Carnage

Polanski et al. have the misfortune that I saw Carnage at the theatre. There, it made me almost die in laughter, at the cinema, however, I smirked amusingly here and there (mostly over Christoph Waltz’s smirks) and laughed (reminiscing the theatre play). It’s a good film, no doubt, with good performances and direction, but I can’t avoid being disappointed, even though I’m rationally aware that comparing a theatre play with a film is stupid. Though in this case is not that stupid actually, because you can really see the theatrical origin of the film… Some lines are clearly not uttered by a normal film character, but very “theatrically” by a character in a play. (2011-12-29)

Closer was a theater play adapted to the screen, i.e. translated into film language. Carnage is not an adapted theatre play, but rather a theater play shot and edited for the screen. Theatre actors cannot rely on their facial expressions (which the audience cannot see from afar), and that’s why they are forced to overact – they must resort to exaggerated body language and loud voices. Carnage doesn’t translate the original play into film language and statically captures theatrical acting on the screen (while showing the actors’ faces from up close). That’s why some viewers say it’s an unnecessary film. For me, however, it is not unnecessary for two reasons: 1. Even if someone made me see the play in the theater, I’d hardly get the chance to see it with these four actors. 2. To watch these four actors while knowing they’d be happy to perform for Roman Polanski even without a paycheck is nothing short of an honor. (2012-01-27)

Good dialogues are a good foundation of a high-quality dialogue-based movie. The premise itself takes the lead role here – it’s incredibly original – and the actors are doing such a great job it seems they loved the premise as well. My personal favorite was Christopher Waltz and his incredibly arrogant lawyer. Nevertheless, I believe that different viewers will fall for different characters. This movie literally lives and dies with the actors and I believe that a stage play with good actors could yield the same result. (2015-11-24)

Everything Roman Polanski gains from Christoph Waltz's grimace or Kate Winslet's untenable mimicry is destroyed by the overblown premise that could never work fully outside the theater. All the coming out of doors and calling the elevator is too stupidly unnecessary in the first half, when it is absolutely clear that it will lead to nothing and everything has to return to the two rooms with incomprehensibly violent crutches. The sad irony with directly corrosive satire at its heart would work much better without convulsively snaring the plot in a single place; as it is, this massacre only manages it through hints. (2012-02-15)

The theater play has made it to the big screen. It's nothing unusual, it has happened often in the past. For example, classic Universal horror movies were originally theater plays. "God of Carnage" is a new play that I had the chance to see on stage. I still remember it. Roman Polanski didn't do anything else but transfer the play to the screen. He managed with only four characters and created a drama that criticizes society, our dependence on communication technologies, and our inability to communicate. The performances are great, you can't find fault with them, but it is still mainly a theater play that doesn't bring anything new in its film adaptation. On the other hand, the performance is more magical in the theater, especially when half of the audience in České Budějovice was right on the stage. In the movie, it's just a repeated experience that doesn't stand out in any significant way, but it also doesn't disappoint. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/04/diar-milovnika-filmu-c-0004-hugo-buh.html (2013-02-15)