COSMOPOLIS

When the casting announcement of Robert Pattinson as the lead character in David Cronenberg’s new film “Cosmopolis” was made public, I have to admit that I was stunned.  I have never been a fan of Pattinson’s thespian abilities and just could not see him fitting into a film made by a world-class director like Cronenberg.  I was initially very worried about the project, but also intrigued because I consider Cronenberg to be an incredibly smart man, so he had to have seen something in a guy whose previous work had left me completely underwhelmed.  He is not a director who would cast someone just for their name value and let the project suffer because of it.  Having never read Don Di Lillo’s book that the film is an adaptation of, I was totally unaware what the film was about except that it was about a man travelling through Manhattan in an attempt to get a haircut.  It certainly doesn’t sound very entertaining, but when a brief thirty second teaser came out for the film prior to its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, it just blew me away.  It looked mental and exactly like the films of Cronenberg past particularly my personal favourite “eXistenZ”.  I was suddenly pumped for “Cosmopolis” and thankfully it saw a quick release here in Australia, just two and a half months after it premiered at Cannes.  So what was the final product like?

Let me just say right up front that the original teaser for the film was very well made for drumming up interest in Cronenberg fans but the truth of the matter is that it is not at all representative of the finished film and its tone.  As I mentioned, the “plot” of the film is about a man, Eric Packer (Pattinson), travelling in his stretch limousine through Manhattan in an attempt to get a haircut.  Along the journey things hold him up, like a public funeral for a rap star to anarchic demonstrations protesting the future and capitalism, causing a relatively simple journey to take the whole day.  While that could be conceived as the plot of the film, “Cosmopolis” is really about a whole lot more than that as it looks at the financial world and situation that exists today due to the decisions made by these billionaire currency traders like Packer who attempt to make themselves that much richer whilst, in the process, making life that much harder for the everyman.  The day we follow Packer on his journey happens to be a big one for him because it is on this day that his financial empire crumbles around him, basically losing it all, after making a terrible gamble on the Chinese Yuan.  For a man losing everything, it appears to barely affect him as he continues taking meetings and having sexual encounters (as well as his daily medical check-up) all in the back of his limo, whilst stopping for meal breaks with his rich wife of twenty two days.

“Cosmopolis” is an incredibly dense film and is entirely dialogue driven.  The words come thick and fast throughout the film, particularly in the first half, and I must admit that I had a hard time staying with it all.  Discussions about the future and physiological discussions about capitalism, money, wealth and life are the norm in the vehicle, and knowing Cronenberg’s intelligence I am sure not a word is wasted and it all has meaning, but I must admit I found it a hard slog.  To be honest, I actually did not enjoy the beginning of “Cosmopolis” at all and for a number of reasons.  Firstly, the dialogue is all delivered in such a strange, cold, matter-of-fact way that it is actually jarring.  I’m sure that it is representative of the kind of person Eric Packer is, but it rubbed me the wrong way entirely.  Secondly, I have noticed that I have strong negative reactions towards very selfish characters in cinema, obviously this is a personal thing and no fault of the film itself, but Packer is the epitome of selfishness.  His whole life and lifestyle is a hollow one as everything he does is ultimately for himself.  Making money is all that matters and because of this the man is incredibly lonely.  One of the things I found interesting was the way these billionaires buy things just because they can, which is evident in the scene when Packer is attempting to buy a chapel.  There is no pleasure in a purchase because he can afford anything, and when you have those means at your disposal, you find yourself buying things just because you can and to say you own something.  Also the kind of lifestyle Packer leads is a farce because he doesn’t live in the present at all.  His whole business revolves around the future and currency trends of that future, so he never slows down and actually exists in the moment; he is too busy looking ahead.

Human contact for Packer is also minimal which is also due to his money and lifestyle because, as a result of his wealth, he feels himself to be of more importance than he actually is, thus the reason he cocoons himself in this limousine while having constant security following his every move, it creates a sense of worth for himself while destroying any chance of connecting properly with anyone else in the world.  Packer has people do things for him constantly and thus there is never any danger in his life, however when his financial ruin begins, he starts to slowly shed this lifestyle in an attempt to be reborn and feel again.

Once Packer starts to let humanity back into his soul, I found “Cosmopolis” much more enjoyable and I started to empathize with this man, as ultimately he is a victim of his own success.  I particularly liked it when the film opened up and left the claustrophobic confines of the limousine and we (and Packer himself) finally got to feel the textures and sounds of the real world outside.  Visually the film becomes more interesting once we leave the smooth and sterile silver and blue surfaces of the vehicle.  I should probably mention the limousine at this point because it certainly is a character of this film, in fact, it basically symbolizes Packer’s world entirely.  That is exactly what it is, his world, as Packer is forever having meetings within it, always appears to be moving forward and yet is going nowhere.  The fact also that he has shut himself within it and we cannot hear anything to do with the outside world is indicative of Packer himself who lives in a vacuum, shut off from the world, inaccessible to it and yet his influence in its currency defines it.  It is a cold, artificial world in the limo, which sums up Eric Packer to a “T”.

The next sentence I am about to write is one that I never thought I would: Robert Pattinson is amazing as Eric Packer, without a doubt it is his best work he has ever done, and he understands the character perfectly.  From the start of the film to the end, Eric has quite the journey of rediscovery of his humanity and Pattinson nails every moment of it.  He perfectly encapsulates him as the arsehole Eric is at the beginning of the film, and throughout the film we watch as he starts to feel things again, let’s people in his life again, and rushes to a scene of his childhood in an attempt to find some way to restart his life (even if it means ending it).  At the beginning of the film, Packer is almost like a robot but by the end he is definitely human, admittedly he is extremely disturbed, but at least he is existing once more.  Pattinson shows us this beautifully as we suddenly are witness to a man who is unsure of anything in the world when moments earlier he felt he knew it all and because of that could exploit it in his favour.  Also the way Pattinson handles Cronenberg’s intense and layered dialogue is brilliant and is something I never thought he had in him.  Each line has subtext simmering below the surface and it is obvious that this is not missed by Pattinson.

The film is told in quite a strange and episodic nature as characters enter the limousine, have a theological discussion or business meeting with Packer (or the odd sexual encounter or anal probe) and then they are gone and we never see or (barely) hear from them again.  The only reoccurring characters are Packer’s wife, Elise (played by Sarah Gadon), who importantly never meets with Eric in the limousine and likewise Torval, Packer’s security who we only ever see from outside the vehicle: from the outside looking in.  They are part of his life but not of his world.  In fact the scenes between Eric and his wife are probably the best in the film and hold much of its humour.  Once again though we learn that the only reason the couple are married is to increase their own wealth and love never played a part.  In fact in the third meeting between the couple, Elise explains that she is divorcing Eric although would support him financially.

The actors that enter these brief one off scenes are all excellent, from Juliette Binoche to Samantha Morton, but the standout is (as usual) Paul Giamatti who plays a man intent on killing Packer, who used to be his boss.  His scene is rich with symbolism and subtext and is the scene that ends the film which almost becomes an inevitable conclusion.  It is actually great watching Pattinson and Giamatti go toe to toe with each other but not in the traditional way you would think enemies would go against one other.

Overall, I must admit that I am still not sure how I feel about “Cosmopolis” and I am sure I need a few more viewings to do the film justice.  The initial half an hour of the film I absolutely hated, but then the film started to wash over me as Packer started to strip himself of the façade of his selfish life.  I really started to enjoy it when he realized that he just wanted to feel something again, to prove he existed which is shown in the taser scene and the scene when he shoots himself through the hand.  There is also a poignant moment within the film when we realize that the whole time his empire is crumbling he is trying to get to a place he remembers from his childhood, back to his innocence to try and start again.  “Cosmopolis” is a very intelligent and dense film and I am not sure I have got close to understanding all of its layers and as I said above I am still not even sure that I liked the film.  Still there is no doubt that, as usual for David Cronenberg, it is an immaculately put together film and it is at least worth one viewing (although I am sure it would work better after multiple viewings).  

3 Stars.