Carol (2015) Review

A shop assistant in a Manhattan department store sells a train set to an elegant woman who leaves her gloves on the counter. She returns them. That is the entire inciting incident and the film treats it with the weight of a declaration, correctly.

The 9 is for an adaptation that understood its source was written in implication and refused to translate it into speech. Phyllis Nagy spent more than a decade on the screenplay and the result is astonishingly quiet. Whole scenes turn on where somebody puts a hand.

The point I hold is for Harge, Carol’s husband, who is written with real sympathy and still ends up carrying more plot than character. Kyle Chandler does what can be done. The part is the film’s one concession to needing something to happen.

Everything Happens Through Glass

Ed Lachman photographed the film through obstruction almost continuously. Car windows streaked with rain, department store display cases, the fogged glass of a diner, mirrors, doorframes, the gap between a curtain and a wall.

That is not decoration. In 1952 a relationship like this one exists only in what other people fail to notice, so the film puts something between the camera and the women in nearly every shot. The audience is placed where the characters live, which is slightly outside the room, looking in.

Lachman and Haynes shot on Super 16 instead of 35mm or digital, because the format carries visible grain. Their stated reference was not other films of the period but the still photographers working then. The intention was to document the era instead of imitating how the era photographed itself.

The result is a film that looks like a memory of the 1950s owned by somebody who was there, all texture and interference. Compare it to Haynes’s own Far From Heaven, which is glossy on purpose because it is imitating Douglas Sirk. This one is doing the opposite job.

The framing does one more thing worth watching for. Therese is an aspiring photographer, so the film keeps handing her a camera and letting her decide what to point it at. Her arc is legible entirely through those choices, from tentative shots of strangers to a portrait of Carol taken without asking permission first.

Nagy Cut the Novel Down to Gestures

Patricia Highsmith published The Price of Salt in 1952 under a pseudonym, and it was notable then for a reason that sounds small and was not: the two women are alive and together at the end. That was close to unheard of.

Nagy’s adaptation removes almost all of the novel’s interiority and finds physical equivalents. Therese’s longing is not narrated. It is a hand on a shoulder that lasts a half second too long, a camera raised and lowered, a glance held past the point of safety.

The screenplay also restructures the story to open near its end, at a table in a restaurant where a man interrupts the two women without any idea what he has interrupted. The film returns to that scene later, and the second time you understand everything that was at stake in it.

That is the single best structural decision in the film. The same footage plays twice with entirely different weight, and the audience does the work of supplying the difference.

Nagy also declines to give either woman a speech about what she is or what she wants. Neither character names the thing happening to her at any point in the film. The closest anybody comes is Carol telling a room of lawyers what she will not do, and even that is phrased as a practical decision about custody.

Two Performances Built on Withholding

Cate Blanchett plays Carol as a woman performing composure while her life comes apart. The glamour is armor and the film shows you the seams. Her most affecting moment is a legal meeting in which she stops performing entirely and speaks plainly about what she will and will not do to her daughter.

Rooney Mara plays Therese as someone who has not yet found out what she wants. The performance is built almost entirely from watching, and the arc is a young woman moving from being looked at to doing the looking.

Mara was campaigned for Best Supporting Actress despite having more screen time than Blanchett, a category decision that drew comment. She was nominated, as was Blanchett for Best Actress, along with the screenplay, cinematography, costumes and score. It won none of the six.

The film missed a Best Picture nomination entirely, which produced a substantial critical outcry at the time. A year later the British Film Institute’s critics poll named it the best LGBT film ever made.

The Cost Is Made Specific

The film is precise about what this relationship costs, and the precision is what keeps it from being a mood piece.

Carol’s husband uses a morality clause to seek custody of their daughter. A private investigator records the two women in a motel. The evidence is not a scandal in the abstract. It is a tape, in a lawyer’s office, played to determine whether a woman may see her child.

That specificity does something a general sense of oppression cannot. The audience can count the price. Carol’s decision at the end is a decision about a named child, a named clause and a named consequence, and she makes it in front of a table of men.

The ending is quietly radical for the same reason the novel was. Nobody is punished, nobody dies, and the last shot is a woman looking across a room at another woman and the film ending there, with the outcome available and unstated.

Compare that to almost every other studio treatment of the subject in the following sixty years, where the relationship is generally paid for with a death or a breakdown. Highsmith refused that in 1952 and Nagy refused it in 2015, and the refusal is the reason both versions matter.

What Restraint Buys and What It Costs

Carol cost around twelve million dollars and made about forty-two. It was in development for more than a decade. Nothing about it is expensive except the time.

What that restraint buys is durability. The film has no effects to date, no soundtrack cues to embarrass it, no dialogue explaining its themes. It is built from performance, framing and period detail, and those age slowly.

What restraint costs is audience. A film this quiet asks viewers to lean in for two hours and gives them very little in the way of event. People who bounce off it usually bounce off it early, and their complaint is that nothing happens, which is accurate and beside the point.

I would still argue it earns the last of its rating on rewatch more than on first viewing. Once you know where the restaurant scene sits in the chronology, the whole first hour reads as suspense.

Should you watch Carol?

Yes, and give it your full attention instead of half of it. This is a film where the plot advances through gloves, glances and where somebody chooses to sit, and if you watch it while doing something else you will conclude that nothing happens in it.

Frequently Asked Questions