Living Against Her Grain: Heteronormative Space in Carol
LGBTQ+ media has paved a way over the course of the last century to bring to light stories about identity and gender issues. Patricia Highsmith’s 1952 lesbian novel, The Price of Salt was regarded as the first same-sex novel to explore the dynamics of the couple’s relationship and give hope in it’s ending to it’s readers. Although the story lives within 1950’s New York City, it has gone on to be a staple of lesbian media since it’s sixty-years later revival of Todd Hayne’s 2015 film starring A-list actors, Cate Blanchett (Carol Aird) and Rooney Mara (Therese Belivet). The film’s release was a bold move, having two female leads at the center of attention, as we are still seeing a male dominated industry in the 21st century. The early heteronormative relationship in the film of Therese and Richard is challenging for Therese’ character, before she even really understands who she is as a person and her fluid sexuality. Her meeting with Carol re-motivates traditional gender roles within a homosexual realtionship. Thus, by disrupting the patriarch, Haynes asks an important question: can these two women’s relationships exist, even warrant a happy ending in a society that is against them?
Therese’ presentation owns the perspective of the film. One of the first glimpses of her in the store is reading a pamphlet of instructions- almost as if she is navigating a world in which she feels a stranger to. In The Feminist Spectator the article explains the space: “The binaries of country-city, wealth-poverty, and heterosexual-queer mark the film everywhere.” This space Therese navigates is represented visually with her cramped studio apartment in the beginning of the film in contrast with Carol’s mansion estate. She is trapped within a stereotypical role of working at the department store, Frankenbergs, selling dolls to a predominantly female group of consumers. These dolls are small things but really speak to the oncoming generation of young girls that are expected to play with them. It’s also worth noting that her occupation is in the heat of Christmas shopping- a holiday traditionally marketed as the poster child of a perfect heterosexual family. When Therese first meets Carol at her counter she even remarks that she would’ve wanted a train set when she was younger- betraying her expected gender preferences. The frame is tight around their encounter, as the camera is a literal device that exudes their intimate relationship. Therese initiates the gaze,“Her eyes were gray, colorless, yet dominant as light or fire, and caught by them, Therese could not look away” (Highsmith 37). Both females are actively participating in an engagement, whereas society would’ve marked a heterosexual relationship, given for instance, Richard and Therese’ relationship,( a man and a woman), as the active male and the passive female.
Mainly, in her relationship with Richard, she is regarded as only a spectacle and his words are the leading force in the one-sided relationship. In the book, their relationship is never really serious for Therese. It’s hinted at in the film, but more deliberately spelled out in the book. Therese does not agree with Richard on the terms of romance, nor does she want to be active in sexual intercourse. “It was a strange relationship, she supposed, and who would believe it?” (Highsmith 56). Gradually with time, their relationship falls out and Richard becomes hostile because Therese is no longer emotionally dependant on him. He expects her to stay in an emotionally manipulative relationship that is altogether an unequal gender role. Richard feels further threatened by Therese’ interest in Carol, and attempts to invalidate her feelings and urges that she marry him. One instance of how homosexuality redirects the gender normative is when Therese first verbalizes her desire for Carol, but not explicitly. On her walk home with Richard, Therese inquires: “Have you ever been in love with a boy?” Richard is reasonably surprised, as this question disrupts his hetero way of thinking and he crassly replies that he’s heard of people like that, to which Therese remarks: “I don’t mean people like that, I mean two people who just…fall in love.” While this can be looked on as innocence and curiosity for Therese, the statement speaks volumes to exploring past the idea of compulsive heteronormativity that she has experienced for so long. It’s just now that she is putting it all into words-as she is a stranger to navigating a male-dominant world. She’s naturally comfortable with Richard and this conversation is her projecting onto him asking questions to which she truthfully already knows the answers to. It can be argued that Carol is her first female mentor, a natural companion that she desires solely for that purpose alone. Besides this, in a more traditional sense, all of Therese’ friends are mostly Richard’s friends — who happen to all be males. Even the department store job she occupies was recommended by Richard. She continues to attempt to re-define her gender binary, in terms of working motivation and emotional vulnerability. In one scene she mentions her own interest in photography, visiting her friend, Dannie at the New York Times. She admits that taking photographs of people feels like an invasion of privacy, however, that is not the case when she warms up to Carol. Her camera acts as a device of her gaze on Carol, even later in the film when Carol buys her a new camera, she is actively encouraging her curiosity. More to Therese’ awareness is when she is shopping for a record she briefly gazes at two women standing casually wearing slacks and sporting short, butch haircuts. Judith Butler has negatively expressed drag being a “parody” and that women shouldn’t try to be like men even if they dress as such — and yet Therese doesn’t entirely shun the idea. She’s aware of her own appearance and doesn’t want to fall into the same category, so she dresses plainly and “passes” in society. It’s not until Therese pursues her photography more seriously, by taking the working responsibilities, ultimately subverting the gender roles. Carol does not hold a job, whereas Therese’ newfound relationship with her initiates her career-driveness. What makes Carol and Therese relationship tick is their mutual level-headedness paralleled with the domesticity of her “role” with Richard.
The gender-dynamic can be seen from Carol’s perspective and her presentation in the film as well. In perhaps one of the most revealing and noted scenes in the film, Carol asks Therese out for lunch in gratitude for returning her lost glove at the department store. The notion comes off as similar to that of chasing after the interest of a crush, and truly something that might not be offered by a same-sex meeting so suddenly. Richard is even aware of how unnatural their relationship is when he remarks, “You sure do have one hell of a crush on this woman. You’re like a schoolgirl.” He’s not entirely far from the truth, except in context, Therese’ interest in Carol is not a negative one like Richard imagines it to be. Upon meeting for lunch, Therese’ attire is in fact a “schoolgirl” look that craves a dominating figure. This even makes a callback to the 1931 film, Mädchen in Uniform, where the protagonist, a young school girl recently orphaned, falls for a much older, distinguished teacher. And of course the reactions from the school deem the affair unnatural. That film in particular offers the first true on-screen lesbian kiss, otherwise often mistaken as Morocco. The difference is stated in Criterion’s article from Amanda Lee Koe, “Dietrich has no further contact with this female extra, and the kiss is cynically if efficaciously played to the star’s male love interest, a legionnaire (Gary Cooper) who’s watching her saucy performance intently. Unlike in Morocco, there are no titillated men to be found in Mädchen in Uniform. It is the schoolgirls who are jacked and lusty, the schoolmarms who are patriarchal and tyrannical. The kiss, which takes place behind the closed doors of a dorm, isn’t about who’s performing for whom. It’s about what it feels like for a girl.” This, too, can be applied to what comes natural to both feelings of Carol and Therese. The film is not without intimacy. The scene is framed with a “mise-en-scène of desire”, (Sketchy Lesbians 14) as Carol is gazing at Therese. It’s even obvious to see their dynamic when Carol orders her “usual” and Therese says “All of it” to the same order. She instinctively wants what Carol wants, in more meanings than one. If not for the gesture of lunch itself, the two exchange very obvious “heteronormative ideas” that suggests they are aware of this meeting based on attraction alone: “I’m sure you thought it was a man who sent back your gloves,” to which Carol insists “No, I’m delighted. I doubt very much if I’d have gone to lunch with him.” In Anna Juarez’ article Living Against Her Grain she states: “It is suggested that Carol and Therese have these moments due to the fact they are oppressed by their society and are afraid of what will happen if they express their love openly,” as well as Carol’s remark to Therese “What a strange girl you are — flung out of space.” Juarez explains the non-traditional gender roles further by implying she is “marking her gender as alien and non-normative, a characterization enhanced by Mara’s flat, guileless delivery if not her gender presentation” (14). Carol is viewed as the older, more maternal feminine lesbian, presenting herself with a dignity and not allowing her attire to reveal too much of her sexuality. She finds it in her natural duty to pursue Therese and look after her, because she too feels that she lacks that responsibility with her own daughter, Rindy, who is now a target of possession by her separated husband, Harge. Another purpose of Carol’s desire for her is “Therese is the sexually undifferentiated child of the phallic phase who actively desires the mother.” Carol side steps involving her daughter, except for when Carol asks Therese to accompany her to her house. With Therese, Carol knows that she lacks a maternal figure, so she becomes that for her.
Not only does Carol and Therese belong in the binary, but the landscapes of the film can be further imagined with their road trip together. Carol’s “house” is more of a “mansion” and she is secure in the wealth of her husband, Harge. Even though she uses his privilege, Carol is still independent in her lifestyle and choices. With Therese’ newfound relationship with Carol, she chooses to drive across America with her, rather than going away to Europe upon Richard’s wishes. When driving through Lincoln Tunnel, “A wild, inexplicable excitement mounted in Therese as she stared through the windshield. She wished the tunnel might cave in and kill them both, that their bodies might be dragged out together. She felt Carol glancing at her from time to time.” Their relationship is marked by escaping the society that attempts to confine them, even Therese’ violent imaginings create tension that nothing else matters except for the moments she shares with Carol. She doesn’t feel trapped like she did with Richard and her and Carol share equality in the “roles” of the blossoming relationship. As Freud writes, “the fact that all the women invariably fall in love with the hero can hardly be looked on as a portrayal of reality, but it is easily understood as a necessary constituent of a daydream.” This philosophy aligns with Therese’ own feelings for Carol. Highsmith’s twisted imagination poses a formidable challenge both to Freud’s binary view of gender and to the idea of happily ever after (14). Unfortunately, the antagonizing forces and a defiant society corrupt them. After Therese and Carol act on their relationship, Harge sends a detective after them, exposing Carol’s repeated active affairs with women. Even the language used around Carol’s behaviour when fighting over custody of her daughter, skirts around the immediacy of her sexuality: “morality clause” and “misconduct”. When Harge begs Carol to come with him and Rindy on Christmas, he tells her, “It shouldn’t have to be like this,” to which Carol replies, “I know.” Harge becomes the societal representation of the masculine, dominating figure and the force that attempts to eliminate Carol’s very existence, believing her unfit to be a mother, let alone exist. His brutality is what makes their dialogue in the film so over-the-top. Carol even says that Harge just wants to control her and he feels required to do so for appearances socially. The Feminist Spectator realizes, “Carol is a performance of herself, crafted from necessity, since she’s required to be married to a man named Harge who knows she prefers women.” Carol’s closest friend and past lover, Abby, comes into the picture as a confidant for both Therese and Carol but Therese is not as keen towards her. Carol leaves in a hurry to fight the final stretch of custody over her daughter, Rindy.
It is now that Carol has returned briefly to her heternormative life to finalize her plans and move on. Therese awakes with her gone, only to find Abby waiting to drive her back home to New York. Abby gives a letter to Therese, which is very telling in what seems the end to Therese and Carol’s relationship.
“There are no accidents, and he would have found us one way or another. Everything comes full circle, be grateful it was sooner rather than later. You’ll think it is harsh of me to say so, but no explanation I offer will satisfy you. Please don’t be angry when I tell you that you seek resolutions and explanations because you’re young, but you will understand this one day. And when it happens.. I want you to imagine me there to greet you. Our lives stretched out ahead of us at a perpetual sunrise. But until then, there must be no contact between us. I have much to do, and you my darling, even more. Please believe that I would do anything to see you happy. So I do the only thing I can.. I release you.”
Therese feels hostile towards Abby because she knows that she was intimate with Carol in their previous entanglement. Even in Carol’s letter, Therese feels cheated or passed along because she is “young and naive”. But Carol’s letter misses the progression of Therese. In Therese’ progress in her own identity thus far in the narrative, she has taken on gender roles that she wouldn’t have dared realized earlier. After some time, Therese lands a job among a visually male-dominated workroom and even changes her hair and attire — proving not only to herself but to society that she has flourished into a new person, not marked by innocence or marking her in any way that might reveal her sexuality. She is comfortable with her identity, but does not necessarily feel dominated by another person to reveal it to anyone or assume a role within a partnership. Because there was no real categorization at the time, besides attire, Therese feels confident, evading any signs of her entanglement with the same-sex and free to make her own choices.
The space around her is marked with relationships within one of the final scenes of the film when she attends a party after reuniting briefly with Carol. She remarks that Therese “looks very fine” and “has blossomed” and more directly, “Is that what comes of getting away from me?” The book even says that Therese had a “coming out”, meaning not only in her sexuality but her career. Carol reveals that she has decided to get a job of her own, and asks Therese to come live with her in her new apartment, even given up her daughter to live with Harge. Therese is silent and the two of them are interrupted by one of Therese’ male friends, Jack. In their parting, Carol briefly places a hand on Therese’ shoulder, a gesture that would’ve been acceptable for these two in society at the time. In Thomason’s article he mentions, “Haynes spoke of the film being about ‘the way women are pathologized by their disease in the world’ ‘Disease may be, like gender, a social construct, but like gender it is a construct that these women must live with.’ This ending allows their “category” to be evaded because there were no real consequences seen. However, the film brings about a realization of the post-feminist world currently and allows these women’s relationship to survive. Therese had the option to choose when at the party, she glances at Richard dancing with another woman, as they’ve each since moved on, and then at Dannie before leaving the party to chase after Carol, her ultimate decision. Therese’ choice does not give her security in the homosexual life, but after cutting to black, the film leaves one with a hopeful note that Therese and Carol might embark on their relationship while evading the public eye and heternormative space that attempts to trap them. Through their relationship, Therese exhibits a newfound identity, success in her career, and an equal relationship. Thus, their homosexuality defies the standard for gender roles, before the term “lesbian” was even a category. Not only are they honest to one another, but eventually society sees that women do not desire to fall into the domesticity of a heterosexual realtionship as displayed through Highsmith/Hayne’s presentation.
Works Cited:
White, Patricia. “Sketchy Lesbians: <em>Carol</Em> as History and Fantasy.”
Film Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 2, University of California Press, 2015, pp. 8–18, https://doi.org/10.1525/fq.2015.69.2.8.
Juarez, Anna. “Living against Her Grain: An Analysis of Gender and Sexuality in Carol.” Shenandoah Film Collaborative, Strasburg Film https://strasburgfilm.com/living-against-her-grain-an-analysis-of-gender-and-sexuality-in-carol/.
Spectator, The Feminist. “7 Thoughts on ‘Carol.’”
Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, 25 Dec. 2015, https://feministspectator.princeton.edu/2015/12/25/carol/.
Thomason, John. “Flung out of Space: ‘Carol,” Genre, and Gender.” Los Angeles Review of Books, 2 Jan. 2016, lareviewofbooks.org/article/flung-out-of-space-carol-genre-and-gender/.
Nagy, Phyllis. “Carol Screenplay.” SWN Script Library , Screenwriter’s Network Co, 2015, www.screenwritersnetwork.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Carol-Script.pdf.
Highsmith, Patricia, and Claire Morgan. Price of Salt. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2015.
Haynes, Todd, director. Carol. The Weinstein Company, 2015.
Butler, Judith. “Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.” Thinking Gender, Feminism/Postmodernism, 1990, lauragonzalez.com/TC/BUTLER_gender_trouble.pdf.
Koe, Amanda Lee. “The Femme Solidarity and Queer Allyship of Mädchen in Uniform.” The Criterion Collection, 17 June 2021, www.criterion.com/current/posts/7429-the-femme-solidarity-and-queer-allyship-of-m-dchen-in-uniform.
