character flaws with devastating honesty. Their attachment to material things (mobile telephone, handbag, cigars, a bottle of Scotch, art books) is merely a triviality to get the ball rolling. ___ Their inability to face the unpleasantness which they would prefer to remove from their lives, like getting rid of a bothersome hamster, comes back to haunt them. We are not watching the failure only of individuals confusedly taking on different roles (man/woman, partner, parent) for a moment, but of an entire community. Only by gradually breaking down the civilisational walls that we build around ourselves is it possible to return from selfishly resolving personal problems to the suppressed collective (un)consciousness. Rejoining the clan that we left voluntarily and whose other members we only pretend to be interested in. The meeting, whose consequences are wisely concealed from us, could be beneficial for the participants at least as a means of returning them to their wild essence (indicated by the drums in the opening and closing background music) and the attendant self-discovery. ___ Behind the comedy, intensified with perfectly timed jokes to the point of inducing a nervous breakdown in everyone involved, there is a bitter, almost anthropological study of human dissatisfaction and the inability to overcome that dissatisfaction. (Their publicly revealed unhappiness derives “only” from honestly describing their current state.) For example, through the entirely banal acceptance of responsibility for parenting. Also, dealing with outside and, for example, even very remote problems (Darfur) doesn’t offer any redemption, but just another way to avoid the essence of the matter at hand. This is correctly pointed out by Alan, whose absolute indifference to the fleeting family-relationship bullshit enables him to have the most sober view of the whole farce (another thing is that his work may be even more fleeting as a result of that indifference). ___ Waltz’s precise gestures and intense emphasis on words with the potential to create conflict, complemented with the nonchalance with which he turns the Longstreets’ apartment into his workspace (or rather a café with a bar) make him the star of the proceedings in my opinion. With his “I don’t think anything” attitude, John C. Reilly is also excellent, as his Michael, an entirely simple man burdened with a mostly unresolved Oedipal complex, is the first to lose interest in pretending. However, the women do not stay in the background, as they are believably hysterical and, at the same time, above the men’s one-upmanship. ___ The mirror in the film serves to optically enlarge the space and, like the placement of the characters in the individual shots, informs us of the current distribution of belligerent forces, while the film itself is also a mirror. If you’re willing to look into it for a mere eighty minutes and think about what you’ve seen, perhaps it will, for starters, make you not brush off the question “How are you?” with the same answer as usual. Yeah, idealism. I’m healing. By observing people. Appendix: It occurred to me later that Carnage could also be understood as a politically incorrect response to The Descendants, a film that avoids the truth with such determination that if there were any sex in it, the people doing it would probably pray even when casting off the masks of civilisation (another one of Alan’s apt observations). 90%
()
(less)
(more)
Ads