We watched Roman Polanski’s, Carnage, today. The movie wasn’t great understatedly, and about 40 minutes into it I commented that it should have been a play, especially since there were basically only two settings throughout, a living room and a bathroom off the master bedroom where Christopher Waltz (the best part of the whole thing) whose character played Jodie Foster’s character’s husband is washing vomit off his pants, the courtesy of Nancy Cowan, played by Kate Winslet. Actually, it was a play originally, and I think I wouldn’t have dozed off intermittently had I been in public, and the play would have also held my interest a bit more than the film did, I think. The film was based on a play written by a French playwright, Yasmina Reza. How closely it followed the play, I don’t know, but it was also filmed in France since Polanski can’t come to the US.
As usual, I saw things in this film that no one else did and perhaps for that reason I liked it somewhat better than they did. It’s my opinion that the reason that I saw what I did, but they didn’t is because I saw it with three lefties.
The thrust of the whole fiasco (there is no such thing as a spoiler here) is that the Cowans’ son had his teeth knocked out at school in a brawl with and by the Longstreet’s son. It sounds like these were permanent teeth because of the age of the boys, around 13 or so, therefore a much more serious matter. The Cowans invited the Longstreets to visit them at their Brooklyn apartment to “civilly” discuss the issue.
Penelope Longstreet is a writer and her husband is some kind of door parts salesman, much more a middle class couple than the Cowans, though Penelope is more educated than her husband, but typically left-wing in their very obvious, though futile attempt to hide any true feelings of hostility toward the Cowan's son who, as Jodie Foster put it at one point, “disfigured” their son. The aggressor’s parents are older yuppies, much more sophisticated than the Cowans. Alan Cowan is an ambulance chasing attorney and Nancy, his wife, is depicted as more sophisticated than Penelope Cowan, the writer, though I’m not sure of her career choice. (might have been revealed one of the times I dozed off, but it’s not that important)
As the story unfolds, there is a little humor as the couples try to come to some meeting of the minds about how they are going to deal with the problem. At one point, the women even ally against the men over a silly incidental. Nancy projectile vomited all over the living room, including her husband and the coffee table upon which sat some irreplaceable art magazines of Penelope’s. By this time, they should have actually left because the couples had already almost come to blows themselves in their futility to make peace. Penelope’s apple-pear cobbler was a peace-offering that caused the vomiting disaster, or at least that’s what the Cowans thought. So it’s a volatile depiction of an almost, but not ever quite achievement to a humanistically derived peace that soon evaporates because of the harsh feelings they wish to subjugate, and for which they are ashamed not to have evolved to achieve in actuality. They were not able to adequately convince even themselves of their evolution to any state of superior consciousness. That is what seemed to overshadow the feud between their sons for them. I saw this as a self-centered and egotistical character portrayal that I believe Polanski wanted to portray as Carnage at the expense of the injured boy whose plight was never really attempted to be considered from his perspective by any of them.










Comments: 30
Thanks. You too.
Who's Christopher Waltz? I think I know who Kate Winslet is...isn't she the Doll with no Breasts? ;)
Sounds like a Polish Morality Play gone awry...
...and I sound like one Man who is happy that he doesn't do the Cinema... ;)
Waltz is a British actor and I think he was in The Three Musketeers, or that's from where I think I remember him. Winslet is very pretty, but I didn't check out her boobs for you this time. I'll make note of that next time and report back.
Actually, I would love to know how Polanski looks at things now after all he's been through. I wonder whether now he might or not be sort of disgusted with what's considered liberal, and perhaps has had some kind of "breakthrough."
"This whole idea of what he did goes along with what I was trying to convey that I think Roman Polanski may have been trying to get across in his flim, Carnage. I wonder whether he may have been thrown under the bus, so to speak, by those from whom he expected to have a much more open and understanding attitude, and the film and its characters were an attempt at that portrayal. From my perspective of the film, he sees the hypocrisy of what he once was such a part. Now, I could be dead wrong, but that's what I got from it, and I see that same hypocrisy here of a bigoted nature instead, but still the same general hypocrisy. Maybe by the time Dawkins hits Polanski's age, he'll have a different attitude too."
When you only consider the title, Carnage, and as I have since seen in reviews, they say it doesn't make any sense to call it that, and they're right looking at it from that perspective because at face value there is nothing that would indicate something so vile. Yet, if you see the nuance between the injured boy and Polanski, you begin to see them as the "meat" so to speak, that was ravaged by these supposed enlightened "liberal" sorts, and who used them with no real regard to them and their plight to attempt to prove their evolved sense of morality that they were so wont to believe existed within them, but didn't at all. It was only a stinking, putrid, phony sense of morality that proved worthless and instead proved them the hypocrites they are.
Anyway, this was indicative to me as to why Polanski may have chosen to depict a character like this too. He developed the character that played the husband of the less sophisticated couple as your typical, semi-educated Democrat who latches onto this "liberal" deception that he is as enlightened as any of them he so reveres. So it isn't just the elitists that he is speaking of who had a hand in the carnage. If what I infer is correct, Polanski may have made a comment on that post I spoke of with something like, "I'm talking about YOU too."
Any, you have some very thoughtful insight into this Polanski film. You could be quite correct about his use of 'entendre', in it. I'd have to see it myself, of course, to completely understand what you are seeing.
"I'm talking about YOU, too," indeed. Wouldn't that be interesting, if he HAD come to the conclusion that you'd drawn. I wouldn't doubt it.
You said this, also, and I think it is painfully accurate for many Libs: "
Yet, if you see the nuance between the injured boy and Polanski, you begin to see them as the "meat" so to speak, that was ravaged by these supposed enlightened "liberal" sorts, and who used them with no real regard to them and their plight to attempt to prove their evolved sense of morality that they were so wont to believe existed within them, but didn't at all. It was only a stinking, putrid, phony sense of morality that proved worthless and instead proved them the hypocrites they are."
Lib's invariably wind up "hoisting themselves on their own petard..."
If you notice, for the most part, you don't see these left-wingers disagree with each other only because they have us to "other" as some call it. In the film, where there was no "other" they found themselves quite unaware of what they had done until after the fact, and they came to the realization that they had regrouped. It was a rather doltish display. The way it played out was part of the humor of the story.
The Gather Entertainment feature as it is now is part of the Skyword move as it is with Gather Politics. It's your "fast food" draw to what the masses can absorb without effort and feel as if they've been "nourished" from it. It's crap passed off as sustenance and substance, and they feed off it.
It's so much fun to imagine their "aghast" at this lowly cur's comments. ;)
But I will resist the ever so slight desire to watch the movie.
I'll have to follow you around a bit and see what you've been up to these days. You've led me to some pretty interesting stuff in the past.
Thanks, glome.