Regie:
Roman PolańskiKamera:
Pawel EdelmanMusik:
Alexandre DesplatBesetzung:
Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C. Reilly, Elvis Polanski, Joseph Rezwin, Tanya Lopert, Julie AdamsStreaming (5)
Inhalte(1)
Zwei Elfjährige prügeln sich auf einem Spielplatz, einem der beiden Jungen werden dabei Zähne ausgeschlagen. Die Eltern des „Opfers", Penelope und Michael (JODIE FOSTER und JOHN C. REILLY) haben die Eltern des „Übeltäters", Nancy und Alan (KATE WINSLET und CHRISTOPH WALTZ), eingeladen, um den Vorfall wie vernünftige Menschen zu klären. Was als friedlicher Austausch über Zivilisation, Gewalt und die Grenzen der Verantwortlichkeit beginnt, entwickelt sich schon bald zu einem Streit voller Widersprüche und grotesker Vorurteile. Und schließlich platzt die dünne Haut der bürgerlichen Kultiviertheit auf: Vier Erwachsene geraten aus der Fassung. Brutal und rücksichtslos werden Grenzen überschritten, provoziert und schließlich deutlich, dass sie alle hinter ihrer zivilisierten Maske einen 'Gott des Gemetzels' anbeten. Auf dem Schlachtfeld dieser Tragikomödie versinkt am Ende nicht nur ein Handy in der Tulpenvase... (Constantin Film)
(mehr)Kritiken (12)
Hautnah war ein verfilmtes Theaterstück, d. h. es fand eine Umwandlung in die Filmsprache statt. Der Gott des Gemetzels ist kein verfilmtes Theaterstück, es ist ein Theaterstück, das für die Leinwand aufgenommen und geschnitten wurde. Theaterschauspieler*innen können sich nicht auf die Mimik verlassen (welche die Zuschauer*innen von der Ferne nicht sehen), deshalb müssen sie übertreiben – die Körpersprache und eine erhöhte Stimme zur Hilfe ziehen. Der Gott des Gemetzels wandelte die Vorlage nicht in eine Filmsprache um, er nahm statisch eine Theaterschauspielerei auf (mit Gesichter-Details). Deshalb werfen ihm manche Zuschauer*innen vor, dass es sich um einen überflüssigen Film handelt. Für mich ist er aber aus zwei Gründen nicht überflüssig: 1. Wenn ich im Theater dieses Stück besuchen würde, wäre es bestimmt nicht mit diesen vier Super-Schauspieler*innen. 2. Wenn ich diese vier Super-Schauspieler*innen sehe und weiß, dass sie ihre Rollen bei Polański auch ohne ein Honorar darstellen würden, ist es für mich eine Zuschauer-Ehre.
()
Ein unkompliziertes, einfaches Konversationstheater auf der Leinwand. Und doch ausgezeichnet. Ein guter Text + vier selbstbewusste Schauspieler und Sie haben gewonnen. Das Kino brüllt während der gesamten Vorführung vor Lachen, denn wo sonst erkennen wir uns alle als in Stereotypen von Streitereien und Geschlechterkriegen wieder. Nicht perfekt, nicht überzeugend, voller schauspielerischer Manierismen, aber wirklich nett. Wo sonst kann man sehen, wie Kate Winslet sich über die gesamte Leinwand hinweg übergibt? Es geht um nichts Geringeres. Es ist nur schade, dass Julie Adams aus Der Schrecken vom Amazonas hier nur einen winzigen Auftritt hat.
()
Ich glaube, ich wäre begeistert, wenn ich nicht vor ein paar Monaten den Schauspielklub besucht und dieses tolle Dialogstück live gesehen hätte. Der Film wirkt daneben trocken, distanziert und wenig ausdrucksstark. Die Idee mit dem Telefonieren hat man im Schauspielklub toll hinbekommen, jedesmal rief dies eine Welle an Gelächter hervor, im Film störte das eher, trotzdem zeigt Christoph Waltz traditionell eine hervorragende Leistung. Einige Theaterstücke sollten eher nicht als Film verarbeitet werden, auch wenn dies von Regisseuren und Schauspielern mit klangvollen Namen übernommen wird.
()
“My Kokoschka!“ With films such as Repulsion, The Tenant and Death and the Maiden, Polanski demonstrated that he can build tension with just one room and a few actors to the point where we are ready for anything while having no idea what to expect. Carnage is made up of concise scenes, yet it continuously puts great effort into the absolute deconstruction of civilisation (which, together with the enclosed space, is reminiscent of the darker The Exterminating Angel). ___ The quartet of sufficiently different people who are, however, afflicted with the same social pretence gradually forget the basics of polite behaviour and even what social group they belong to. They lose their cool, inhibitions and even control over their own bodies, driven by concealed aggression and instinct (grunting laughter, automatic reactions to a ringing telephone). ___ In contrast to the original plan (a calm discussion in a setting decorated with tulips from Holland), the non-observance of which will most adversely affect Penelope, they begin to reveal their own transgressions and character flaws with devastating honesty. Their attachment to material things (mobile telephone, handbag, cigars, a bottle of Scotch, art books) is merely a triviality to get the ball rolling. ___ Their inability to face the unpleasantness which they would prefer to remove from their lives, like getting rid of a bothersome hamster, comes back to haunt them. We are not watching the failure only of individuals confusedly taking on different roles (man/woman, partner, parent) for a moment, but of an entire community. Only by gradually breaking down the civilisational walls that we build around ourselves is it possible to return from selfishly resolving personal problems to the suppressed collective (un)consciousness. Rejoining the clan that we left voluntarily and whose other members we only pretend to be interested in. The meeting, whose consequences are wisely concealed from us, could be beneficial for the participants at least as a means of returning them to their wild essence (indicated by the drums in the opening and closing background music) and the attendant self-discovery. ___ Behind the comedy, intensified with perfectly timed jokes to the point of inducing a nervous breakdown in everyone involved, there is a bitter, almost anthropological study of human dissatisfaction and the inability to overcome that dissatisfaction. (Their publicly revealed unhappiness derives “only” from honestly describing their current state.) For example, through the entirely banal acceptance of responsibility for parenting. Also, dealing with outside and, for example, even very remote problems (Darfur) doesn’t offer any redemption, but just another way to avoid the essence of the matter at hand. This is correctly pointed out by Alan, whose absolute indifference to the fleeting family-relationship bullshit enables him to have the most sober view of the whole farce (another thing is that his work may be even more fleeting as a result of that indifference). ___ Waltz’s precise gestures and intense emphasis on words with the potential to create conflict, complemented with the nonchalance with which he turns the Longstreets’ apartment into his workspace (or rather a café with a bar) make him the star of the proceedings in my opinion. With his “I don’t think anything” attitude, John C. Reilly is also excellent, as his Michael, an entirely simple man burdened with a mostly unresolved Oedipal complex, is the first to lose interest in pretending. However, the women do not stay in the background, as they are believably hysterical and, at the same time, above the men’s one-upmanship. ___ The mirror in the film serves to optically enlarge the space and, like the placement of the characters in the individual shots, informs us of the current distribution of belligerent forces, while the film itself is also a mirror. If you’re willing to look into it for a mere eighty minutes and think about what you’ve seen, perhaps it will, for starters, make you not brush off the question “How are you?” with the same answer as usual. Yeah, idealism. I’m healing. By observing people. Appendix: It occurred to me later that Carnage could also be understood as a politically incorrect response to The Descendants, a film that avoids the truth with such determination that if there were any sex in it, the people doing it would probably pray even when casting off the masks of civilisation (another one of Alan’s apt observations). 90%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
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.
()
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.
()
A decent short conversational film with excellent actors and a stifling atmosphere that will make couples laugh. It could have been funnier, but it didn't offend. Christoph Waltz excels again. 65%.
()
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.
()
Apparently, it doesn't take much to make a good and interesting film. And it doesn't need to burn either a budget or time. One apartment, four people, and well-written dialogue, where you know where it’s going but you still enjoy it. I was expecting a slightly different ending, God knows why, but I'm certainly not complaining. Pretty good, a strong 3.5 stars.
()
In life, we put on various masks and suppress our emotions and instincts in order to avoid confrontation with our surroundings and not jeopardize our interests and social status. Only in exceptional cases do we take off the masks and reveal our inner selves. In Carnage, this happened to four participants of a meeting that was supposed to serve as a reconciliation. However, vanity, anger, and alcohol led to the abandonment of the civilizational shell and exposed what we usually hide from our surroundings. Carnage is a black comedy about what happens to people when they lose control and become dangerously honest. It would probably be more suitable for theater stages, where it ultimately belongs, but Roman Polanski managed to gather four top actors in a small space, and thus the theater layout doesn't really matter. I had a great time, and as I think about it, it's actually a pity to originally give it 4 stars, so I'm adding a fifth one. Especially considering the two ladies who thoroughly enjoyed playing their hysterical and poser characters. Overall impression: 90%.
()
A perfect film where all four actors give perfect performances. You know what I Carnage probably reminded me the most? The good old Czechoslovak TV plays, which also needed so "little" to take your breath away.
()
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
()