Carnage

Working on a "sense of community," the two couples in Carnage engage in slowly evolving urban warfare, precipitated by violence in the playground between their two sons. This adaptation from the Broadway play, God of Carnage, is a soberer (by a little) version of Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Penelope (Jody Foster) and Michael (John C. Reilly) host Nancy (Kate Winslet) and Alan (Christof Waltz) in their Brooklyn apartment to iron out difficulties coming from their sons' fight, which resulted in Penelope and Michael's son's mangled mouth. What begins civilly escalates to a raw verbal mêlée with all players laying bare their prejudices and weaknesses while the issue of the repentance of Nancy and Alan's child becomes a vehicle for class and culture clash. As in director Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby, the action is almost exclusively in the small, one bedroom apartment, resulting in an uncomfortable crowding of bodies and egos. And it doesn't take long for the individual differences to surface as one is conciliatory, another confrontational, another detached, and another bewildered.

Nor does it take long (only an 80 minute production anyway) for alliances to build (and not necessarily in the same couple) with the refrain "Why are we still here?" becoming the battle cry. Yes, it doesn't turn out well, nor would most confrontations except that the civil veneer usually stays intact for most of us.

But when writers Yasmina Reza and Polanski allow the characters to speak their minds, albeit helped by Scotch, the drama gets good and the words become socially lethal. What I like best is the language, not elevated but sassy, smart, and colloquial: "Should we wrap this up?" Yes, it is a film to be wrapped, but there is no real end to the social jousting that goes on in our minds if not our mouths, which are sometimes beaten badly as careless children might do in their play.

I would like to start off my review with a little back story. I was off from work on a beautiful Southern California day and just watched Woody Allen's Manhattan Murder Mystery last night so this was a nice complimentary movie.

The basic premise of the movie is the interactions of two sets of parents who are getting together for the sole purpose of an altercation between their children. Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly are the parents of the injured child (Ethan). Kate Winslet and Christopher Waltz are the parents of the boy that hit Ethan (Zachery). The movie starts and ends in the confines of the Longstreet's apartment (Reilly & Foster). What ensues is the breakdown of civility between the two parties.

I really enjoyed the movie, especially as it was the right movie for my mood, but also because the casting was great, dialogue was sharp and as usual the directing was spot on. I went in expecting Reilly to be miscast, but he not only held his own but had some real moments. Foster is easy to hate and the one I think an award nomination is due. Winslet had a great metamorphosis as too chic investment banker. Waltz was maybe not fleshed out as much, but easily the most enjoyable. All things considered it was a Thoroughly enjoyable movie.

There is very little not to like but taken in the essence of an old fashioned ensemble And that it's wrapped up nicely with a bow, not many loose ends, it's a great 80 minute Escape from the HD life we live.

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.