Deus da Carnificina

A one-act play, centring on two sets of parents in a Brooklyn apartment discussing a violent episode between their children, sandwiched between a very short, speech-free prologue and epilogue as credits roll. The ostensibly liberal but clearly uptight mother and apparently more conciliatory but hen-pecked father of the victim invite the aggressor's parents (she overtly more community-spirited, he more put out as he manages a work crisis on his mobile) over to talk about the incident, as responsible adults, but the ensuing clash of attitudes prompts a descent into the sort of puerile behaviour that was precisely the intended subject of the conversation.

Well cast, the four players interpret the sharp, witty lines with aplomb, one's sympathies leaping around from character to character as they gradually unravel, but without ever settling anywhere for long as each in turn cedes any moral high ground as quickly as they gained it. There is scorn aplenty (subtle and blatant) as rivalries and alliances are repeatedly struck and dashed. One can forgive the improbability of the meeting surviving several junctures when it would more naturally end because the dialogue continues to give.

I guess you can't go far wrong with such a script in the hands of this director and group of actors and it makes for a very watchable film, although I'm guessing the stage is its real home and I'll look out for it there.

Size matters, right? even for Roman, after the brilliantly intricacy-crafted THE GHOST WRITER (2010), the scale of CARNAGE shrinks just like a hors d'oeuvre, no wonder its lukewarm feedback is percolating in spite of the lure of 4 Oscar-bounded leading thespians. Actually the response is par for the course, the film hinges on a more stringent time schedule (literally the exact time audience spends in front of the big screen), which is too featherweight to be considered seriously for the Oscar race (referring to other play-adapted Oscar dearest CLOSER 2004 or DOUBT 2008, both at least possess a decent time span), but which doesn't thwart all the fun one could obtain from a feature film.

The disintegration of these two pairs of parents is intrigued bit by bit with derision, insult and disdain, the initial wrangle of two flatly unfamiliar couples are reflecting everyone's customary procedure of dealing with strangers, the approach of eclipsing others in a restrained manner in order not to break a fragile bottom line "our face of respect", and once Nancy (Kate Winslet's character) has lost her face with a hilarious vomit to all the civil pretentiousness, the battle of matrimony, sex, social supremacy and civil wit is officially instigated, the carnage of verbal assaults prevails and within a compact 80 minutes, the dialogues are drolly sharp and incisive, wounds are acute without bleeding,

The grand cast is beyond any accomplishment, Jodie Foster manifests her excellent curb in melodrama in many years though is a shade over-the-top during the end and Kate Winslet never mislead her devotees albeit being self-conscious in sundry scenes, Christoph Waltz fiendishly holds his introvert nature all the time while being socially authentic; arguably the weakest line, john C. Reilly is in his comfort zone to liberate the venom under his goody-goody disguise.

One big plus is the film ends ideally when the fray starts to become stale, so Polanski is still as crafty as any filmmakers could ever wish for.

In the face of such classics as Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby it would be a hollow statement to label Carnage one of Roman Polanski's best films; it's shockingly minimalistic compared to the rest of his catalog, and almost anachronistic in its old fashioned filmmaking style and stripped-down production. Many were probably disappointed by the film purely because of Polanski's name; it might have been better received if it was directed by a young newcomer. Case in point: 12 Angry Men and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, directed by young newcomers Sidney Lumet and Mike Nichols, respectively. Both are still considered among the best each director achieved, but also as experimental debuts that would lead to bigger and more ambitious things. Obviously this is not the case with Carnage, which is a veteran director returning to his roots, to a minimalism not seen in his work since the 50's. And yet, it's so much better than any of the more ambitious films he made in recent years - The Ghost Writer, Oliver Twist, The Pianist and The Ninth Gate all having their merits, but none a real classic or any kind of a surprise.

Not to say that Carnage is as good as 12 Angry Men or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, masterpieces of minimalism and cinematic landmarks. Carnage isn't any real news, cinematically speaking, but it's a wonderful exercise in acting and interaction, and if you're a fan of minimalistic cinema like I am you're bound to find interest in it. I never found it boring for a second - uncomfortable, yes, grating even, but never dull, I was completely drawn in by the wonderful performances of the leads - Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly - who manage to covey four complex, fascinating, repulsive and very realistic characters, and by the ever-shifting relationships and alliances between them. While it's clearly a filmed play - and Polanski let the original text shine - he makes excellent use of the possibilities the film format allows, from the bombastic and melodramatic to the quiet and subtle, neither of which is possible on stage, at least not in the same way.

Carnage isn't necessarily a masterpiece but it's a wonderful intellectual exercise and one of my favorite films of 2011. For fans of Roman Polanski or for anyone who loved minimalistic films with compact casts, from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf to Tape and Cube, it's highly recommended.

This is not only a movie for the thinking man. One is allowed to sit back 80 minutes, laugh a lot and leave the cinema satisfied. There is no need to discuss and interpret, the message is delivered in nicely-served bits of satirist speeches which are easy to follow. Our civilization is based upon lies. So how does Roman Polanski achieve it to present us this cheerless idea in such an incredibly cheerful way?

It's the actors and the characters they play. They are rich, they are cultivated, but not too aloof. One still is able to identify with the characters. The woman with the big heart for Africa played by Jodie Foster and married to the slightly corpulent shop-owner played by John C. Reilly. The other couple consists of the most charming investment consultant played by Kate Winslet and the busy yet stylish lawyer, wonderfully acted by Christoph Waltz. The reason for their little meeting is a fight between two boys. Two civilized married couples having a civilized meeting. If there's something negative, it's sad behind the other's back. But slowly the good attributes become ironically stretched, blurred, we know the roles of the single characters so well that consequently only hate remains. We hate the super-human Jodie Foster. We hate the darling Kate Winslet for her being blatantly drunk and not being able to control herself. We hate John C. Reilly for his diplomacy and simple-mindedness. Only Christoph Waltz remains jet-set. The scene in which he talks to John C. Reilly's mother on the phone is so great you can't draw a border between noble showmanship and sheer arrogance.

Great actors, great story (it reminded me a bit of Clybourne Park, but it was better), not too thoughtful, not too thoughtless - but all chewed. I love the moment of cracking the nutshell of a movie, the moment of realization. Sadly, Roman Polanski left that nutshell out. What remains still is very delightful, though.

it is not a surprise. the cast is great and the script/play gives many opportunities for demonstrate this fact. image of a crisis, simple and powerful, impressive for the precision of scenes,a play who has chance to has extraordinary actors, it is a splendid exploration of characters and society human types. a special film who seems be almost extravagant.because all is different by common recipes. the transformation of masks in aggressive tools, the fragility of existences and marriages, the force of accusations, the frustrations as axis of a form of survive. a bitter comedy, a deep drama. and one of guide movies who reminds the purpose of real cinema - art as subtle reflection of life.