Is there something in the guidebook of How to Succeed in Business that says “in order to truly hit it big, you must be emotionally detatched”? It feels like the higher up the ladder one climbs, the more closed off they become, and the harder they are to impress. Have they conditioned themselves as such? Have they just seen and done so much that it takes that much more to get a reaction? Are they bored? It all almost seems counter-intuitive…after all money doesn’t buy happiness, but I’m sure it can’t hurt.
I wonder, for these super-rich, super powerful people, how much more closed off do they have to get, before they don’t even feel the fire as they start to burn?
Eric Parker (Robert Pattinson) is a billionaire financier. He has had his personal limousine customized with all of the latest toys and luxuries to the point where he never needs to set foot outside of it if he doesn’t want to. One afternoon he steps in, instructing his head of security Torval (Kevin Durand), that he wants to go for a haircut. Torval points out that the city is facing massive traffic snarls due to a presidential visit, a large-scale protest, and a midtown funeral. He suggests Eric reconsider.
Undeterred, Eric instructs Torval and his driver to proceed. This the car slowly creeps through the city towards Eric’s particular barber of choice.
As the car rolls along, various people stop in. Eric is met by his tech developer (Jay Baruchel), his art consultant/mistress (Juliette Binoche), his chief advisor (Samantha Morton), and even his doctor…or rather, the doctor that was on-call that day. The car almost never stops rolling. They get in, do what they need to do, and get out.
One of the few people Eric does get out of the car for is his wife Elise. They find each other once or twice in the busy city afternoon, but it’s understood that their relationship is more of a business arrangement than a romantic one. Eric doesn’t seem to actually emote anything towards her, and she returns the favour.
No matter. Their meetings become just another appointment during Eric’s surreal day of crawling through a city in a limo en route to a haircut.
It’s taken me two nights and a several drinks to fully bend my brain around COSMOPOLIS. In that time, many words have come to mind:
Cold.
Dry.
Remote.
Restrained.
Underplayed.
But the one word I cannot come down on is “bad”.
There are two propositions I accept that allow me to see it as something more than just “bad”. The first is that there are people in this world for whom life has lost its joy. They are the people who have it all, and can easily afford what they don’t have. These movers and shakers have tasted the finer things in life, and for them the bar is set that much higher. Along with everything needing to be that much more unique to bring them any excitement, they have also become emotionally detached from so much that we lowly plebes have to endure. For them money is the only thing worth talking about…and they talk about it so much that the conversation has lost all meaning. They can discuss billion dollar decisions with the outward excitement of a tablespoon – and they can have these discussions while the world around them burns down.
The other proposition I accept is that Eric really wants his haircut. This notion is every bit as absurd as it sounds, but I came to realize that this is the whole point. Look at that photo up top and tell me that man needs his haircut. He doesn’t, but he’s the sort of man us lowly commoners aren’t allowed to disagree with. That Eris would spend all day in snarled traffic to get across Manhattan to a particular barber is a stretch. However, one could also say that a rock start paying the full price of an airline ticket to have his hat flown to him is a stretch too…that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. We are talking about a man here who gets medical check-ups every day: A haircut is the least of his extravagances.
If you can’t accept both of those propositions, you won’t buy the film. Even if you can accept both propositions, you might not buy the film. The people in this film couldn’t care less what is happening in the world around them. They are far too self-involved, too secure in their re-inforced cars to care one lick about what affects their fellow man. The discussions they have are deliberate, emotionless, and distancing – so much so that the opening twenty minutes become a litmus test all their own on how much time you want to give this slice of “The 1%”. All these people know is money and image – It’s all they can talk about. They do so as if they were reciting a Bret Easton Ellis novel without the yuppy perversion.
Helping matters even less is the damned car we spend so much time in. It’s silent and sterile, and keeps all of the life of the world sealed off from its precious cargo. Unfortunately, it is also an unremarkable set, and one that seems to keep us sealed off from the real story. It leaves us in the audience feeling deliberately isolated, and alienated. We’re the suckers standing behind the velvet rope, while the rich, pretty people go inside to not enjoy themselves.It’s a frustrating feeling, and one that has even sparked a friend of mine to walk out of the film before its end.
However, all of this isolation and stunted conversation is not enough for me to write the film off (same as it wasn’t enough to make me walk out). Not only does that pay dividends since one of the best scenes in the film is a long conversation that concludes it, but it also comes from this feeling that David Cronenberg tried to do something different. He’s been playing things a bit more buttoned-up these past ten years with SPIDER, EASTERN PROMISES, A DANGEROUS METHOD, and A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. As solid as most of those films were, some of us wanted the old kooky Cronenberg back…the weirdo who brought us DEAD RINGERS, THE FLY, and NAKED LUNCH. There’s a little kook in this film, but there’s a lot of the arrogance of those classics evoked.
COSMOPOLIS will not be a well-liked film, and might not even be a film that is liked at all. However, I won’t soon forget about it and its aloof affluence. As the film goes on, Eric keeps shedding things: his tie, his jacket, his staff, his hair, and eventually his big, bad car. Part of me believes that if he’d had one more scene to shed one more piece of his identity, all of the mechanisms would have clicked into place, and COSMOPOLIS would have unlocked itself fully.
Instead we are left to ponder and puzzle what might have been…spinning the combination dial until we tire of the game and move on.
20 comments
Sean Kelly says:
Jun 21, 2012
The second I realized that Cosmopolis was just going to be a series of conversations in a limo the first thing I thought was “Boy, some people are going to HATE this film.”
However, I ended up feeling the opposite and it’s actually my favourite film of the year so far. I came to view the film as a sort of metaphor for the fall of capitalism and I found it quite interesting how Pattinson’s character being more disheveled as the film went on to the point that he was a complete mess by the end.
Plus, the whole film was worth it just for the climatic confrontation between Pattinson and Paul Giamatti.
Also, I don’t really care if Cronenberg goes back to body horror or not. He is still one of the most interesting auteurs around and I’d be interested in seeing anything he does (plus, you have to agree that this was a more Cronenbergian film than A Dangerous Method).
Ryan McNeil says:
Jun 22, 2012
I’m with you – Cronenberg doesn’t need to go back to body horror at all, I’m just hopeful that he lets a bit of the mind-bending back into his films. This story had the potential for more of that, but I’m cool with what we were given.
I like the idea of all those conversations in the limo too – I just wish he’d told Pattinson to go off the handle just a bit more. We’ve watched him play stoic for four years now; it’s time for him to emote.
Mette says:
Jun 21, 2012
One of my most anticipated films this year, people have had very split opinions on it, so I’m eager to see it.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jun 22, 2012
I’m with you – split opinions make me *more* excited to see a film because I know that when it’s all over I’ll be picking a camp.
Hopefully you get to see it soon – I’ll be very curious to hear your thoughts!
Peter says:
Jun 21, 2012
I don’t find it bad as much as disappointing and not very engaging. I agree that the conversation between the characters has lost all its meaning, and it’s non-stop rapidfire dialogue. I think that’s the reason why the movie lost me half way through. The tone is so dry and detached, I get the point within 20 minutes that’s what the story is about. Billionaires who lost touch with the outside world, just talking and talking. I was begging for silence half way through, the material needs room to breath and so do I.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jun 22, 2012
I hear you. I can’t say for sure, but it’s possible that if I’d seen this on blu-ray I might not have made it through. It was a little hard to stay focused at time while all of these characters were – as you rightly put it – dry and detached.
But for all of it’s shortfalls, I haven’t been able to get it out of my head all week.
Steve says:
Jun 21, 2012
It turns out the thing about the film that’s stuck with me the most is the K’Naan song in there. Still echoes in my head. That, and “Mary Babbitch”.
Not to make this about the things I do for money, but I recommend checking out Cronenberg’s interview on Q about the film. Plenty of insight in there, and I could listen to this guy talk all day: http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2012/06/07/david-cronenberg-on-cosmopolis/
Possibly the most interesting part of the interview is where he talks about the essence of cinema being “a face talking”. I remember standing in studio and wanting to shout out “The Passion of Joan of Arc!”
Ryan McNeil says:
Jun 22, 2012
As long as you didn’t tell him “There’s a line here buddy!”
Thanks for the link man – I’ll listen to it soon.
Stevee says:
Jun 21, 2012
I kinda wanna see this film, mainly because it looks, well, different. Mind you, I should probably brush up on my Cronenberg knowledge before then. There’ll be enough time to do that – since A Dangerous Method took freaking ages to get here, I imagine this will, too.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jun 22, 2012
Nope – you don’t need to do any brushing up. You could drop yourself into this film as a complete Cronenberg virgin and it would play the same way it would if you were a scholar.
While you’re waiting for it to get out there, I’d recommend going back and checking out two of my favorite Cronenbergs: SPIDER and A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE.
Stevee says:
Jun 22, 2012
Checked out Spider at the beginning of the year and wrote about it just last Sunday. Brilliant movie.
wilde.dash says:
Jun 21, 2012
So, it sounds like it’s pretty damn faithful to the book. Have to admit, had a similar reaction to the source material. It seemed there was quite a bit of posturing, deliberate chill, bland revelations in banal conversations, and a whole lot of that old “oh dear, it seems materialism has forced us to lose a bit of our humanity, eh?” that DeLillo and folks like Easton Ellis hit on a bit in everything they do. Like you, however, I wouldn’t call the novel a flat out failure, even though it seems to be trying so hard to repel its readers and even though most of it is highly forgettable.
Looking forward to checking this out, but I’ll prepare myself not to expect any major Cronenbergian departures.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jun 25, 2012
(Apologies – this comment got gobbled up by my email filter somehow)
Curiously, I find myself a bit more interested in reading the novel, since I might be able to graft my own inflections on the conversation. I think it’s the specific direction Cronenberg gave the actors that is underlining the disconnect for me.
You mention Ellis, and for American Psycho it was the reverse. I loathed the book – perhaps as much as I’ve ever loathed any book – but was quite smitten with the film when I finally caught it this winter.
Long story short, I might just have to read the book and report back to you. Thanks Wilde – don’t be such a stranger around here!
Fernando Quintero says:
Jun 22, 2012
Excellent write-up! I’m interested in seeing what this one has to offer. I think your review was far kinder than the two-out-of-four-stars rating you gave it. Maybe you haven’t fully figured out where you stand with this one yet?
Ryan McNeil says:
Jun 22, 2012
Oh no – I know where I stand. You’ve hit upon an interesting point, the nature of rating and discussion.
I’ve heard Roger Ebert mention several times that people who focused only on whether his films got a thumbs up or thumbs down neglected to look into the context. There were movies that got marginal thumbs up, and movies that got enthusiastic thumbs up…but at the end of the day, they seem the same to the casual reader.
This focus on rating is actually why I dropped the ratings of my reviews down to the end of the post – they used to be listed in the title.
For me, there are films that are close to succeeding and for that get two stars, and films that are a gigantic mess, but because they have a few redeeming qualities notch two stars. VERY different groupings.
So in the case of COSMOPOLIS, I found the tone to be trying, the narrative difficult to latch on to, and the overall experience to be a task…but the ideas contained within it and one amazing scene have stuck with me. Thus I fall smack in the middle.
Fernando Quintero says:
Jun 22, 2012
OK, thanks for clearing it up
Great explanation!
ruth says:
Jun 27, 2012
I really don’t know how I’ll respond to this film but I’m VERY curious about it. I’ve only seen The Fly from Cronenberg but man, I REALLY don’t care for body horror. I’m in the camp that thinks R-Patz can act if the material makes the most of his talent, so I’m curious to see him in the role. Great writeup man, and thanks for explaining your reasoning for the rating above. I too, try not to get too caught up in those.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jun 28, 2012
In that case I have good news for you: COSMOPOLIS is many things, but it isn’t a body horror film…so if you wanted to see what Pattinson brings to the table you can do so without the squirm factor.
If you wanted to check out more Cronenberg, as I mentioned earlier, track down SPIDER and A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE.
Mette says:
Aug 22, 2012
Oh, I actually commented on this post! Haha, interesting it turned out to be my second favourite film of the year so far.
It was cold, frosty, indeed… but perhaps this is what made it work for me. I know, it sounds ridiculous, but I could just relate to Eric a lot – not that I’m rich and arrogant, but the search for something special, a meaning perhaps… the search for perfection, the silent fear of not finding it. This was all over-the-top in the film, but it still made sense for me. Here’s my review, in case you’d like to read it: http://limereviews.blogspot.de/2012/08/blood-music-robert.html
Ryan McNeil says:
Aug 23, 2012
Well then the least I can do is leave a comment on your post, right?