Ever find yourself trying to be nice and making matters worse? You err on the side of being polite and end up regretting it fifteen minutes later? When you go back and tap into the black box of the situation, you realize “It all would have been fine if I’d been firmer and just said ‘no'”. Such is the nature of trying to be agreeable: it’s the basis for the theory that no good deed goes unpunished. If ever there was a champion for the motto “This has been fun, but we have to go”, it’s CARNAGE.
CARNAGE is the story of two couples that meet to discuss an altercation between their children. Nancy and Alan Cowan (Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz) are invited to the home of Penelope and Michael Longstreet (Jodi Foster and John C. Reilly) to sort out the matter. As the film begins, it would appear as though the couples have already hashed out everything that needs to be discussed. However, The Longstreets don’t want to let an playground skirmish stand in the way of their hospitality, and they invite the Cowans to share a snack and a coffee before they leave.
Friendly as that might sound, it actually proves to be the catalyst that makes the differences between the couples really simmer over. Alan in particular doesn’t do anyone any favours by continually answering a neverending series of calls to his cellphone. The ensuing tension not causes words to get twisted, but turns bickering into squeamish marital discourse.
The couples take the disagreeable game their children were playing and go pro.
In trying to dissect CARNAGE, one has to laugh at one inescapable fact: There just isn’t a whole lot there to dissect! The plot is simple since it’s really one long conversation. The structure is direct, which makes sense given that it’s adapted from a one act play. And the characters don’t offer much evolution or depth – though the do seem to regress pretty quickly under the strain of alcohol and stress. So at a glance, it might seem like CARNAGE is a slight movie…which is not entirely true.
CARNAGE isn’t so much slight as it is frank. From the after ten minutes of watching these two couples try to remain cordial, you can tell that you’re in for an awkwardness. It’s like a blind date you realize within moments is a mistake. But much like that incompatible twerp you’re doomed to idly chat with for 78 minutes over lattés, CARNAGE doesn’t hide it’s quirks. It wears them proudly like an un-ironic GHOSTBUSTERS 2 tee shirt. That’s what makes it work; the fact that you can see the train-wreck coming, and yet you don’t ask for the cheque and grab for your car keys.
To say that the movie is a departure for Roman Polanski would be putting it mildly. After all, this isn’t a man whose films aren’t exactly what one would call knee-slapping. Prior to this, the closest thing he’s directed to a comedy is the end of THE NINTH GATE. So right from the start, the controversial director deserves props for going outside of his comfort zone. But believe it or not, there is an element to CARNAGE that makes it consistent with many of the director’s previous works. If you watch several of Polanski’s films in short order (as I did last summer) you’ll notice a constant: The stories Polanski chooses to tell are those of ordinary people getting into situations that slowly, but methodically spin out of control. CARNAGE fits beautifully into that bracket.
This runaway train of a conversation is acted wonderfully by all involved. The four actors play perfectly not just off their spouses, but also with their counterparts on the other side of the table. It’s a rare story that calls for chemistry all around the circle. I’d love to discuss stand-outs, but the interesting truth is that they all serve up aces. All four of the actors involve play their various emotions wonderfully, going just far enough over the line when they need to become cartoonish that they can quickly retreat and recover without us even noticing. Whether its feverishly defending their pet management skills, or spazzing out over an art book ruined by vomit: They amuse without overplaying their hand.
The title of this film is apt – there is carnage to be had. It’s gut-wrenching, it’s arm twisting, and it’s akin to being impaled slowly with a rusty spoon. It’s the sort of carnage that can comes watching a twisted torture you wish would end. You can almost pinpoint the moment that The Cowans and the The Longstreets outgrow each other’s usefulness, and yet they somehow keep the conversation going. What’s worse, is that the merciful end seems at hand more than once, but somehow the bloodshed of awkwardness continues. Every person in the audience is screaming “Just get in the elevator and go!”, but somehow this cluster or crazies can’t resist getting back together. It’s almost as if their over-courteous nature has them saying “Those chutes under my fingernails really hurt, but look at that – you missed a digit”.
On paper it all looks like torture. However, the way the acting and directing is executed, it takes all of that potential pain and turns it into whimsy. What’s more, is that unlike an annoying house guest, it knows not to overstay its welcome. CARNAGE quits while it’s ahead, and still has enough cheek to mutter a joke as it walks out the door. It’s a film that is tight, manic, and delightfully awkward.
Keep it in mind the next time you think to yourself “I should get going…”
This looks brilliant, especially if it’s just basically one long conversation! I’m a huge fan of Polanski too. Can’t wait to see it!
It’s based on a stage play, which is very easy to deduce given its small cast/one location format. Hope it makes its way down there soon!
I love how despite being mostly in one room, how excellent the technical film work is – the editing and photography is on point and Desplat’s score (though used for about one minute total, is so on point.)
The editing in this is beautiful. No shots linger any longer than they have to, and even though the set-up of it is somewhat static, it all has an unexpected rat-a-tat rhythm.
Might be the perfect final shot too.
That’s an Excellent Review, Ryan. This was easily the most funny film I saw in 2011 (even if I saw it Jan 1, 2012.)
I burned serious calories simply laughing out loud for about 70 minutes. Take that Judd “2 hour+ = 5 laughs” Apatow.
I got a laugh that was completely unrelated to anything happening on-screen. When I saw the showing of this movie back in December, the guy sitting across the aisle from me glanced a his phone, then got up and went for the door well into the film. Seems as though a friend of his who was supposed to join him had finally showed up.
Thing was, this was at the 70 minute mark.
His friend sat down and soaked up a glorious eight minutes of movie!
Great review, Ryan! I wasn’t too fond of Carnage, though. It started off well but as the characters unraveled, so did the movie. I found it boring, exaggerated and a mess. Winslet and Waltz were the standouts but even they weren’t very memorable. Reilly got sort of lost in the shuffle and Foster was way too OTT.