It is Some Fairly Decent Carnage

Two sets of parents meet at one of the couples’ apartments to discuss a fight that occurred between the couples’ children. So sets the stage of Roman Polanski’s 2011 film, “Carnage.” Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly play Penelope and Michael Longstreet. Kate Winslet and Kristoph Waltz play Nancy and Alan Cowan. Nancy and Alan are invited to talk about their childrens’ fight at Penelope and Michael’s New York City apartment. The object of the discussion is to talk through what happened and to discuss what kind of monetary repayment for broken teeth shall be incumbered, as well as what kind of punishment is to be given.
“Carnage” is one of those films that can be described as “it’s not for everybody.” It can also be described as a filmed play, which I do not find distracting, but it does put some people off. With the exception of a park as a background for the opening and closing credits, the apartment is the only location in the film. “Carnage” reminded me of David Mamet’s fantastic 1994 film, “Oleanna.” “Oleanna” was much better than “Carnage,” however, Polanski’s film is not without merit. “Oleanna,” pissed me off, but in a very good way. “Oleanna” left me taking one side of the issue and wanting to yell at the screen and talk about it at great lengths with movie friends after watching it. I could easily watch “Oleanna” once a year. “Carnage,” while well-made and well-acted, did not have a great deal of emotional teeth. It did not make me want to discuss the issues raised in the film. It did not make me want to take one side’s position and champion it to the degree to which did Mamet’s film. The fact that “Carnage” is so well-acted is to it’s benefit. With lesser actors, it may have had even less impact. It is difficult to say that one actor was better than any of the others in “Carnage.” Jodie Foster, definitely gives the angriest performance in the film, while Cristoph Waltz gives the most subdued. John C. Reilly’s character, Michael, is the most likable, and is the funniest, however, that is not to say that his character is, indeed, likable. He is just the most likable out of the four fairly unlikable characters in the film. One’s reaction to “Carnage” will depend on one’s tolerance towards films that contain static scenes of dialogue and no scenes of action or stuff explodin’. I love films like “Carnage.” It is always fun to simply watch great actors and actresses act. In “Carnage,” one gets to do this. While the story depicted in the film was not of great interest to me, the very good performances by all four actors made it worth the time. Two last tangential thoughts: It was great to see John C. Reilly in a non-comedic role again. He is humorous in “Carnage,” however it is not the “Step Brothers” kind of funny which either is fun goofy or can fall flat in it’s attempt to try too hard with the vulgarity. Vulgarity can be very funny, but not if being pounded over the head with it in a “look at my disgusting butt sore” way.
Thankfully, no butt sores are seen in “Carnage,” however, there is a very memorable scene involving Kate Winslet. It was the most realistic of those kinds of scenes I have seen. I would not be surprised if it was real. It is not the way most would want to see Kate Winslet, but it is the most action-packed scene in the film. I liked “Carnage,” and if you enjoy dialogue-centered/performance driven films, I would recommend it. Before you see “Carnage,” though, seek out “Oleanna.” It is much better and is the same type of film. As well, seek out the more well-known film, “Glengarry Glen Ross,” and always remember that coffee is for closers.