Doesnt mean its crap. Maybe its your job to interpret the things in this movie and not the movies job to explain everything for you. Most of the things I read here are "uggh what the hell was that? I didnt get it! Crap!"
shareOne of the problems I have is that in order to understand the majority of the speeches in this film you'd have to look at them written down and really put a lot of thought into analyzing them. This is a film not a book, so should the audience really have to do that?
shareBut who set the rule that you have to be able to understand everything from a movie with just one viewing?
shareA majority of people will never watch a movie twice. So if you can't express your ideas, concepts, characters, story in the initial 2 hour viewing, you probably won't get another opportunity to create an impression.
As filmmakers, that is a conscious decision that we make. How much do you want to give to the audience? Do you want to bury the details in subtext and let the audience search for it? Or do you want to put it right up front where people will be able to infer nearly everything you are trying to say?
If you bury your best stuff too deep, there's a chance that the audience might not be able to dig it out. But you can't blame them by saying they didn't get it if there's no way to infer those details if they are not present in the film. That is why people who refer to a novel from which a film is adapted drive me crazy. It's good and all that the book explained it in detail, but if it wasn't in the film, the book is meaningless to everyone else. And if I didn't like the film, I sure as hell am not going to waste my time in reading the book.
The best type of films in my opinion are the ones where you are able to enjoy the film upon the first viewing, but then there is a lot more underneath the surface that you can glean over time with multiple viewing. For me, that was A Scanner Darkly, Blade Runner, Exotica and Felicia's Journey. Compared to Cronenberg's previous films, I didn't find Cosmopolis or Map to the Stars to be thought-provoking at all. Cosmopolis might have been more thought-provoking in the hands of someone like Denis Villaneuve or Martin Scorsese and Vincent Piazza as the lead. Robert Pattinson is a cypher, he creates very little impression on-screen, has virtually no charisma.
Map to the Stars was an abomination. A weak outsider's take on the film industry, a tepid cross between Sunset Boulevard and The Player. Swimming with Sharks is a great film that really hits home for a lot of people in the film industry. Map to the Stars was weak, from the script to the performances.
The brilliance of Don DeLillo is that he can say in one sentence what other authors need pages for. De title I used in my review: When he died he would not end, the world would end". Isn't that the best way to describe how the 1% look at themselves and at the world around them?
Although the book Cosmopolis isn't thick it takes time to read because of these quotes and oneliners that make you scratch your head but after some repeat reading you see how DeLillo went to the essence time and again and how visionary he was.
These quotes were the strength of the book but the weakness of the movie. Cronenberg was right to copy them literally. If he had used a normal dialogue, it wouldn't have been Cosmopolis. But you are right that for someone who wasn't familiar with the book, it must have been very confusing to watch
and understand. Pause and rewind button would've been needed too often.
For that reason the film fell short to intrigue many viewers and you can wonder if the film should've been made.
Other than that, IMHO no other film has gone to the essence of what caused the bank/economic crisis. I've watched Wolf of Wall Street and honestly, alhough apparently biographical, it didn't learn me not in the least what Cosmopolis has learned me.
Examples: the misweave that Eric hadn't calculated. Economy students at New-York University have learned that the bankcrisis was partly caused by trusting too much on the "perfect" patrons.
"Even the word computer has become stupid and dumb", says the Chief of Theory to Eric. Look where we are only a few years later, the quick changes in the electronic world.
The figure Eric Packer, who had the power to cause an economic crisis, but failed to have connection with the people around him and himself. They exist, these people, they are real (producers of the film knew such men).
I don't know what other directors would've done with the source material but I do know that when you adapt a book, the lead actor must "be" the book character as good as possible. Given the fact that Eric Packer was only 28 years old, no older actor could've played the part, I and with me most critics and Don DeLillo himself, thought Robert Pattinson nailed Packer to perfection. He even performed Eric in a more vulnerable way than DeLillo did in the book.
And even if I hadn't understood most of the film, the end scene between Giamatti and Pattinson belongs to the best film scenes I've seen in years. The confrontation between the loser and the capitalist, that confrontation was phenomenal. "It's about your doctor's appointments, about the shoes they (rich ones) buy, it's about paying the bill in the restaurant..." says Benno Levin and he is totally right.
Sorry for my long reply. I understand your perception of the film but I like that it is stll discussed after 3+ years.
While I do agree, I thought this was at times a bit incomprehensible. The dialogue goes from casual to pretentiously philosophical quickly throughout the movie. Apparently the novel and this both have a poetic quality in regards to the dialogue, but whether it worked as film dialogue I just don't know.
The real philosophy is somewhat of a blur for me, but I think -- for the most part -- I understood the overall message. Was it compelling? Eh. Somewhat. Decent film by Cronenberg but it's further proof for me that his earlier films were much better works of art.
I'm sorry, but if the majority of an audience doesn't understand a film, then the film has failed.
shareWhat a foolish thing to say. I'm embarrassed for you.
share"I'm sorry, but if the majority of an audience doesn't understand a film, then the film has failed."
So Godard, Kiarostami and Hou to just mention three have failed? Or perhaps some films have a lot more to them than is immediately apparent on first viewing. Rather than being a failure those films are the true art of this medium regardless of how many people revisit them.