Here are some photos from the Cannes Film Festival premiere and photocall for Todd Haynes’ new film, Carol. It’s a drama set in the 1950s about a woman, Carol (played by Cate Blanchett) who sort of embarks on a love affair with a young woman (played by Rooney Mara). It’s supposed to be a rather beautiful, striking film and it’s already getting rave reviews at Cannes, with many critics already claiming that Blanchett will pick up her seventh career Oscar nomination for the performance.
As for fashion… at the photocall, both Cate and Rooney wore McQueen. I wonder if they planned that out? Because it worked out perfectly – Cate was the black-clad badass and Rooney looked ethereal and virginal. They were like yin and yang. For the premiere, Cate wore this over-the-top Giles Fall 2015 gown. I’m not really into it. Like, I could have gone with her on the whole HUGE skirt/ball gown thing, but the fabric is killing it for me. Rooney wore a Rochas gown from 2005 to the premiere. I’m not really into her look either.
Last week, we discussed how Cate had apparently told Variety that she had been in intimate relationships with women “many times” – go here to recap that interview. Cate was asked about that in Cannes, and she sort of took it back, telling journalists:
“From memory, the conversation ran: ‘Have you had relationships with women?’ And I said: ‘Yes, many times. Do you mean have I had sexual relationships with women? Then the answer is no.’ But that obviously didn’t make it.”
“But in 2015, the point should be: who cares? Call me old fashioned but I thought one’s job as an actor was not to present one’s boring, small, microscopic universe but to make a psychological connection to another character’s experiences. My own life is of no interest to anyone else. Or maybe it is. But I certainly have no interest in putting my own thoughts and opinions out there.”
The journalist was Ramin Setoodeh, the same guy I recently complained about with that awful Michael Fassbender interview. So… I mean, it’s perfectly possible that Setoodeh misquoted Cate or misrepresented the context of her answer. For what it’s worth, Setoodeh tweeted: “When I asked Cate Blanchett if she’d had lesbian relationships in real life, she said: ‘Many times.’ She was accurately quoted.” Blah, whatever. I don’t think Cate really cares if you think she’s bisexual, so either way… blah, it’s no big deal.
Last thing – at the photocall, there was a lot of butt-grabbing between Todd Haynes, Rooney and Cate. I think Haynes grabbed some booty first (from both ladies) and they responded by grabbing him right back.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.
I can’t stand Cate, but I must admit she is gorgeous.
I’m beginning to find her annoying, too.
I’ve never liked her, and find her very plain looking…maybe, if she smiled once in awhile……
I think she’s elegant and carries herself well, but something about her face has always thrown me off. I have to think about whether I actually believe she’s beautiful whereas with other attractive people I just immediately decide whether I think they’re beautiful or not. Nonetheless, I can see why she’s a successful movie star (she has that elusive presence or gravitas that makes a fine actor).
oops…I thought you were talking about Rooney Mara, which is why I made the “never smiles” comment!!!! My bad!!!!!!
Mn, I don’t know but it really seems like she retracted what she previously said. It’s obvious ‘relationship with women’ was intended to be sexual.. so why did she hint ‘many times’.. especially IF the journalist talked about lesbian relationships. Meh.
not only did the journalist ask about it she is playing a role in a lesbian movie, the context should be very clear. its none of his business but that question obviously was aimed at lesbian/bisexual relationships given the movie she is promoting.
I don’t want to be the apologist here – but is it possible that she was trying to point out how stupid the question and journalist was? Like, she thought he was trying to get her to say something about lesbianism for titillation purposes, which she objected to, and so when he said “have you had relationships with women?” it was almost with an eyeroll that she answered, “yes, many times” (because she wanted to point out that ‘relationships’ don’t have to be sexual). I mean, she says she added ‘Do you mean have I had sexual relationships with women? Then the answer is no’ which is pretty clear…
I mean, if the journalist has previous form in being a dick….
@CM – that’s how I understood it as well. That guy is known for being an annoying jerk who asks stupid questions. She is a known feminist who takes AskHerMore to the extreme. It’s possible that Cate was annoyed that for him relationships must imply sexual. She wouldn’t be the first person to mock his way of questioning. Last time he asked Fassbender if the movie about Jobs is dark – I’m sure Fassbneder got what was implied but decided to mock him by asking if he means it’s a horror movie. But I’m not the biggest fan of her personality and won’t swear she wouldn’t do something like that for publicity.
What I wanted to say, only better! It was an inappropriate question in the first place, and it seems likely that the journalist edited the comment for maximum exposure. I really don’t understand all the criticism she’s getting over this.
CM, this seems the most plausible explanation to me as well. I always actually read it that way and think the comment developed a life of its own.
@CM that’s what I thought too when I read the interview. I think it was pretty clear that she was being ironic…
That’s how I’m reading it too, based on her follow up comments.
It is very hard to know tone and all through print media though, especially if the journalist is cutting things to suit their own narrative.
This makes so much more sense! Why on earth would she lie or misunderstand the question? Also, reading your comment, I could immediately hear/imagine her saying it like that. It fits her personality.
So you’re only officially hetero/gay/bi if you’ve had 100% all-the-way, validated, seal of approval sex with the appropriate gender? How times do change. Where does that leave the assorted virgins?
I love Cate and Ramin’s a dumbass, terrible journalist. I definitely believe that a lot of journalists twist and take things out of context when interviewing celebrities in an attempt to get a shocking soundbite. However….her denial sounds fishy as hell. First of all, what would she think he meant by relationships when he was clearly trying to relate it to a lesbian drama? Secondly, as shitty as a journalist as he is I have a hard time believing he didn’t in phrase it as “romantic or lesbian” relationships because most journalists would do so…
Also, why would it be some kind of unusual revelation that she has had platonic or emotional nonsexual relationships with women? What would the point of that be?
exactly. why would anyone be interested if she has a platonic business relationship to a woman? she is promoting a movie about lesbian love its obvious what the journalist wanted to know.
Told ya. Told ya told ya told ya. Totally called it. Bye Cate you’re officially over the line.
I think some of us called its convenient timing. Eye Roll @ Cate
it was just a matter of time. i think cate is a terrific actress but in interviews she comes across as pretentious and snobby.
she’s the new meryl streep…every time she makes a movie, she gets an Oscar nod.
why would she answer the question then in the way she did?
even if she did not have sex with them it must have been romantic why else would she give that answer?
I think she’s backtracking not because she’s afraid of being called Bisexual but because it makes it obvious she had to have cheated on her husband and the father of her children. She didn’t think it through and is now worried about not making her husband look like a weak wronged man especially for her children’s sake.
There are so many forms of intimacy.
And this doesn’t always involve penetration.
I have very, very close relationships with some of my girlfriends, that are not sexual, but we are incredibly close.
Maybe she meant something like that?
Since the character of the movie is a lesbian, she was asked if she has had intimate relationships with women as in if she was bisexual.
If the journalist really did that, that’s lousy. You shouldn’t print only half a quote to be misleading for attention.
sure but given the context (a lesbian drama) its quite obvious what he was asking.
Yeah but if it was what he asked its a stupid ridiculous question. Relationships? What definition does that have exactly?
.
I guess she said what she said to shill a movie, without being too obvious, about her character having a relationship with a woman, a little publicity if you will. Now that it has been said and people are talking about it, she can conveniently take it back which she did. Nicely played!
To me, personally, she comes off as very “Goopy” and pretentitious, never been a fan of her, more so now.
Sigh. Great face. Great style. Great talent. Disappointing person. To me, it seems like she is simply lying to sell a film. Gross and disapponiting. Taken with her pro Woody Allen stance, I am so not liking her.
I love her but her fawning over Woody kind of turned me off. It’s bad enough to work with him, but the over the top fawning was not cool. Also, while it’s gross I sort of understand why some celebrities like Emma Stone or Ellen Page work with him because Hollywood is a brutal place and it can make their career. I don’t think Emma would have snagged her role in Birdman without having worked with Woody. BUT Cate doesn’t need that type of validation nor does Joaquin Phoenix.
Sorry, but I call bulls*** on giving Emma and Ellen or any other others a pass but not Joaquin or Cate! All of them choose to work with him because they think he offers good roles. All of them choose to ignore his personal life. Therefore, all should be either excused or condemned. OK, you could argue that out of the ones you mention, Ellen MAYBE gets a pass because she would’ve signed on to work with him before the most recent allegations from his daughter came out, I guess, but Emma signing on for a SECOND film as his inappropriately-young muse (especially after the first was so poorly received – did that really help her get Birdman??) is just….
so? even if it gave Emma an Oscar it still does not make it right. just because working with someone terrible may give you a big reward does not mean its cool.
at some point you will have to pick: morals or success and we know what they picked and we can judge them for that.
Cate’s gown is awful, it looks like a maternity gown!!!!
That’s what I thought. It swallows her. And, to me, she said what she said to sell the movie and get some press–exactly what she got, then back away when asked again. A bit too convenient to be honest and a tad dishonest.
That gown is divine! It’s so dramatic and perfect for Cannes. The whole point of Cannes is to wear over-the-top fashion that will be talked about. Cannes is not the time to wear something “pretty”.
Yesssss I love me some spectacle and drama on the red carpet. It’s not up everone’s alley but I like the big, ballsy, and over the top stuff. (even if this isn’t my fave look from Cate) Also liked Rooney and Cate’s yin-yang look for the photocall. Thumbs up all around.
I love it too!
I don’t think her relationships are anybody’s business, but I do think it’s kind of dumb when actors sit for interviews and feign shock (at least in the way Cate expressed it in the quote above) that people would be interested in their lives. Why are you doing an interview if no one is interested in you as a movie star or, even, actor? You might as well just show the movie without the promotion then, if it’s really the case of your life as an actor truly being interesting to no one.
Even in real life we get interested in non-famous people we meet when they reveal something of themselves to us in conversation. I’m sure this interest level gets amplified when you sit for an interview or show up in a pretty dress at Cannes.
I said when this broke that it didn’t seem like that was what she was saying in the quote, as did many others. I bet the journalist knew it too – but he went ahead because hey, headlines are great for a reporter.
Setoodeh has a bad rep for this kind of thing. He’s also the douchebag who wrote that Newsweek article about “openly gay actors can’t play straight people”. An attention seeking reporter with an agenda and little credibility. (When did Variety get so tabloidy?)
When all’s said and done Blanchett handled it well. She didn’t act offended or upset, she just laughed and said the guy had cut out the bit where she mentioned intimate didn’t mean sexual. Then she questioned people being so fixated on it.
I saw on Pinterest that Rooney Mara is basically the female Tom Hiddleston (facial resemblance of course), and now i can’t unsee it.
PR tactic on Cate’s (and/or the studio’s) part, IMO. She’s been in the business long enough to know how her response would have been construed. And she has to know that to many people she’s *Cate Blanchett* who can do no wrong, so her throwing the interviewer under the bus won’t affect her image.
Shocking. Cate offered a sound bite that sounded cool and edgy and now that everyone jumped on it, she’s freaking out. She’s as Hollywood as any of them, and I don’t get why people assume she’s above these games.
If she had integrity, she would realize that what she offered by remaining ambiguous is more helpful to other people, but she wants to help Cate, so is straightening (so to speak) the record.
Yup. This is a famewhore 101 move right here, but because she’s Cate the Great everyone’s coming up with excuses. And the sucky thing about this is that this kind of thing only adds to the belief that bisexuality is fake or only used to get attention. So while she gets more press for her movie, she helped to further screw over bi people. Hope it was worth it.
She keeps quiet about the Woody Allen allegations but *this* she chooses to speak out on? Way to keep it classy, Cate.
Maybe just maybe because this was her doing and concerned her, and she is not involve in the Allen case at all. Even if people try to make it seem she has a fault in that, when she does not.
Cate selling her movie, just using the hustle move.
Well if lesbians were going to see the movie, she lost half of then with this douche move.
Working with Disney or Woody turned her head to mush, when she named Nicole Kidman as one of the most powerful women in Hollywood.
She suddenly remembered what Rupert Everett said, that coming out ruined his career. I don’t believe the walk back for a moment. Not that it particularly matters. She’s a wonderful actress.
Everyone’s ‘gay’ when they’re promoting a homosexual or lesbian film until they’re not.
Chalk me up as someone who think she played her angle while promoting the film and is now distancing herself from it. As others have said she’d have to be utterly ignorant to not know relationships with women while promoting a film where a woman has a strained and secret lesbian affair were connected.
Now she’s trying to pooh-pooh it onto the reporter.
I thought she was saying she’d had intimate but not sexual relationships with women. To me it was obvious. She’s sparked interest for the film which was her intention all along.
She’s either really stupid or a really bad liar.
During her discussion about a film in which she plays a woman embarking on a love affair with another woman, she misinterprets the question “have you ever had relationships with a woman”?
PLEASE
The sexual context never occurred to her, no, she was thinking friendship because that’s what people ask when they ask you “have you ever had a relationship with…”- they want to know how many friends you’ve got.
Sure.
WTF, Cate, wtf.
I don’t like any of their outfits. Cate usually has an elegant, yet interesting, style. I think her dresses here are interesting, but the “elegant” vibe is missing, especially with the black outfit.
Her answer to the variety interview was obviously meant to spark a PR whirlwind…. It’s all promotion… I was waiting for her to retract that.. Come on she is smart… It was all calculated…