To the Editor:
Jennifer Shook’sFeb. 4 article “Carol’ performances captivating, not ‘groundbreaking’ cinema" reveals an unfortunate misreading of both the film and its production history. Shook criticizes “Carol” for showing us something we have already seen (white lesbian protagonists) instead of, for instance, the intersection of race and transgender identity in less mainstream films such as “Tangerine.” This is a fine criticism of Hollywood, which long has neglected minorities and women, but not of an individual film. Instead, “Carol” should be judged on its own artistic merits, which are vast.
There are many reasons to believe “Carol” is, if not groundbreaking, at least a momentous achievement. Screenwriter Phyllis Nagy, nominated for a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar, first adapted Patricia Highsmith’s book in 1996. Yet it took 16 years for the film to see the light of day. That struggle puts the grueling production history of “The Revenant” to shame.
Indeed, when it comes to the actual film, “Carol” is fresh for its absence of the male gaze and its universalism. The lead actresses (Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara) are neither objectified nor are they banners for heavy-handed political messages. Not to mention, the film features just one sex scene and no voyeuristic violence, forfeiting millions at the box office in favor of a measured, deliberate pace. The male characters, a boyfriend and husband, are sympathetic yet tainted with the societal prejudice of the 1950s. This is a film that radically questions the place and power of men in our society. And though it is firmly influenced by ’50s aesthetics and history, “Carol” succeeds because it manages to communicate the obsessive reality of any loving relationship, gay or straight. Love is difficult, and love is personal. Carol doesn’t need to be “groundbreaking” to ring true.
Josh Wartel ’19
