I recently saw the movie, Carnage, by Roman Polanski (a
movie adaptation of the play ‘God of Carnage’ by Yasmin Reza). Like Oleanna
movie, it dealt with complex human relationships and blame games of a situation
and was set mostly in the confines of a living room with four characters.
Interestingly both movies ended up with people playing football in the park
perhaps to denote that life goes on beyond the musty cobwebs of emotional
verbal entanglements. While Mamet is no Oscar winning Polanski I felt his
direction was compelling and drew you in like a thriller, rather than the drama
as intended by the original play. The movie though slow and pedantic, a little
staged at first ( not for the usual
Friday night cinema goers), began to pick up pace from normality to highly charged primitive
insanity. The discerning movie buff needs to look underneath the complex layers
to see the subtle nuances beyond the script as related to all human misunderstandings
and miscommunication to make an impact.
I was surprised to
find out that the playwright was also the director and screenplay writer of the
movie as most hand over that mantle to others. In that sense the movie must be
a true representation of the writers vision and came across so except in the
ending when John beats up Carol before picking up the chair and says “ Oh my
God “. I wonder why Mamet decided to change this from the original play.
Perhaps he succumbed to pressure that a movie needed more dramatic action and
shock factor. However, while I think the extra three words shows John’s remorse and self realization of what he has
done out of character from his normal sense, I think just putting the chair
down as the original has more effect. Further, her response to his final elipsed
word “ well…” which is “ Yes that’s
right” changes in context now from the play. In the play there is ambiguity in her words but in the
movie her rebuttal is an affirmation of his wrongdoing and makes Carol
revengeful and self righteous and downright smug as she celebrates her victory
which flaws the movie. In the original context it appears that no one wins and
both are left disillusioned. In fact both play and movie still leave us with
the question of who are the traditional protagonist and antagonist. Perhaps
John is the hero and Carol his foil or maybe nemesis? Or is Carol the heroine
and John the villain ? There is room for
interpretation and debate.What do you think ?
The movie has definite rhythm and pace in its dialogue
delivery and both actors do a commendable job in bringing the characters to
life. The movie succeeds in its auditory capacity as tone changes with shouted
words revealing greater insight into mood than the script alone. The script is
annoying to read with its broken elipsed sentences and in this cannot compete
with the movie.
The script and dialogue show the transformation of the
characters and their role reversal; Carol from meek, confused, immature student
to confident, self assured assertive
woman and John from conceited, condescending
but still caring and affable stressed professor of high stature to
harrowed, insecure and aggressive man. Words are used effectively to mirror
this change from high end vocabulary from John that Carol does not understand
such as “predicliction” showing his status of mature academic to basic and
primal profanity of “ bitch” akin to hoodlum talk. However, for a brief point there is an
equilibrium that boils over to events going out of control. The movie enhanced
this metamorphosis visually with the costume design. At first Carol is in a
coat showing a student devoid of funds or style to a business like suit. Her
clothes a form of power dressing shows she means business and will not tolerate
nonsense from her former superior. On the other hand John dressed as the
conservative, respectable academic turns into a disheveled drunk. Roles of
student and professor are broken down, gender and status and age become
irrelevant as they face each other as two sparring equals in the climax. What
was interesting and not in the play was when John looked at his ripped bleeding
shirt and seemed shocked at how he had got to this point, and how did it all go
wrong. The pristine shirt may be a metaphor for his ruined life.
As far as film techniques I am pretty sure I noticed the
shadow of the camera on the door which is a major goof up. That aside at times
the camera moves into the face of John highlighting his confusion in an otherwise
confident demeanor, but Carol remains an enigma and is difficult to decide if
she is delusional and naive or cruelly
manipulative. Subtle camera movements move along the storyline and maintain
momentum of the events and dialogue. However I felt the film was dimly lit by
the lighting people and full of shadows perhaps to add to the claustrophobia of
the restrictive settting, but the cinematographer mostly does not allow us to
see the eyes of the character leading to ambiguity of motive and intentions and
echo the dark theme. But then again this pattern of one setting of the play is
broken by short periods out such as John in his hotel room which takes away
Mamet’s original intent of feeling trapped. When he takes the final phone call
and reacts to her comment not to call his wife “baby” reveal a very ominous and
evil look on his face foreshadowing his reaction and intent.
The University office was as I imagined musty, old fashioned
and masculine with woodwork and book shelves like a library revealing the
elitest world of higher learning that was once just a male domain. Tearing down
of the book shelves could be a metaphor for tearing down the establishment.
All in all the pros out weigh the cons and bring the written
word alive with music adding to the mystique. And whether you root for the
hapless yet haughty professor or the conniving and annoying Carol caught in her
feministic tirade is irrelevant. What is important to note is how difficult it
is even for two level headed, educated people to communicate. Words the crux of education and academia fall
by the way side and the most primal instincts take over where communication
happens through violence. The movie and the play are both thought provoking,
provocative and disturbing but are realistic as it is controversial. And
finally we need to note the adage that there are three sides to every story:
his, hers and the truth !
No comments:
Post a Comment