Title: Carnage
Year: 2011
Genre: Comedy, Drama
Director: Roman Polanski
Writer: Yasmina Reza (based on the play by: "Le Dieu du carnage"), Yasmina Reza, Roman Polanski (writer by)
Runtime: 80min
Cast: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C. Reilly
Produc.: SBS Productions, Constantin Film Produktion, SPI Film Studio, Versátil
Cinema, Zanagar Films, France 2 Cinéma, Canal+, CinéCinéma, France
Télévisions, Polski Instytut Sztuki, Filmowej, Wild Bunch
Budget: $25 million approx.
One day in a park, because of a dispute between
children, Zachary Cowan (Elvis Polansky) hits Ethan Longstreet (Eliot Berger)
in the face with a stick, taking out two of his teeth. After the incident,
Zachary's parents decide to visit Ethan´s parents to make it up as civilized
adults. Except that for none of them will be easy to keep that so polite
attitude.
Carnage is the title of this film, in which two eleven year olds
are just an excuse for us to see their parents face each other. The hit scene
is served to as a first course, after the opening credits, but is shown to us
from a distance, through a static camera and in a barely chopped, open frame,
from which we see the action that matters, in broad strokes.
In the next scene we get to meet
the two couples (Michael and Penelope Longstreet, and Alan and Nancy Cowan)
that will occupy the screen for the rest of the film, these, played by John C.
Rilley, Jodie Foster and by Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet, respectively.
Specifically speaking, Alan and Nancy have been those who decided to stop by
the Longstreet´s place to show how civilized they are in response to the
incident their son took part in.
The truth is, that I have never
been a big fan of Polanski, and in fact this is only the second movie I have
seen of this filmmaker, something that leaves me with very few tools at the
time of reviewing his work. However, I will take the boldness to assert that, wether
this man is the genius people talk about (and he probably is), I regret having
to point out that I honestly could not find any trace of that talent, in the
approach that he gave to this film. I think Polanski has committed a serious blunder
in his vision of this movie.
The thing goes this way: In every
movie we are located in terms of time and space, we are introduced to the corresponding
characters and explain what the conflict is. Needless to say there is no story
without a conflict. However, for this case, one will notice that is not even
the conflict that matters to the director, and instead he shows us that what
has fascinated him was the idea of having four people stuck in the same room during the
course of 80 minutes. This was the challenge that Polanski set out to solve,
which ended up forcing him to find some way in which tying up four actors to
work within four walls would be appealing, with a previous issue to resolve,
designed only as an excuse, and whose resolution, either for better or for
worse, was never of significance.
So, here the question. Once one
has seen about 15 or 20 minutes of the movie, and has begun to notice that
something strange is going on in terms of the space (because it seems that the visiting
couple has been magnetized to the department), one could begin to worry about
the enclosure of the characters being more important than the plot.
I will stop here a second to make
a brief parenthesis, because I also want to be fair to Polanski. It would be
wrong to say that in his work he has done "all bad" because it is not
like that. With Carnage he has been
able to show us an excellent ability to display certain, very interesting
aspects of the human behavior, through dialogues and viewpoints that are fairly
well handle, and where he gives us the possibility to find out about what humans
hide from others, that, that is restricted by the social barriers of our
psychology. This, thats seems very complicated, I explain it in other words:
Polanski shows very accurately how people is in reallity, when they speak their
minds. And I close the parenthesis.
Back to my eariler point, and for
those who have had the opportunity to see The
Man from Earth (2007), you will recall that it also took place almost
entirely in one room, in which a group of profesors was engaged to discussing, whether
or not one of them was actually an immortal human being, born in the days of
cavemen. This movie referred to several moments in the history of mankind, but
always to promptly focus in that one of the teachers claimed to be a lot more
older than his peers. That is, that the question to be solved by the other
teachers was, what is commonly called "conflict". In this case:
several skeptical teachers, refusing to believe they were in the presence of
Mr. John Oldman, an ancient being. And so us, viewers, would follow the film
until the last minute to find out the truth about this insane or liar fellow.
Another very clear example is 12 Angry Men (1957) by Sidney Lumet.
Those who have seen it, will remember that it took place 99.9% in a jury´s
deliberation room, where 12 individuals were to define the fate of a boy,
ruling among all if the boy would be o not, declared guilty. In this film the
conflict was quite clear from the first minute, and probably no one had
wondered if they would or wouldn´t leave the room, because one was too attuned
to the very development of the situation, of how the opinion of each of the
present was changing or showing evidence of doubt, second to second. Then it is
clear that the walls surrounding this group, little mattered, rather than to
know where the scene was taking place.
Then, if one jump from 12 Angry Men to Carnage, ends up understanding that little really matters if the
parents of the child offender will have their kid to apologize, or how the
situation be resolved. Which leads to, that after a while, the discussion
regarding the children becomes terribly boring, because we know that we will
not see their kids making it up, that we will not witness a scene of serious
dialogue between parents and children, in which they reflect. By contrast,
basically what we are going to see is two couples trying by all means to stay
calm and be respectful, but at the same time feeling offended, insulted or
attacked, and then responding to these verbal assaults in an increasingly worst
way. But no matter how much this could continue, how deep could they come to
discuss, or how much, more or less, everyone could remain calm, because they
would never actually come to a "conflict resolution", as this is
secondary. Polanski has taken this film to experience with certain aspects of
human behavior, so that when we leave the theater, we won´t yet know what was
of the aggression in the park. Instead, this director has indeed managed to
show us how he was perfectly able to lead four people to the edge and make one
to get drunk, another to throw up, or that a third raise his voice and shout
and insult another. But as to have an argument... From that, nothing. When we
leave the cinema room, what are we going to say we saw? A film about four
people fighting in a living room. No more than that. Four people talking about
their children's behavior, either to defend or admit their mistakes. But to
then go to other issues, talk about problems in Africa, criticize each other's
ways of dealing with life, and end up stressed out. Them, stressed, and us,
bored.
My rating: 3/10
My rating: 3/10
Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí
