Cosmopolis
dir. David Cronenberg, 2012, Canada/France
Rating: 9.1
The bottom line: long live the new New Flesh!
Now playing at Landmark’s Century Centre Cinema is Cosmopolis, David Cronenberg’s film adaptation of the acclaimed 2003 novel by Don DeLillo. Cosmopolis premiered to mixed reviews at the Cannes Film Festival in May, proving even more divisive than Cronenberg’s previous movie, 2011′s superb A Dangerous Method, which had premiered to mixed reviews at the Venice International Film Festival last fall. Both films have been derided by critics for being too “talky” and “static,” and for failing to successfully translate their literary source material to the screen (A Dangerous Method was based on a play by Christopher Hampton). These criticisms however are incredibly misguided; Cosmopolis, like A Dangerous Method, is a profoundly cinematic film that just so happens to be about language. Where Cronenberg’s previous film illustrated the therapeutic possibilities of the act of talking itself (via Sigmund Freud’s revolutionary “talking cure” in the early twentieth century), the new film shows how language can be wielded as a dangerous weapon in the modern day world of international high finance. Cosmopolis also simultaneously and gratifyingly harks back to Cronenberg’s pioneering early work in the “body horror” genre, especially Videodrome, in its depiction of a world where human beings seem capable of merging with, and are thus ultimately in danger of being replaced by, technology. As Pete Townshend might say, “Meet the new New Flesh / Same as the old New Flesh.”
Cosmopolis is also both the simplest and the most complex movie that David Cronenberg has ever made. The plot can be described in one sentence: A billionaire takes a limo ride from one end of Manhattan to the other in order to get a haircut. But, like the Jean-Luc Godard of Weekend (the ultimate traffic jam-as-metaphor film), Cronenberg believes that the journey is more important than the destination, and I’m not giving anything away by saying that Eric Packer, the film’s 28-year old protagonist and the limousine’s owner/chief passenger, does succeed in his goal of getting a trim. What’s more important to Cronenberg (and DeLillo) is using this basic scenario to comment upon the increasingly abstract nature of life in the 21st century. Eric Packer, played with chilling effectiveness by the blandly handsome teen-heartthrob Robert Pattinson, conducts business meetings, has sexual relations and even receives a medical exam (and the lines between these activities occasionally become provocatively blurred), all within the confines of the white stretch limo that serves as the film’s principal set. One gets the feeling that Packer could live his entire life inside of this car. Like the Alfred Hitchcock of Lifeboat, Rope and Rear Window, Cronenberg has set himself the challenge of making a movie mostly within a single confined space, a challenge that he overcomes through the technical virtuosity of his mise-en-scene. As the limo becomes deadlocked in traffic, Packer observes, on various touch screen devices, the dramatic appreciation of the Chinese yuan whose immediate fortunes he has bet against. The limo, soundproofed and sporting tinted windows, can be seen as both a cocoon shielding Packer from the outside world as well as an extension of the character’s own mind, and Cronenberg wrings a surprising amount of visual interest out of this location from his myriad camera setups. (The director has also said that one of the reasons he cast Pattinson was that he needed an actor whose face was conducive to being photographed from an infinite number of angles.)
One of the most common generic criticisms I hear about movies from my students (and this is particularly true after I screen New Hollywood films of the 1970s that center on anti-heroes such as McCabe and Mrs. Miller or Days of Heaven) is that they found it impossible to “care about” or “root for” the characters. This criticism has become so commonplace that I’ve developed stock replies of, “If you want to care about somebody, spend time with your family or friends” and “If you want to root for someone, watch a sporting event.” Then, coming down from my snarky high-horse, I more logically argue that it shouldn’t be necessary to like a movie’s characters in order to like a movie. In the final analysis, shouldn’t it just be enough to find the characters interesting? If it were a universal prerequisite to like a film’s protagonist in order to be able to enjoy a film, then absolutely everyone would hate Cosmpopolis because Eric Packer is the single most unlikable protagonist I’ve seen in a movie this year (and, remember, I’ve seen Killer Joe). Packer is impossibly wealthy, moves in the most rarified social circles, has access to technology and resources that 99% of movie audiences cannot conceive of, and also speaks a tech-heavy slang that nobody really understands. He is a man who has everything but is also dead inside. (I suspect many viewers will find the extreme stupidity of Joaquin Phoenix’s Freddie Quell to also be a stumbling block in appreciating Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master, which opens in Chicago next month. Freddie is the polar opposite of the genius Eric Packer; he’s the dumbest lead character I can recall seeing in a dramatic Hollywood movie, even dumber than Raging Bull‘s Jake LaMotta.)
The soullessness of Packer, of course, is precisely Cronenberg’s point. The specifics of Packer’s business, how exactly he’s “bet against” the yuan, don’t matter. Cosmopolis is ultimately a portrait of the alienating effects of wealth and technology. The most instructive way for Cronenberg to show this is to focus on a member of the 1%: a man who lives in a bubble, stares endlessly at computer screens and never sees any physical results of the kind of work he does. Appropriately, the film’s brilliant dialogue, written by Cronenberg but recycling a lot of the text of DeLillo’s novel verbatim, isn’t meant to be “understood” in the conventional sense. What matters is the emotion lying underneath all of the curiously cadenced technobabble. (For those in tune with what Cronenberg is up to, the climactic scene between Packer and a disgruntled employee portrayed by Paul Giamatti is going to come across as a particularly impressive high-wire act of writing/directing/acting.) A more naturalistic rendering of one billionaire’s personal financial crisis, even if it may coincide with the current financial crisis, would probably be deadly dull to watch. In the dream-like world of Cosmopolis, however, finance itself is only a Macguffin in much the same fashion as the “spy stuff” in a Hitchcock movie that nobody really cares about or remembers afterwards. As the always-articulate Cronenberg himself put it in a recent interview, “I think of (Cosmopolis) like a sci-fi movie where the intergalactic pilot is explaining the way his spaceship works. You don’t need to know what he’s talking about, you just need to believe that he knows what he’s talking about. Eric Packer understands when his Chief of Theory is explaining how the future connects with capitalism. It excites him, and that’s all you need to know.”
Cosmopolis is not a film for everyone, although it will definitely satisfy a certain type of adventurous viewer (you know who you are). I think of it as the inverse of the last film I saw at the Landmark, and the most overrated movie of the year, Benh Zeitlin’s Beasts of the Southern Wild. Both films are literal and figurative odysseys that reference real world socio-economic turbulence (the Occupy movement in Cosmopolis, the fallout of Hurricane Katrina in Beasts) but remain a step removed from reality in order to better reinforce each filmmaker’s philosophical point-of-view. The crucial difference between them is the difference between abstraction and vagueness. Cronenberg is deliberately abstract on a superficial level in order to reach greater psychological truths about modern living whereas Zeitlin is deliberately vague when it should matter most in order to better sweep the viewer along in a sea of feel-good emotion. While Beasts uses its adorable moppet-heroine as a floating signifier to rewrite the tragedy of Katrina and charm audiences with a fictional interracial utopia, Cosmopolis intentionally disturbs viewers in its depiction of a chaotic world where a man with no soul hurtles inexorably toward an uncertain future with terrifying velocity. In spite of its surface topicality, Beasts could have, and probably should have, been made forty years ago. Cosmopolis, by contrast, is a film every bit as coolly alluring and unsettling as the twenty-first century it chronicles.
August 27th, 2012 at 8:06 am
Good review Michael. Looking forward to seeing it. Read the book a few years ago on a train to Scotland, always thought it would make a good film. Delillo is like Baudrillard and Ballard in terms of perfectly describing the abstract life of the late 20th/early 21st century. Haven’t seen A Dangerous Method just yet. On a similar note.. have you seen any of Adam Curtis’ documentaries? The Century of Self, Machines of Loving Grace, Pandora’s Box?
August 27th, 2012 at 8:56 am
Thanks, Trev. I tried to keep it “spoiler-free.” I actually haven’t read Cosmpopolis (though I’ve flipped through it) but I greatly admire White Noise and Mao II, both of which, as you say, accurately describe the modern world.
I thought A Dangerous Method was grossly misunderstood.
Haven’t seen anything by Adam Curtis but I will look into him.
August 27th, 2012 at 10:11 am
Great review. Looking forward to it, though I may have to wait till I’m angry at “the Man” and need some empathy. Although, who wouldn’t race out to see a “blandly handsome Robert Pattinson”. Really interesting thoughts.
August 27th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Ben, this movie’s really weird. I have a feeling it’s going to alienate a lot of people, including those who normally dig Cronenberg. I have a feeling that you in particular would really like it though. BTW, I guess you could say I’m now officially Team Edward!
August 28th, 2012 at 4:01 am
WoW,another high ratings you gave here! This is a film I tried to avoid because Robert Pattinson is in it,so how’s his performance?
Looking forward to your The Master review!
August 28th, 2012 at 8:54 am
Pattinson’s performance is excellent. I think he’s got a bright future as an adult actor. I’m surprised that you would avoid a movie because of its lead actor though – even if it was made by a great director. You should know to trust Cronenberg; nobody ever gives a bad performance in his movies!
I’m working on my review for The Master now, which will have an even higher rating than Cosmopolis. Should be up in a couple weeks (before its general release). That’s a tough movie to write about, especially after only one viewing.
August 28th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
You are right,I should always trust director’s taste on his casts especially it’s Cronenberg,but will Pattinson rises like Dicaprio? We’ll see.
August 28th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
I really want to see this movie now even more after reading this! I always thought Robert Pattinson was a good actor…the millions of screaming tweens could not bring down his talent. And if it’s as weird as you say, even better! Those always seem to make the best kinds of movies.
August 28th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
I saw it on Friday with a couple of friends. I asked the young woman at the ticket counter if a lot of teenage girls had been in to see it. Her response was “It’s mostly, like, older guys.”
August 31st, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Fantastic review. Very detailed and I love your viewpoint and angle. I agree that you don’t need to love a character or “root” for them in order to enjoy the movie. I, as well, like when Cronenberg takes us and a “figurative odyssey” like you claim. Keep up the great work. I’m looking forward to this one.
September 2nd, 2012 at 4:30 pm
[...] “Cosmopolis is also both the simplest and the most complex movie that David Cronenberg has ever made … the climactic scene between Packer and a disgruntled employee portrayed by Paul Giamatti is going to….)” [...]
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:40 pm
I saw Cosmopolis on 8/24/12, and again on 8/31/12. I also read the book twice. This is one of the best movies I have seen in the last five years. This movie makes you think about it long after you have left the theater. Its not a movie for everyone, but it for those who like to think outside of the box. Excellent review write-up. I look forward to purchasing the DVD. Robert Pattinson owns Eric Packer.
September 2nd, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Phyllis. I agree it is a major film.
September 3rd, 2012 at 9:01 am
Superb review, as I noted on twitter when retweeting the link and select quotes yesterday. We’ve been writing on this film since it was first greenlit in Jan. ’11, blogging on DeLillo’s novel, themes, the production, the cast and the Cronenberg’s work. We’ve think we’ve read every review out there, and your stands out, in our opinion, for really “getting” the source material and film, providing useful analysis for someone contemplating seeing it, and making observations and points that many reviewers have not. I plan to post your review on our site- a portion with link to full here (generally we include excerpts and links.)
September 3rd, 2012 at 9:13 am
I would just add something for people who are unfamiliar with Pattinson’s work prior to “Cosmopolis” (outside of Twilight) and may wish to explore some of his indie work as Cronenberg did before casting him. Cronenberg noted being impressed with him in “Little Ashes” and “Remember Me.” “Little Ashes” Cronenberg noted for his ability to handle the accent (young Salvador Dali), and willingness to take on the very difficult role of playing a “character of ambiguous sexuality and eccentricities” (and he was only 20 then, with not many films under his belt). “Remember Me” was a fine film directed by Allen Coulter, of “Hollywood Land” and “The Sopranos” fame.
September 3rd, 2012 at 9:43 am
Bucky, thanks for the support and thanks for the recommendations of the other movies. Somehow I missed hearing about Remember Me completely but I will definitely check it out. Hollywoodland is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated Hollywood films of the past decade.
The more I think about Pattinson’s performance in Cosmopolis, the more I realize how truly excellent it is. What I especially like about it is its effortlessness. Most young actors make the mistake of always trying to ratchet up the intensity and thus make the viewer keenly aware of just how hard they’re working. Everyone from Leo DiCaprio (whom I admire) to Shia LeBoeuf (whom I do not) is guilty of this. Pattinson just spits out his lines simply and directly with a kind of contemptible smirk on his face that is perfectly appropriate to the character. But then he also subtly reveals more layers to Eric Packer as the film progresses. The acting and the dialogue seem outrageously stylized in the beginning but become less so as the film progresses. The acting in the barber shop scene and in the final scene in Levin’s apartment, in particular, is surprisingly naturalistic and moving. When Pattinson sheds a tear right on cue several minutes into a single long take at the end, I was almost ready to cry with him. And then I had to ask myself, did Cronenberg and Pattinson intend for this dreamlike world to become more real or am I just getting more used to it? I think it’s the former. I hope those two team up again like Cronenberg and Mortensen did.
September 3rd, 2012 at 9:37 am
For anyone interested, site is cosmopolis-film.com. Saw it didn’t post. Again, great review, hope it encourages readers to check out the film in theaters or DVD. It should.
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:16 am
Bucky, I just checked out your terrific site. I love your piece on why Packer wants to get a haircut, which really gets to the heart of his character. Packer may be disconnected from reality and the little boy he once was but he’s also acutely aware of this, which makes his plight exceedingly poignant. The barber shop is Packer’s “rosebud,” reminding him of a simpler time, perhaps the only truly happy time in his life, before he became corrupted by wealth.
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:15 am
[...] @fearlessmore – Fonte – via @whitecitycinema Ti piace questa Pattinson-news? Condividila:Tweet Pubblicato in [...]
September 12th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Great review! This is the only positive rating I’ve seen on the Internet for this movie, so I’m glad to see it has some fans. And, I would like to applaud you for this quote: ” I more logically argue that it shouldn’t be necessary to like a movie’s characters in order to like a movie. In the final analysis, shouldn’t it just be enough to find the characters interesting?”
September 12th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Thanks, Alley!
September 16th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I finally found a theatre near me that was playing Cosmopolis, but I arrived late the first time due to misunderstood directions and missed the first few minutes. Feeling very out of touch, I left and came back a week later and saw the whole thing. It’s definitely one of Cronenberg’s more interesting films and I liked how the style was more reminiscient of his earlier works. However, I don’t think it was quite as good as A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, and A Dangerous Method. I’m actually writing a review right now for my college paper.
September 28th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
[...] Review Las Vegas Weekly Front Row (Dallas) Sumo Skinny Journal Online Dallas Voice Movies by Bowes White City Cinema ARTFORUM The Dropp SheKnows Artistsxs James’s Film Reviews Cinema Autopsy The Oracle Online [...]
December 31st, 2012 at 11:20 am
[...] The year’s second best movie about a dude being chauffeured through a major metropolis in a stretch limo, David Cronenberg’s adaptation of Don DeLillo’s novel had many casual viewers walking out of theaters, mid-screening, in droves. That’s too bad, as the intentionally stylized, robotically-cadenced dialogue and acting, which admittedly takes some getting used to, ultimately proved to be the pitch-perfect vehicle for the director’s critique of late capitalism; the darkly comic, dream-like world of Cosmopolis isn’t quite the world we live in but it does bear a disturbing resemblance to it, as if the movie were taking place just a few short months into some potential dystopian future. Cronenberg’s deft use of confined spaces also produced some of the most stringent filmmaking of his career, and lead actor Robert Pattinson excelled as the despicable billionaire whose plight becomes both moving and tragic as the movie inexorably heads to its haunting final shot, an image more emblematic of our times than any other I saw this year. Full review here. [...]