Cause I sure didn't...And I'm halfway intelligent.....A lot of it made little sense. Probably the least sense was killing his head of security.
Some have said it needs to be watched a number of times to 'get it'.....
I say the more you watch it the crazier you will become.....like the nut jobs that made it in the first place.
Once was enough for me......and yeah......I finished it.
z
Another failure from our Toronto based film maker. Really, a silly account of the fall of a billionaire as written by the Vassar Glee Club. As anti-capitalism as one could be. In this movie, not only are the rich different from the rest of us - they're aliens (their thought processes, anyway). Don't bother with this one. Cronenberg's last great movie was 1996's psycho-sexual "Crash". Look forward to the April release of the Criterion Blue Ray of "Naked Lunch".
shareI can't say that I did but I still thought it was pretty interesting as I've never seen a movie quite like this one. I'd see it again.
Cassie
I thought he shot him to feel something, anything . To feel alive, to make some kind of impact. His life was so empty and emotionless. He wanted to make a connection even if it meant killing someone, it was still a connection.
i hope you choke on your bacardi & coke!
*Team Landa*
Hey buddy.;)
I watched it for a second time and understood it a little more, or at least at much as I could. lol
But yes, I agree, he shot him to at least feel something. Although, it was still a pretty crapp thing to do. I totally changed my view of the character at that point. Before that he was just a male whore.
That said, after watching it a second time, Rob was AMAZING in it.
I think it would have made a lot more sense if they had left in the part where it is explained that Eric hasn't been asleep for days. I think most of what's going on with him is in his mind, because he is sleep deprived and is breaking under stress.
That is only the surface explanation, just what I think is going on, not it's deeper meaning.
I "think" what's going on is that Eric's lifestyle has left him essentially dead. Everything is lifeless and monotone and without spontaneity, separate from the rest of the world. I think throughout the entire movie, he is trying to obliterate that person he has become. He is a man who is afraid to die (hence the daily exams) who also has a death wish. He destroys his fortune, and that of his wife, and then destroys himself.
Why did he kill his head of security? Because it was his job to keep him safe, something he really didn't want him to do.
Also, Torval is a symbol of everything that keeps Eric separate from others. It's his job to insulate him (Eric) from the world at large, a job which is particularly important because there is an active threat against him. However, this also keeps him apart from the rest of humanity.
Also, Torval is a symbol of everything that keeps Eric separate from others. It's his job to insulate him (Eric) from the world at large, a job which is particularly important because there is an active threat against him. However, this also keeps him apart from the rest of humanity.
The movie is intelligent but not crazy. It is perfectly relevant in this world and in this time. Just like Videodrome was when it came out. And it took more than 20 years for people to realise its relevance and greatness, and it will be the case for Cosmopolis in another many years.
Cronenberg has put yet another one over the heads of mainstream audiences and my first exhibit of an average audience would be the OP.
What the movie talks about is clearly what's happening in this world - money, time and the usage of both and the complications involved.. Is it the poor/middle class who are responsible for their plight? Or is it beyond them? How about owning what's more than what you use? Does this affect only you or everyone else? How is the gap between the classes based on money widening exponentially? What about the other extreme of the society. The one in the corner of a street, who doesn't matter for any other person blaming the rich for his downfalls? Is he right? It's just taken a very different route to explain its message, as all Cronenberg's works do..
It's simple, if you are part of mainstream audience unable to concentrate on films with depth, and you watch films to pass time, you shouldn't be watching works of Cronenberg and such directors. If you are a movie-buff with a lot of ideas in your head looking for more brain testers, you need to go for this. Once, twice or how many ever times you need to understand this movie.
Why is it so difficult to understand?
---
"Fear not for the future; weep not for the past." -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
---
One thing, if you've read any Delilo, is to understand that it's about society breaking down in the craziest, maybe even dream-like of ways. The movie (and I did not read this novel)to me is a metaphor all great empires breaking down. Remember, the book was came out shortly after the Euro became the currency of the world. The opening poem is one about the destruction of a city, but not only one, but of all cities, empires that have crumbled. Eric Parker is king of the world (insinuated that he's more powerful than the president).
I viewed the killing of his bodyguard, almost the reversal of the fall of Caeser, by the hand of Brutus. The film is littered with unreal circumstances, excesses we can only imagine. This is about the 1%, maybe Delilo's vision, maybe catered to by Cronenberg to the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Anarchy is reigning and Packer is about to fall anyway, so he throws it all away, knowing his demise is imminent but never understanding why.
Interesting observations Johnhopper. Thanks for posting. Just to point out, the film went into production before the Occupy Movement, so, Cronenberg was realizing Delillo's vision which was, rather prescient,
shareYou are correct. Filming wrapped two full months before OWS. Makes it even more prophetic.
share[deleted]
I quite liked Cosmopolis. It's just as murky as anything else that Cronenberg has directed. I watch his films with wine, and absorb the dialogue and atmosphere, without really caring for whether or not there is a plot. It's just the Cronenberg I'm familiar with: Unique flavour of mystery without tangible narrative or disclosure. Where things just happen with zero regard for storytelling traditions.
Of course, Cronenberg is pretty niche. Without being patronising, I totally see why alot of people will totally not get his stuff. His films shouldn't really be screened in cinemas if you ask me.
The pretentiousness is nowhere near the levels of Paul Thomas Anderson or Darren Aronofsky.
And it's still roughly 10,000 times more understandable than anything from David Lynch.
I thought at times Cosmopolis reminded me of American Psycho, or maybe Pattinson / Parker reminded me of Bale / Bateman. However I found Cosmopolis to be tedious viewing, like some art house play that's not nearly as good or clever as it thinks it is.
share