Cosmopolis (David Cronenberg, 2012)

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

Most incongruous PR stunt ever?

[Noiradelic]

Of course, businessmen generally love Wall Street and Glengarry Glen Ross, and Boiler Room is surprisingly popular among stockbrokers too.

["membrillo"]

For brokers its the sales films, for traders its W.S. When I was a junior broker, after passing your Series 7, you went thru sales training and Glengarry Glen Ross was pretty much mandatory viewing. You can spot trainees easily cause they spend half the day quoting it, "coffee's for closers" etc.

Ive been on a trading desk for the past 7 years, WS is the movie people quote on desks, "Blue Horseshoe loves Anacot Steal...blah, blah, blah".

When we saw it on the desk yesterday, someone said "why is the dude from Twilight at NYSE?" I told him about Cosmopolis and nobody even knew about the film, much less the book.

[hearthesilence]

[quote=""membrillo""]
When we saw it on the desk yesterday, someone said "why is the dude from Twilight at NYSE?" I told him about Cosmopolis and nobody even knew about the book, much less the film.[/quote]

That's what I figured - I don't hear anyone outside of film buffs or possibly Robert Pattinson fans mentioning it.

[Mr. Ned]

This is playing nowhere in my area, not even at the closest art cinema (at least for now, anyways). Did the theatrical release really get shelved here or is this some minor crisis situated only in the lower New England area?

[Brian C]

I think it only opened in NY/LA this week. Further expansion to come.

[Noiradelic]

Opened today (yesterday), opens wide next weekend.

[Grand Illusion]

This movie is fucking awesome!

First off, I was not expecting how hilarious this was going to be. The visual point made in the scene with Samantha Morton taking Pattinson's throne, as Robert Pattinson is held in close-up, keeping an absolute stoic face while

Spoiler

anarchists rock his car back and forth,

was dead-on. Just funny to watch him bounce around frame discussing theory. Meanwhile, Morton's character admitted several times that she didn't know what she was talking about.

The ideas were pretty layered in dealing with a (possible?) end goal of capitalism to not only elude mortality, but also wealth as a way to allow us to consider mortality and larger issues. After all, you don't take "philosophical pauses" (as the film excellently tips its hand in a minor breach of the fourth wall) if you're worried about putting your next meal on the table. The end result of such angst, that I myself certainly share - minus the wealth, is the tendency towards a daily doctor's visit, in a quite humorous scene as Pattinson receives a check up in his limo.

Of course, such flesh/logic dichotomies are par for Cronenberg, but they're handled particularly well here. Many such contrasts are drawn, especially with the sex drive, but I have a particular favorite. Pattinson's character defies his security to stop at two barbers across the street and instead demands to drive across town to get a haircut. That Pattinson is willing to drive through

Spoiler

anarchist riots, musician superstar funerals, his bizarre marriage to the gorgeous and talented Sarah Gadon, several sexual flings, a presidential visit, and an assassin

makes this visit all the more important. And naturally, he gives an ultra-logical explanation for the reason he needs to trek across town. Yet when he arrives,

Spoiler

he is simply visiting the same barber that used to cut his hair as a little boy, and, like family, he comes in and treats himself to leftovers. He's human, as are his motives, and his descent away from capital has revealed this.

This ultimately culminates to our basest instinct:

Spoiler

violence. Looking hilariously like a split-faced comic book villain, half his face covered in pie, Pattinson confronts his would-be assassin, in a film-stealing performance by Paul Giamatti, playing one of the discarded. They break, as Pattinson says, for a "philosophical pause" that results in Pattinson giving himself the stigmata and Giamatti dismayed that Pattinson never offered salvation.

I haven't even begun to touch on all the layers and themes of the films, but I just got back and had to express what I loved about the film and what spoke to me the most. All this amongst some very creative framing, particularly some lengthy two-shots, and a great score. Once I let the absurdist satire (or satirical absurdism?) wash over me, I was laughing and loving this film to the end.

[warren oates]

Saw Cosmopolis yesterday and had quite the opposite reaction. I'm a huge fan of Cronenberg and DeLillo, but this is not the best work of either. In spite of some tonal rockiness and casting awkwardness, I was largely with the film for the first 2/3 or so -- until

Spoiler

that spoilerish thing happens with the chief of security which betrays the trust of the audience for an undergrad fiction type shock that pays off on zero levels, after which that comedic ham of a supporting actor shows up to rant.

There were some nice DeLillo dialogue riffs handled with the precision of, say, Harold Pinter. And some interesting visuals (though the window plates in that first limo interior looked like crap Hitchcock green screen -- was it a last minute reshoot?). On the whole, though, I'd say this is an interesting failure for both the book's author and the film's faithful (perhaps too much so?) screenwriter/director. A much more austere and bravura visual approach might have helped a little, with longer takes a la Kiarostami's car rides and a perhaps also a moving camera following everyone in and out of places. But the real problem with the piece is the story or lack there of. There's one central character and a bunch of interesting ideas that almost yet never quite coalesce into themes. But's there's no drama, no big changes, nothing the protagonist seems to want or go after aside from the MacGuffin of a haircut (or the most consequential acts in his financial life which take place mostly outside the film's timeframe or offscreen). The book is thin and feels tossed off. This is the kind of thing DeLillo could write in a week or two, polishing it, adding to it and eventually incorporating it into some larger work like Underworld. Except this time it feels like he just typed it up and left it pretty much as a first draft. During the film's interminable final moments a number of audience members correctly concluded that nothing else that mattered was ever going to happen in the film and walked out. Cronenberg and DeLillo have given me enough pleasure over the years that I'm not sorry I stayed. But I won't be recommending this film to anyone or revisiting it.

[Grand Illusion]

The reviews seem to be quite love-it-or-hate-it.

I will say that the reason the spoilerish thing works for me:

Spoiler

I feel like he's been shedding his capital throughout the film, as a snake sheds its skin. He loses his fortune, then his billionaire heiress wife, his security person, and then his limo. (and even half his hair). I feel like all this is part of his descent until he can finally confront the feelings of the discarded, as represented by Giamatti.

As for his actual motivation for pulling the trigger, Pattinson gets more volatile throughout the film. I think killing the security guard is the next extension from this arc, built on when he begs his other security fling to shoot him with the stun gun. He's embracing the baser instincts of what it means to be human, to feel, and to be violent.

I think the fact that violence is one of the steps Pattinson takes towards "feeling" is part of the nuance of the film. It's not like he learns to love. He learns to kill. Thus, Cronenberg doesn't come down explicitly on the side of "being human" versus "being coldly logical." Still, when he pulls the trigger, I believe he then becomes ready to confront the "credible threat" to his life and the credible threat of his life.

It's a shame that Giamatti's so-called "ham" styling didn't work for you. He's clearly a damaged man, and I felt he did a great job of representing what is perhaps the most human character in the film. I feel what progression there is in the story was leading up to Pattinson having to confront one of the discarded. If a specter haunts the world, the specter of Giamatti haunts the film throughout.

I particularly liked the fact that Giamatti's character isn't entirely motivated by some righteous ideological goal. He doesn't really want to kill Pattinson. He wants to be Pattinson. Yet he never could. I loved Giamatti's scene, particularly the set design and long shot when Pattinson goes into the bathroom. The whole thing reeks of the detritus of a failed version of The Social Network. And I feel like, in a sense, this is as much the story of the discarded (from the rioters to Giamatti) as it is of Pattinson's character.

[warren oates]

Grand Illusion, I hear you. I wish I'd seen a film like the one you are describing. I could sort of sense some of those ideas in there, but they aren't very precisely realized, even as almost-themes in the novel. And they translate more poorly to the screen, especially when it comes to anything like drama or storytelling. After all, this isn't an essay or a thesis, it kind of ought to make us want to know and care what happens next and lead up to an ending that is as surprising as it is inevitable and revealing of the protagonist's character based on all that's come before.

I'd also say that for me, with the exception of the very strong A Dangerous Method, many recent Cronenberg films feel like he hasn't quite figured out how to make a normal (re: non-genre) art film out of the material. He doesn't have the arcs down or the right feeling for certain tonal shifts or precise casting choices. There are some strong set pieces in A History of Violence and Eastern Promises (one of the all-time great fight scenes!), but each one of those along with the new one gets bogged down by middling storytelling and sometimes goofy casting choices (William Hurt, Ed Harris, Paul Giamatti) that feel like they derail the film for me. There's an easier and more assured totality to most of his earlier work. Perhaps it's just the quality of most of the scripts he's been choosing. They all have certain elements that I can see would appeal to him, but most of them are subpar as stories and as literature compared to the kind of genre films and adaptations/art films he made in the last century.

[Grand Illusion]

Grand Illusion, I hear you. I wish I'd seen a film like the one you are describing. I could sort of sense some of those ideas in there, but they aren't very precisely realized, even as almost-themes in the novel. And they translate more poorly to the screen, especially when it comes to anything like drama or storytelling. After all, this isn't an essay or a thesis, it kind of ought to make us want to know and care what happens next and lead up to an ending that is as surprising as it is inevitable and revealing of the protagonist's character based on all that's come before.

I don't think the film follows that traditional an arc. I think Pattinson does change as a character, but I think the storytelling is more akin to something like La Dolce Vita in its episodic nature and minor adjustments to the lead.

I'd also say that for me, with the exception of the very strong A Dangerous Method, many recent Cronenberg films feel like he hasn't quite figured out how to make a normal (re: non-genre) art film out of the material. He doesn't have the arcs down or the right feeling for certain tonal shifts or precise casting choices. There are some strong set pieces in A History of Violence and Eastern Promises (one of the all-time great fight scenes!), but each one of those along with the new one gets bogged down by middling storytelling and sometimes goofy casting choices (William Hurt, Ed Harris, Paul Giamatti) that feel like they derail the film for me. There's an easier and more assured totality to most of his earlier work. Perhaps it's just the quality of most of the scripts he's been choosing. They all have certain elements that I can see would appeal to him, but most of them are subpar as stories and as literature compared to the kind of genre films and adaptations/art films he made in the last century.

While I really liked A History of Violence and A Dangerous Method, I can see what you mean with Eastern Promises. That film didn't particularly work for me in its storytelling. But that was a genre film, trying to be elevated. Cosmopolis, to me at least, feels like something else entirely. It's more experimental than conventional narrative, and certainly far away from the genre roots of History or Promises.

But, hey, to each their own. This is definitely a divisive film critically. It's not going to be successful for everyone.

[warren oates]

I don't think the film follows that traditional an arc. I think Pattinson does change as a character, but I think the storytelling is more akin to something like La Dolce Vita in its episodic nature and minor adjustments to the lead.

You're totally right about the kind of structure, but La Dolce Vita keeps you hooked the whole time and allows you to actively track the protagonist, however small his arc may be, however relegated to the background it sometimes becomes in each successive episode. Episodic structure doesn't get Cosmopolis off the hook for poor storytelling. I can think of scores of great stories in film and literature going all the way back to The Odyssey that are episodic and yet still compelling. How about just your average excellent American road movie like Two-Lane Blacktop? In a way, that's what Cosmopolis aspires to be: a slow-motion Manhattan traffic jam road movie. Which is an amazingly cool idea, but one that it doesn't come close to realizing.

As to what Pattison's dramatic change is (other than the not-uninteresting and yet extremely intellectual thematic notion that he's shedding his capital) and how the audience is meant to understand it, I'd be curious to hear more if there is more.

Even given the thing precisely as it is now, there are really poor writing choices that don't have to be there, like, for example:

Spoiler

The entire business of the security chief's gun, how it works, etc. Chekhov would be rolling over in his grave about the lost opportunity to introduce it somewhere in the beginning of the First Act.

[Alan Smithee]

Warren I haven't seen the film yet, it's on my to do list this week but I disagree about the novel. I've never really cared that much about Delillos plots, not they are bad, it's just that his prose has always been the driving force for me. I can't believe Mao ii was ever optioned for a film, to me it's like a long poem not something for a plot driven film. I think the prose in cosmopolis is strong and as has been pointed out, has some very experimental dialogue. The themes are a little on the nose, right down to the bad pun of getting a haircut, but I think it's a well imagined piece that is prescient and from line to line has a lot to say about our times. Delillo has often said he considers writing to be mostly a way of very concentrated thinking and Cosmopolis comes off as more a rumination, Delillo working his way through some complex concepts.

[warren oates]

You're not wrong about DeLillo's intentions or the way the best of his fiction works. I guess I just don't consider Cosmpolis as among his best works. And I certainly don't think that the film has found the right cinematic analogues to DeLillo's philosophical prose poetry, which would have demanded a simultaneously more immersive and more avant-garde visual approach. Short of that, it can't do much with the half-formed narrative on its surface either. And I don't know why I feel like I have to say this but, you know, plot is not the same thing as story. Whatever else he's doing, DeLillo is still telling stories. I'm not knocking the book because it's not as straightforward, digestible or thrillingly plotted as, say, an episode of CSI. I get that DeLillo's got higher ambitions. I just don't think that in any way exempts him from the basic contract of the form ("tell us a story and we'll listen to everything else you have to say along with it"). I also think that if he were merely or ultimately "working through complex concepts" he wouldn't need to write fiction at all, but could satisfy himself with mathematical proofs, philosophical tracts and essays. His books are full of ideas but they are far from the most experimental or least narrative stuff I've ever read. The more successful ones, like Underworld, White Noise, The Names and Libra still tell pretty good stories.

[Mr Sausage]

I might be the only person in the world who considers Ratner's Star his favourite Delillo novel. And that's with admitting that the thing is narratively static, and could well be, as Martin Amis said of it, a "big, bountiful and necessary failure."

[Finch]

Cronenberg interviewed by Film Comment

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

I went through a blissful honeymoon period with DeLillo during the '90s, burning my way through White Noise (where most folks begin), Libra, Mao II, Running Dog, and even his fabulous NHL send-up Amazons (co-written under the semi-anagrammatic nom de guerre Cleo Birdwell). All of which I adore, although I confess that I probably took them a little too seriously at the time, over-identifying with some of the more flatly affected characters, fancying myself an indifferently eccentric Murray Jay Siskind from WN or a Bucky Wunderlick from Great Jones Street or a Gary Harkness from End Zone--particularly those last two protagonists. I think I enjoyed the imperious edge to their neuroses, how they had so much control over their intellects in spite of (or because of) their repressed emotional problems. And, of course, they are all immensely gifted, and I liked to imagine that I had immense gifts to offer the world (but stealthily, of course, like Bill Gray in Mao II).
Today, I'm a little more chary of this kind of emotional ciphering, and therein lies my problem with the novel and film Cosmopolis. These men are interchangeable speakers, regardless of their vocations, and they feel more like ageless vehicles for deadpan gallows humor and paradoxical aphorisms than mortal men on earth; which is odd, because his novels are saturated with the presence of death. Even though DeLillo seems to craft novels around occupations (Hitler studies professor, football player, rock star, waste management executive, asset manager, etc.), I think he is more interested in the geography entailed by those professions than their effects on each man. Cosmopolis is most interestingly about a limousine gliding through Manhattan, and less interestingly about a particular man who occupies that space. I can imagine Wunderlick speaking identically from this position; nothing changes according to which white male occupies the throne. (Incidentally, I honestly don't know who would have been better than Robert Pattinson, but I loathed his line deliveries in this film, and the scenes between Eric Packer and his wife were excruciating.)
I almost wish that Cronenberg had kept the camera in the limousine--i.e., committed himself to that experiment--with short, breath-holding excursions into immediate surroundings, like that moment Packer jumps into the taxi. The odd rear-projection-like quality of the activity beyond the tinted windows was effective, and I think purposefully filmed to look artificial. I wish he had played more with this inside/outside fishbowl condition. The scenes in restaurants and hotel rooms disappointingly broke the hermetic tension of the limousine ride; even if it departed considerably from the short novel, I would have preferred the last encounter between Packer and Levin to have been the only sustained departure from the vehicle.
I love the language in this film; it is immediately recognizable as the words of Don DeLillo, as soon as Packer speaks to his security agent Torval in the first scene. The rat-as-currency riff and its connection to the anti-capitalist protests were fascinating and funny tropes, and, of course, my favorite scene was the aloof discussion between Packer and his chief "theorist" as the limousine finds itself in the middle of the demonstrators' mayhem.

[colinr0380]

The 'odd rear projection-like quality' that you mention sounds interesting - I remember that eXistenZ had certain sequences similar to that, which for that film added to the off-kilter paranoia of whether you were in the one of the various levels of the game or not.

(Although the car scenes in eXistenZ are still partially situated outside the car, showing parts of the car structure in the frame, which feels like a legacy from Crash showing the consciousnesses hiding away inside their metal boxes)

[warren oates]

Yeah, but in eXistenZ the fakeness is more consistent and has a clear point. Frankly, the bad-looking stuff in Cosmopolis just looks kind of bad. I believe Cronenberg even addresses this in the Film Comment interview Finch links to above. He talks about the manifest fakeness of some of those rear projections and backdrops in Hitchcock and declares that this was not his intention. Likewise, it's the inconsistency of the badness/fakeness in Cosmopolis that's most troubling. The worst looking stuff is early on with that first boy wonder from the firm. But there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why the consistency of the image fluctuates from crap-looking green screen to much better comps. It's not like Butch's cab ride in Pulp Fiction.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

Specifically:

I was using a lot of green screen, the best technology that we could use with our budget. I was trying to make it as real as possible. I definitely wasn’t trying to make it not real.

Nonetheless, Mr. Cronenberg, I like the effect, however unintended or the product of a tight budget, and I think it worked well with the theme of separation between Packer and the outside world, how he ventures out into Manhattan (for a haircut) as if it were some epic voyage, but only made epic by the effete attempt to "Proust" himself from the world. He wants to buy the Rothko chapel, for example, and move it toward him (like any painting), even though the place was established as an open meeting ground for anyone, an open temple with no objects but justice, freedom, and meditation. The chapel depends on its location in Houston, but physical distance is merely a dollar amount to Packer, not some potentially transformative route of pilgrimage. People in his life (Kinsky, Chin, Shiner, Fancher) all seem to appear magically in the limousine's cocoon and then just disappear; there is only physical egress and ingress once the yuan begins to fail.
The green screens also made the sudden breaches more startling, contaminative, even if it was just a matter of a window dropping in order to receive information from Torval--a version of, "How could something real come out of my television screen?" It underscored the sterility of his environment and how fouling his nest (as Packer does at one point toward the end) is concession to and admission of the physical world.
I guess this, too, is why I didn't like the "outside world" scenes. They disrupted what tension I enjoyed in the limousine's fragile procession.

["membrillo"]

I agree with Warren in that the first scene looked horrible, downright amateurish. As a matter of fact, I thought the same thing while watching it - "was this a last minute reshoot?"

However, it was the only scene in the film that I found visually bothersome. I guess it could be that it was so bad that it made all the rest of the scenes look acceptable.

[Grand Illusion]

I'm a very forgiving person when it comes to effects. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion, but I don't see how someone could watch Cosmopolis and say the effects are terrible and then say they enjoy any film before 1980 that had some sort of special effect.

I can't imagine how many classic films would be ruined if I couldn't suspend disbelief for imperfect effects. It's never about the technology for me. I'm willing to suspend disbelief to enter the world that the filmmaker wants me to enter.

[Roger Ryan]

Cronenberg's previous film, A DANGEROUS METHOD, had a poorly done green screen sequence as well. Didn't diminish my appreciation of the film, but it was a momentary distraction as the rest of the picture effortlessly recreated the early 1900s without obvious artifice.

[R0lf]

I bet this makes no.1 on John Waters yearly favourite movie list for 2012.