Carol

I saw it too and loved it. Rooney Mara does amazing work (it's really her film and not Cate's) and it's ridiculous that she's being considered for supporting and not leading actress.

What I liked was that the film looks meticulously period and yet it's filmed in a modern style (the taxi cab shots, lighting of the interior scenes) that made it feel fresh and relevant. The restraint of the script was admirable. I don't think it will catch on with a larger audience, but it's 100% worth seeing.

Opens wide December 18th. I think people expecting it as a follow-up to "Far From Heaven," a specific masterwork, should not in anticipation connect it so readily to that film, period aside. Haynes is going for something entirely different. His affection for the 50s as a mirror of repression and behind-closed-doors passions is expressed in very different ways. The source material is another's story, whereas "Heaven" was painstaking homage to the tropes and stylistic imprint Sirk (without a whiff of camp or parody, still startling over a decade later). Haynes finds an entirely different heartbeat and even a different visual style, despite sharing the same brilliant cinematographer, Ed Lachman. .

Why was the title of the book changed from "The Price Of Salt" to "Carol"?

Yeah, but the actual book is now published under the title "Carol" too.

It's been going by "Carol" for years, though - I think it changed when her real name was put on the jacket instead of her pseudonym (Claire Morgan). I could be wrong, though.

In any case, I too am eagerly anticipating the movie! :)

Interesting--I had no idea actually. I have a used copy - the 2004 one there. However I found this site that claims to explain why the novel's name changed, but it kinda doesn't explain it at all in the end... http://www.shmoop.com/the-price-of-salt-carol/

TWC is actually expanding this very, very slowly. It will only be in 100 or so theaters on Christmas.

"The Price of Salt" was never gonna be a major film's title. The selling of this film past a niche audience is still a challenge. The heavy per-screen box office reports in NYC and LA are anecdotal evidence of only a sliver of the movie-going audience this time of year. I believe it will do well, but it's early, and doesn't go wide til 12/18. ("Truth" with Blanchett, bombed, and it's not a bad movie at all.) And for what it's worth: there are no screeners yet, at least not for the WGA.* I haven't talked to SAG members.

*Assuming Nagy is a member; the screenwriter for "12 Years a Slave" was not, and we got no screeners. The union members are the early recipients, not the academy.

Updated On: 11/30/15 at 11:24 AM

I really wanted to love this because I am a huge fan of Haynes' FAR FROM HEAVEN and Cate Blanchett is one of my all time favorite actresses but henrikegerman summed it up perfectly. Not only what was left was cold and flat it basically left me feeling that way as well.

Like a preponderance of these platformed, slowly opening year-end releases -- long awaited, in the case of CAROL at least since the start of summer -- there's a predictable backlash. I hear people say BROOKLYN, ROOM, and SPOTLIGHT are overrated every day. Many of us were more than a little hungry from some rangier fare by the time October rolled round, and SUFFRAGETTE and TRUTH were so welcome. CAROL is probably easy to oversell to just about anyway It's a small, exquisitely rendered film that in every way executes Todd Haynes's vision. It's not that the hyperbole is wrong, just promising a movie that probably can't be delivered to some. One of the great pleasures of FAR FROM HEAVEN was its ability to sneak in with fanfare, but not heavy expectations. This film has only the same director and to a certain extent the same era in common (though it's not executed in any way near the say way, even with the same cinematographer.) People wanting another HEAVEN won't find that. Maybe that's part of the backlash -- or, a fairer, more neutral word -- disappointment.

The screeners went out and arrived. They have sent it to all of the unions. It's a very good one (the cinematography is preserved, unlike the "Into the Woods" last year, which is the darkest screener I've seen, some scenes almost in pitch black; the released dvd apparently corrected all that, per this board). I am rooting for Ed Lachman's work, as noted above, so far from "Far From Heaven"''s autumnal palette. The saturated color and leafless trees against grey skies very powerful. The movie is very chilly, literally, which makes its slowly escalating pulse very much part of its impact. No spoiler, but this is a love story that dares to take its time; by the standards of the time, almost generating impatience (I've read many comments to A. O. Scott's review at the Times, smart ones that simply found it too slow by half). Haynes is working with a different metronome setting, and though it pays off, it makes different demands in its storytelling. What has shocked some of my friends: how cold and aloof and not entirely likable the title character is. I think it's a strength -- the film is devoid of sentimentality -- but again, this treatment does not have the Sirk homage warmth underneath. In a way, it makes the "naughtiness" in the forbidden love far more compelling.

Saw this yesterday. I was more impressed with the design and costumes. It was nearly flawless. The story didn't do anything for me. Although well acted, I didn't buy into this great love and the life choices that were made as a result. The movie was slow, but felt rushed at the same time. If that makes sense?