Is there anyone with some knowlegde in the field of philosophy who can explain to me the philosophical talk, especially in the end scene between Pattinson and Giamatti. The subject was very recognizable but I couldn't really grasp what they were discussing about.
Is it correct to assume that he didn't shoot Pattinson in the end because Giamatti didn't really have any motive to kill him but frustrated with himself?
TY very much.
My knowledge of philosophy doesn't afford me to throw the light on the final scene lol.
But, as I assume that you haven't read the book, I'll try to give more info about this scene.
As you know, Benno is a former employee of Packer. He admired him like a God and was kind of obsessed with him. For Benno Eric represented everything he had not. But Benno is mentally unstable and couldn't follow the high pressure on his work anymore. He got fired and his life went down to the state he's in now. He blamed Eric for being indifferent to the wellfare of his employees. In fact he blames Eric for everything that's wrong with him. He makes it a mission for him to kill Eric, to destroy God, just to give a meaning on his own life. He wants to write this experience in a diary, believing that it will give him relief of his suffering. Benno confronts Eric with his misery while Eric tries to find out the real reasons why someone like Benno would want to kill him. There's this interesting discussion in which Eric says that being rich can't be a motive, 'cause everybody wants to be rich. He makes clear that Benno himself is responsable for his situation, not him and that makes Benno doubt about himself. In fact, Benno is the only one who knows Eric, who noticed that Eric was looking for perfection in everything, while he had to consider the imperfectness of the yuan and life in general (re the assymmetrical prostate). I think he found out that Eric wasn't that better than him, that after all he was human.
But he does kill Eric. In the movie it's an open ending, but Eric gets shot by Lenno and his unidentified body is put in a mortuarium. Eric ends the opposite of the life he has lead.
The book is more specific in a lot of things,very interesting to read.
Thanks for your insightful reply. I should definitely get the book.
share
This is not about philosophy but I found it very interesting when I read it.
I don't think spoilers will be needed.
About the assymmetrical prostate and its meaning:
I read somewhere a comment of someone who is in her last year of master in economy, I think in New-York (not sure of that but certainly in the US)
They had studied the financial collaps of 2008 in the States.
An important reason was seemingly that the bankers and economists had trusted too much the models they had developed and from which they thought were perfect.
They didn't have taken in account the fact that these models were just...models, that real life and circumstances could get in the way of the big success they had until then like people not being able anymore to pay the mortgage loan (sp?) of their houses, people losing work and so on.
The young woman had seen Cosmopolis and had thought at this because what was said at the end by Benno was very true to what had happened in reality.
When you think of it, in other situations, it is so that people always urge to become perfection while it's most of time the imperfectness of things that dominate our lives and make in interesting.
Interesting interpretation. I like how this movie provokes discussion and makes you think.
Cosmopolis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwehC_EuN-k
http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
http://thepasswordisswordfish.com/2012/12/31/cosmopolis-and-moonrise-kingdom-two-of-my-favorites-of-2012/
"Cosmopolis:
Every year, a select couple of films emerge that seem to reflect the state of our country. In 2007, No Country For Old Men discussed a changing of the guard– troubled times lay ahead, and the old way of dealing with dangerous global issues seemed defunct. In 2009, Up In The Air attempted to humanize our troubles and seek comfort in an economy in a downward spiral. In 2010, The Social Network focused on our dwindling humanity, our desire to connect with the outside world in conjunction with our disability to let go of our greed and aspirations of fame.
Here, in 2012, we have Cosmopolis, David Cronenberg’s icy, stylish, and unflinchingly brilliant adaptation of the Don DeLillo novel. We see on full display our economic hubris, embodied by Robert Pattinson in the role of a lifetime. This abstract portrait of America– painted in the opening credits with Pollockesque paint splatters– boasts a sharp, witty, and stylized script, with DeLillo’s dialogue bursting to life through Mamet-like line delivery from the entire cast.
It’s so rare to see a cast so perfectly in tune with one another, especially when the film is almost exclusively a series of duo scenes shared with Pattinson. Some dismiss the film as cold, yet there’s genuine fear in these people’s eyes behind the facade, and there’s soul in the words that couldn’t be accomplished without the unorthodox line delivery. Our lead characters wants to control but he also wants to feel: the balance between the perfection of machine and the emotion of man. He wants to be able to predict the turns of the hands of fate, with the market, the country, etc… but there’s no predicting existence. It’s far too fragile, full of mutations. “You didn’t factor in the lopsided,” Paul Giamatti tells Pattinson in an astounding, tense finale.
Too many variables exist in our world for us to live under the false pretense of full control. Why would we think our economy would never slip, or once it did that it would naturally come back, restoring balance as if there’s some divine design? Cosmopolis is a dark, hilarious, yet intensely sobering reminder of the nature of things, and as a film lover, it creates a marriage between DeLillo, Cronenberg, and Pattinson that I would love to see continue."
---
And Lacan is very important.
I have been working on this well over a year now. The last scene:
Benno is a disguised referent to Benny Levy, an early 20th century Marxist who went to Israel after May 68 in France. There he converted to orthodox and became Sartre's secretary at the end of Sartre's life when he said Sartre had converted to Christianity. He was condemned for this until Sartre said it was so. This is why the twoel as a prayer shawl on Benno as a "floating sign" of religious conversion, Benno's reference to his Confessions is a "floating sign" to St. Augustine and his Confessions.
"I have become an enigma to myself. So said Saint Augusting. And herein lies my sickness," Benno says. Benno Levin has changed his name from Richard Sheets, reading through Lacan "Rich *beep* as homonym. Benny Levy used the pen name of Pierre Victor. Benno loves the baht currency - Benno is "bought" by Eric Packer, essentially a voluntary slave if you have studied some about post modern thinking and the Master/slave relation. then Benno is "discarded" by Packer, no longer needed. The reference to speed and nono seconds then later with Vija zepto seconds is time becoming faster and faster, divided into smaller and smaller bits to enable particle physics to be thought about an d resonated with.
There is more of course. On my blog I am into about 90 different readings of Cosmopolis. It is a profound book. It could have been a very great film for all time. It could have been the performance of Pattinson's lifetime. It could have been Sarah Gadon's lifetime performance. Cronenberg as eviscerated the novel, forced his own impoverished misreading of the novel on it, made statements that I have argued about elsewhere. And, well, I am digusted with his adolescent misunderstanding of DeLillo's novel. I don't know if I can put a hot link here for you but it's http NO www - Cosmopolisfilm2 dot blogspot dot com. The first one you will see there is reading Cosmopolis through Ayn Rand and Eric Packer through Francisco d' Anconia as they both disappear major fortunes and take down investors, businesses and all other secondary sources connected with them. Both do it on purpose. Eric is a visionary by default, and so is Ayn Rand. Please comment so I can discuss more with youb if you want. Pattinson keeps getting suckered by directors who want to ride to Hollywood on his coattails.
Pattinson keeps getting suckered by directors who want to ride to Hollywood on his coattails.Wow, that's a new one. A reverse of what the Cronenberg fanboys would have us believe.
I have not. I have seen the trailers that suggest what is not delivered just for box office intake. I have read numerous reviews and commented. I have listened and read the interviews and I have paid particular attention to what Cronenberg has said he eliminated from the book, his change in the character of Elise and her relation to Eric, his confusion with its not being an anti-capitalist film but a sad, self destructive man who can't function in reality and loses all his billions in one day.
No no no no. A million times no. This is the deceptive mask DeLillo has placed like gauze over his story. DeLillo reveals and conceals. This is just one reason he is a major writer of our time. He has said in his Krasny youtube interview that he wanted to create a character who would destroy <b>cyber-capital</b> - notice I said cyber-capital not capital to be confused with Marx - in one day. Packer does this in a miraculous moment of epiphany. Just as Jesus did when he got in a rage and turned over all the tables of the money changers, only Pattinson was not in a rage, he was acting on what he knew. Vija Kinski tells him: Chinese wisdom says that if you know and do not act on what you know, then you don't really know." Packer has begun feeling doubt. Doubt paralyzes action, as we know from Hamlet. Packer has seen that the Burning Man, the pivotal point of the novel, has changed EVERYTHING. They system cannot absorb the sacrifice of a life. Rome could not absorb the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus took down Rome. Packer takes down cbyer-capital, an evil so terrible in our time "that it will leave people to retch and die in the streets" as Vija Kinski tells him. Zizek puts it the same with a twist. Dubai is the future that looks like it is unfolding. Unparalled wealth and slavery. Cronenberg knows nothing of this.
WELCOME TO THE HUNGER GAMES a very fine film.
Seems like your were always going to dislike the film no matter its outcome. Seems like you would only find satisfaction if it appeased your deep textual reading of the novel. I know this.
shareSorry to offend you with intelligence. One of the defining attributes of an auteur filmmaker is her deep knowledge of philosophy, history, often math, art history, etc. This is what distinguishes an auteur from say a Hollywood filmmaket. Obviously the label "auteur" does not apply to Cronenberg even though it is used in connection with his name. He certainly does not disavow it in all modesty. And in truth he deserved that title when he did things like Dead Ringers, Butterfly, Naked Lunch, and Crash. In those days he knew his material, he knew his authors, and he had integrity. For example Crash went against power at the time it premiered. Ted Turner and Jane Fonda walked out on it in a huff and denounced it trying to snuff it out. An occurrence like that told us much more about Janie Fonda and Teddie Turner than it did anything else.
It was a courageous film and a daring film. As was Crash the book.
Cosmopolis is not. It is a film made in haste and from a novel read in haste. It could have been one of the great films of all time. Rob and Sarah's performances could have been the performances of a lifetime. Toronto is obviously used as background to those who know Toronto. Cronenberg tries to pass it off as looking like New York City to rationalize. He rationalizes about Elise, "the rat", capital because he doesn't know that it is cyber-capital, not capital, he mistakes the meaning of something courageous like Occupy, and let's see, what else? I know I could come up with more but I know you are not interested.
To pass off this film, even though Rob Pattinson is very good in it and was a good film for him to do, why should I let Cronenberg off the hook? He is capable of excellence. Why didn't we get it? I have my guesstimates, do you? The reviewers who have panned Cosmopolis have trashed it for the wrong reasons. They should know the difference even if you don't want to know. Go ahead, stick your head in the sand. It won't get in my eyes.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but... (smile smile) .... There was no time during my watching the film that I thought there wasn't insight and intelligence from Cronenberg. I think that the external setting is somewhat superfluous to the narrative and to me [in Europe] didn't effect the watching experience, whether it be N.Y. or fictionland. I think with the Occupy thing he shines a light on the daunting prospect that protest is usually, sadly worthless. Also it is cyber-capital in the film and not capital. Plus how on earth do you know t what pace he read the book?
I personally am really happy that he attempted such an experimental work and didn't repeat the faux pas of the somewhat trite Dangerous Method. I'm not sure why you have taken up arms against a director who you seem to have previously admired, do you think it's just a case that the book shouldn't have been filmed? That I might agree with because, however much I enjoyed the film, it did lack a certain quality or should I say, didn't fit comfortably on the kino screen. Keep well.
Cronenberg in various interviews has said anti-capital when answering questions about the film. Nowhere has he said cyber-capital which DeLillo has made explicitly clear in his youtube Krasny interview, saying he wanted his character to destroy cyber-capital in one day. The distinction is important and crucial as its muddling is what allows TV, pundits, journalists to deny what is going on. Occupy is the only voice telling the truth. And their agenda is not wanting a piece of the capitalistic pie <b>as Cronenberg has said!</b>
Cronenberg has said numerous times that he read the book in one sitting and did the screenplay in 6 days with a se3lf-satisfied smile on his face. He has out loud said other misreadings and ignorant omissions. But if you think he has shown intelligence maybe you would like reading all my intelligent readings of Cosmopolis. You know, for comparison and contrast. http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com
You haven't seen the movie yet.
Your argument is invalid.
NEXT.
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/
Cronenberg does have a mystic about him from his daunting earlier work that sheds a halo effect into the present. I too expected great things from this film. BUT I am also a dedicated DeLillo fan and probably know the book better than anyone in the world at this time, including DeLillo if I can take his praise of Cronenberg's film without a grain of salt.
Occupy was not a protest. Occupy did not make the mistake the protest in the novel made. Occupy learned from DeLillo that "there is no outside" and a protest makes the system stronger. So It was a sitdown without any agenda of disrupting or otherwise. It was creative in getting a certain message out and some of the great minds of our time went there to speak to them. Slavoj Zizek, Judith Butler for 2 of them. The waves of alternative possibilities from Occupy are not insignificant. These 2 "demonstrations" were very different but the Cronenberg did not see that.
As to how fast he read it I am going by what he said in an interview. He read it in one sitting, and did the screenplay in 6 days, shot it in 6 weeks, edited it very quickly and showed it in Cannes 11 months later. I have seen it twice since I first posted here and did not know there was so much on this thread.
I'll say it again. This novel in the hands of David Fincher would have been a masterppiece. Rob was very good but played him the way teh Cronenberg saw Eric Pqacker as a suicidal self-destructive loser. The same way Dagny saw Francisco when she went to the hotel to confront him on the disaster of the San Sabastian Mines. Francisco d'Anconia set her straight with the words of Nietzsche. Rand would never have let the Cronenberg off the hook the way DeLillo did.
When I replied to you I didn't answer about Dangerous Method. Which I loved BTW, but then I spent almost 25 years in the field of psychoanalysis, in analysis, training and treatment.
There were parts that I thought the Cronenberg directed without understanding. But Viggo was superlative as Freud, so subtle was he. If he seemed to smoke cigars too much as maybe a prop in the film, one has to remember that Freud smoked around 20 of them a day!
Fassbender was excellent as Jung and Knightley as Spielrien who BTW was Luria's analyst. Yes the great Russian Luria! Her portrayal of The Inscription of the Body was perfect Nietzsche and Foucault. to unknowing reviewers it seemed over the top but it was not if you have ever seen Schizophrenics in an institution before they were closed down.
It was wonderful and very intellectual. Without serious knowledge of analysis, Freud, Jung and treatment, it m probably went over heads by the thousands. I am sure it went over Cronenberg's but he would not dare to intrude on a performance by Viggo or Fassbender and their interpretation of a character. He is not intellectually their equal.
"In film criticism, auteur theory holds that a director's film reflects the director's personal creative vision..."
Deep knowledge of anything is relative.
I could be Stephan Hawking or Paris Hilton and impress upon my films a certain defining signature; this is what makes an auteur.
What makes a good or bad auteur, now that is up for debate; the 'auteur' has already been defined. I know this.
I am not interested in the definition of an auteur. As an example I would consider Godard, Carax, Herzog so as you see my expectations are high. Just because some people call you an auteur, or you think of yourself as an auteur, or some film theorists label you an auteur does not necessarily make you one. IF you are going to adapt a novel, and particularly DeLillo's Cosmopolis, in the times we live in, you do not cut the heart out of anything that offers an escape for us. Aside from film critique just about every academic theorist has linked Baudrillard to DeLillo and have not excepted Cosmopolis. Following Bazin and reading through him, the spirit of the novel must remain intact. All else can be changed, but not the spirit of it. And this is what Cronenberg's Cosmopolis has done. Apparently few have understood the dialogue including Cronenberg, most of the actors, the reviewers, and the audience. This is a modernist technique, to make a work of art so obtuse that no one understands it in order to make them feel dumb - or the artist superior. If you can spare the time please listen to TimesTalk with Cronenberg and Rob Pattinson here http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/2012/08/timestalk-interview-with-cronenberg-rob.html?zx=9e7c79677a688485 and it includes a mesmerizing one with Herzog. The difference in the two men is not explainable in words, at least not to me. Cronenberg is pontificating on philosophy he does not understand, name dropping on Fukuyama and Hegel like a tongue tied sophomore. Rob has to rescue him as he flops around. Auteurs that can be called auteurs do not do this. They either know, or they leave it alone, at least in a public interview. But if one is uninformed and does not know they are uninformed, that's a different story eh.
shareJust out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?
shareI'm retired now and writing. I have been a psychoanalyst, a teacher from K to grad school, a performance artist, a poet, a reading specialist, more but that should satisfy your curiosity. Most recently I presented a paper at St. Vincent's on DeLillo and Epiphanies in Cosmopolis.
shareI'm sure some guy like you existed when Stanley Kubrick took on The Shining.
Either way, I do not care what your opinion of an auteur is; I do however find it funny that you care so much about getting an interpretation of a novel exact yet you do not find the need for being exact in your interpretation of an auteur.
Strikes me as a bit hypocritical, wouldn't you agree.
What is an auteur? Denotation is a method of listing examples of what you mean. Did you want a dictionary example? Or a wiki one? Does it matter if you have seen some "auteur" films? Many? Over a short time? Over a lifetime? Actually I couldn't define auteur if I wanted to and you don't make me feel like doing so. Am I to do it in the Order of Production or the Order of Seduction? You sound like a Randian, "Define your terms!"
Perhpas on a continuum the Cronenberg is one. Is he at the bottom? The middle? Do other auteurs revere him? Has he influenced others? Is he taught in film courses as a master auteur? Is Cronenberg lumped in with a bunch of them in a film course and compared and contrasted within the classical dialectical Discourse of film criticism?
What I do know as a feminist is that he has serious issues with female eroticism. He is not aware of sexism in its finer manifestations: He shows a woman of color completely naked in Cosmopolis, but Binoche does her sex scene completely clothed. It is clear that Binoche is not going to allow him to use her that way, but MacKenzie (is it?) a minor actress probably does not feel the star power to refuse being filmed that way. She compensates by being a sort of Dominatrix. Pattinson plays it as castrated male. Was he directed to do it that way, or did he just not know what to do? The actors were directed to not talk and discuss with each other, and the set was arranged so that they only met each other the day of the shooting. Just too many loose ends that don't make a lot of sense unless you consider Cronenberg an authoritarian director, at least on this film.
And yes, he has made some wonderful films. M Butterfly IMO, Naked Lunch, even Dangerous Method, Eastern promises, A History of Violence but none of them have the original jolt of a Godard: Weekend; Breathless; Pierre Le Fou, La Vie....; and Contempt. In truth, we had Fellini; Rosselini; Kurosawa; Herzog, Godard; and they are just such gods of examples of both experiemental and success and a lifetime of work and recognition that others just pale beside them. The same is true with literary classics. It doesn't mean other books and other films are not any good. But I do think Cosmopolis rode on DeLillo's name and Pattinson's performance but it was shoddy, most of the actors were used as props for the dialogue, the CGI was poor, and it was put together fast and well, shoddy.
Place this against Holy Motors at Cannes (also financed partly by the Canadian Film Board) and the Cronenberg looks so very yesterday, tired, old and not very wise. Compare him to Herzog (one year apart in ages) http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/2012/08/timestalk-interview-with-cronenberg-rob.html?zx=b89aec04f8cedff8 One is a master and one is a student grown old. Take the time to listen. Cronenberg at around 42:xx shows his lack of auteurness concerning philosophy and science. If your understanding is that sophomoric, then don't go there, don't reveal it, unless of course you don't know you don't know.
Out of respect, I read what you wrote. It's clear you are very knowledgeable but your hatred for this film or the idea of this film is so intense that you're talking in circles.
My need to call you out was merely based on this paragraph you wrote earlier:
"Sorry to offend you with intelligence. One of the defining attributes of an auteur filmmaker is her deep knowledge of philosophy, history, often math, art history, etc."
"Obviously the label "auteur" does not apply to Cronenberg even though it is used in connection with his name."
Your cavalier to insult someone's intelligence, then claim Cronenberg is no auteur.
Then you call out Cronenberg on personal slants he lends his films.
"What I do know as a feminist is that he has serious issues with female eroticism."
"Was he directed to do it that way, or did he just not know what to do? The actors were directed to not talk and discuss with each other, and the set was arranged so that they only met each other the day of the shooting."
Which should be a clear indication that the man IS an auteur. He has issues with female eroticism and it shows, he directs in a certain way for a means. That is his signature, his personality, reflected on the screen.
"In film criticism, auteur theory holds that a director's film reflects the director's personal creative vision..."
So when you judge and say someone isn't an auteur, then say you can't define one then proceed to define the person you said isn't one as one; well it's not difficult to see your anger toward this film is becoming deeply seated and your anger is clouding your true unbiased critique.
Say what you will about the film, but don't go around insulting people's intelligence based on your claim (from a single film) that someone isn't an auteur. On this, at least, you're wrong.
As for being a Randian, I don't believe I am one but I do say that it's important to define your terms when you're holding others accountable to your definitions - it's prejudiced and unfair putting the other person on the back foot from the get-go if you get to set the terms. I'm a Deist, slightly hedonistic soul who believes we should be allowed to our own devices as we see fit without hurting others around us - which is why I saw an opportunity to stand up for someone you were insulting by pleasing yourself.
Very well said. Her manner is pompous, arrogant and so stilted by her obvious love of this novel and hatred of Cronenberg`s treatment of it that it makes her analysis of it almost useless as a relevant reference. I am going to go out on a limb here and say she is probably not a lot of fun at parties either.....;-)
shareYou don't have the intelligence to offend with, certainly the pretentiousness to make yourself appear stupid however.
"Pattinson keeps getting suckered by directors who want to ride to Hollywood on his coattails."
This film is obviously not an attempt to 'breach' hollywood on cronenberg's behalf, it is also somewhat redeeming of pattinson given it is the only film I know of where he shows he can act. Or perhaps you are resentful of it because you are a fangirl and it casts a shadow over his previous body of work?
"One of the defining attributes of an auteur filmmaker is her deep knowledge of philosophy, history, often math, art history, etc. This is what distinguishes an auteur from say a Hollywood filmmaket."
No that's what defines a hack unable to produce something unique. An 'auteur' is made an auteur by their unique/original vision, not outside influences.
Your entire bias against the film (which is obviously derived from your bias against cronenberg) is obviously derived from what, a few (probably misread) quotes from interviews? Having seen the film it was clear to me cronenberg was not 'besmirching' either the OWS movement or benno (and what/those he represents), the film was clearly more sympathetic to these parties than to packer despite his being the protagonist. But then, why am I even trying to argue with someone so stupid they concreted their opinion of a complex film before even viewing it?
Good post Joope666. Another, albeit extremely obvious, point, Cronenberg did not 'besmirch' the OWS movement because it had not occurred when the movie was filmed let alone, when the script was written.
shareI've just ordered the book, saw the film last night. I was pretty impressed by the film, in particular the direction. In no way did I find Cronenberg to shy away from the weight of the subjects raised to make a satisfying narrative of riches to rags, of self destruction or even immolation. Instead I found the film to tackle, without conclusion, a myriad of concepts, the most profound of which were the takes on free will/ determinism and the idea of "the freedom to be found in capitalism" [on this note he follows Zizek quite interestingly in that ultimate freedom isn't the ability to do anything due to capital]. Also dualism in everything; it is both an anti-capitalist and a pro-capitalist film, both for and against protest, everything is inevitable but undetermined (or visa-versa) e.t.c. My partner also found the themes of art-as-capital and personal-safety-as-immobilising to be explored proficiently.
Now, having not read the book, I don't know how Cronenberg has adapted, bastardised, enhanced, whatever the themes from the original text but the film presents them to a degree that is competent and adept. I'm sure, especially after reading your comments, that the source material is amazing and incomparable to anything that a director could offer as an adaptation but, for what it is, I found the film pretty satisfying, not without faults and not satisfying in any normative cinematic experience.
Does the book deal with a kind of Schopanhaeur like disdain of free will? Is the book pro-capitalism (true capitalism?)? I can't wait to read it. Maybe I'm being too positive about this film but don't fob it off due to a trailer or it being an adaptation of something you cherish. Cronenberg's Naked Lunch interpretation irritated me for a while because I used to love the Beat writers but then I realised it was a different type of beast he was creating. Also the lighting in this film is very good. Bla bla bla, sorry for being so boring.
In the book, Eric can see the future a few minutes ahead in the face of his watch, or on a computer screen. He even asks in the film, as in the book, "Why can I see what's going to happen in the future?" and it still makes sense without the sci-fi element from the book. I haven't seen the film, but that seems to be the only change. All the dialogue is from the book.
One can have many different perspectives about art, with not one being more true than another.
Pisces Love Sheep
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF47GDdt87w
Eric sees his future ahead of time yes. In the very beginning there is just a shadow, "restless indentities stirring". In the limo Eric sees himself on the screen just before something happens to him. This is the appearance of the DOUBLE. It is also a literary device hyperion something or other, but in this case I shall go with Baudrillard. The DOUBLE appears with the presence of DEATH. So in the first pages the double is just a shadow "felt", then as he continues to "find" Elise without searching outside the limo, Destiny is arranging their meeting each time. After the meeting for each one of them, their selves divide and diverge, now living parallel existences. After each meeting the length of time between Eric - the original - (and which one is the original)and his double on screen increases. He has a near death experience with the stun gun, and after a near-death experience, the self that you are and the self that you were diverges. He is out about 15 minutes and you will note at the end his double on screen is about 15 minutes ahead of where he is sitting in the chair.
There is no one way to read this book. True. What is important that Cronenberg didn't get is that when Eric is in the limo he is in the Order of Production. When he leaves the limo he enters the Order of Seduction where things start to happen that are unplanned, risky. Elise is luring him on, from East to West (rising and setting sun - birth to death) and his journey can be read as Proustian and Journey to Samarkand, a sufi tale of Death waiting at the appointed place, while the person is running to another place after seeing Death, but in reality is running toward Death, while seeming to run away. Eric is Orpheus leading Elise away from Hades and the naked bodies, pulling her by the hand, not looking back at Eurydice to save her from Death. It's a very rich book.
The future scenes are a result of the appearance of the Double, a great figure in literature. (Dorian Grey for one. The Student of Krakow I believe is the title.) When the double appears Death is in the ROOM! The double makes the first appearance in the first pages with "restless identities stirring," a shadow, almost imperceptible. When Destiny crosses the historical line of an individual, this is an unusual occurrence, a moment of "Kairos" where who you were before and who you now are will lead parallel lives diverging farther and farther apart meeting only in Death. As Eric Packer 's Destiny arranges for him to meet Elise Shifrin multiple times during this day, each time their Destinies cross (The Castle of Crossed Destinies - Calvino) the Double separates in time from their selves - altho we only get Packer's experience but Elise changes also. The inversion is significant as the Double experiences reality just before Eric Packer experiences it. and this time delay increases. When Packer is stun gunned and out for about 15 minutes we have Destiny and the near Death experience, again separating the 2 by 15 minutes now and at the end we see Packer looking at himself dead in the morgue, knowing he is dead. And what does he say? *beep* I'm dead." For at the moment of Death all selves come back together.
Eric Packer is no more self-destructive and suicidal than Jesus or Francisco, who lies on the floor in front of Dagny with arms spread, his body in the shape of a cross.
I dare to say the Cronenberg would interpret Jesus as a self-destructive, suicidal loser. A clinical observation in the Order of Production NOT in the Order of Seduction.
Damn, so many references, I obviously haven't got your literary background, it's almost demotivating me to read the Cosmopolis novel, knowing I'll probably get it all wrong anyways :P
They also made an Atlas Shrugged movie, haven't seen it though, perhaps you have? I might just watch it to get the Fransisco - Packer parralel
I've been going trough some of your blogs, not familiar with the site though, really hard to get a good overview (or is that just me?), I was just wondering if you could tell (in short) what Eric Packers motives were if he wasn't a self destructive, suicidal loser as you described.
What I got from the movie was that Eric Packer was a man living on the thrills that (cyber)capitalism provided for him, but as his system started to collapse around him he needed something new, a different kind of thrill which in the movie slowly escalates into the bizarre and extreme
btw, you can hotlink here, use the [.url]link[/url] code (without the .)
Don't torture yourself seeing the movie Atlas as it has been done by idiots. Start on page 112 of Atlas Signet ed and read that part or you can read the blog of mine at http://aynrand2.blogspot.com/2012/06/cosmopolis-review-delillo-and-ayn-rand.html?zx=98c6e7e2f045f69
Every time Eric Packer leaves the limo he enters the Order of Seduction and the world wills him. He surrenders to the world willing him. Destiny, challenge, risk,life, love, passion and it is Elise who is pulling him. This is Baudrillard. Packer is losing his money while he thinks within the classical Hegelian dialectic of opposition. What goes up must come down. Cyber capital is "floating capital" a signifier without a signified; no representation. Just numbers circulating globally, in orbit, an asymmetrical orbit BTW, that rises and sets with the sun. After the stun gun he takes all of Elise's money and purposefully "disappears" it saying to her it is all air anyway. He has been borrowing "yes" not yuan all day on margin and he wants all their is, just as he wants the entire chapel of Rothkos, all the sex there is, all the food on the table, etc. Conspicuous consumption carried to excess. The more he borrows the more demand there is for the yen, so the higher it goes. Then when he disappears all Elise's money he does it in a state of exhilaration and glee and feeling one with the demonstrators who read the same poetry he does. Then he feels perfect. He sees the consequences, the govt officials are spouting nonsense and he knows it is the yen. He knows he has destroyed cyber capital. As DeLillo has said in his youtube Krasny interviews he wanted his character to destroy cyber capital in one day. It seems none of the academics at my conference, nor Cronenberg took the time to listen to DeLillo as he clairvoyantly predicted the derivative meltdown that happened just as fast. Was someone doing that one deliberately? I've written about all this. I'm not finished yet, just taking a breather while I Eric Packered the "cheating" scandal of Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders. I "packered" the tabloids! It only took about 5 of us. Neat eh. Ai Wei Wei holds off the entire Chinese govt with twitter.
Not to worry about my overview since I have none. I write fragments. Since the world is not linear, continuous, progressive, historical then why does writing have to be that way. So I am not. I say the same things over and over in different ways through different media.
shareBut would you say Eric Packer destroyed the cyber capital system on purpose? if so, why would he do that?
And somewhere you linked the Occupy movement to the ''protests against the future'' from the movie, but wouldn't you say that a protest or revolution within the limits of the system is still useless? I'm trying to understand the effectiveness of the actual Occupy movement (which to my idea is already a thing of the past, at least in my country it hyped for a while but not anymore) and general idea of protesting/revolutions
Zizek discusses the <i>unknown knowns</i> in his book on reading Lacan. He does not connect this with Rand, but in his JARS article on Rand he puts her in the category of over-indentification with capitalism. She is more so. What Zizek does not know is that Rand began studying Nietzsche at age 16 and continued up through the publication of Fountainhead when she wanted to put a quote of his before all the parts of the novel. However, Fountainhead was published in the middle of World War II on war paper, and Hitler had embraced Nietzsche as the philosopher of the Third Reich. Bobbs-Merrill was not going to permit this, and at the time in her Journals Nietzsche has been scrubbed out by Peikoff. Enough is there, especially in her early days in the US to see how deeply she was connected to him. Without having spent serious time with Baudrillard, who also read Nietzsche very young and discusses him, one cannot really appreciate how deeply Nietzsche affects someone who has read him as he commands: "Words that are written in blood are not to be read, but to be learnt by heart." And we know Rand took that seriously.
Through Greenspan, Rand's acolyte, all restraints were taken off speculation. Early Marx, before Capital, reading Zizek, understands that capital must, - must - continue to metastasize, as it is "irreversible" and the concept of irreversibility comes from Baudrillard. "There is no outside (Foucault quote)", DeLillo through Vija Kinski. So "capital must be destroyed by capital or not at all" says Baudrillard.
DeLillo says he wanted his character to destroy cyber-capital in one day, and he said this was fictional, not knowing it could happen that fast as we saw with the derivative crash and in the film Margin Call.
So yes Occupy is over, but it did not make the mistake of aggressive protest as that is perceived as useless now, but it is a subtle distinction between other major protests and Occupy at which Zizek spoke.
And yes protests are useless but still very important as resistance. Just not effective in any way measurable. But all the meetings of individuals, the networking, all of that is of extreme importance for that generation. And this was the true lasting benefit of all the Viet Nam war protests. The sex, the coming together of music, people, older respected adults, and all that it spawned good and negative. All these are in the Order of Symbolic Seduction not in the Order of Production where a formal agenda lies.
Now to Eric Packer. He did not consciously set out to destroy cyber-capital. But did Jesus set out to destroy the Roman Empire when he turned over the tables of the money changers in the Temple (of finance in God's House)? Did Jesus intend the entire power of Rome to be the Church, the Vatican? These are consequences of Jesus following Isaiah and his prophecy. DeLillo believes in the power of narrative transcendence. Foucault and Baudrillard do not and this is where DeLillo separates from them, and at the same time fictionalizes their work. "There is no outside" is a direct quote from Foucault. And Baudrillard has written Forget Foucault in which he does not argue with Foucault but affirms every one of his premises making Foucault far more radical than he ever dreamed. It is difficult to come to Baudrillard without first going through Foucault which will send you to Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and on an adventure of the mind you never thought would happen to you.
So Packer is letting the world will him as Baudrillard would say, in the Order of Symbolic Seduction every time he gets out of the limo, just as Jesus is letting the world will him, both refusing to strike back at their attackers, both destroying the meaning of money, and both with stigmata in their palms. Eric self-inflicts his to feel pain, deforming awful pain as the inscribed bodies (also Nietzsche)he has been observing all day long and unknowingly - ? - another unknown known ? - places the stigmata of the Christ in his own palm. We get this recognition in Giamatti's face in the movie, although Cronenberg directs Rob to shoot himself in the BACK of his hand to eliminate this resonance. But reading through Lacan we know that the deliberate opposite is a mask affirming its own opposite. All the Cronenberg has done by eliminating the "spirit" of the novel is to affirm it by masking it.
"Nancy Babich" is the code for the smart gun. To shoot what keeps him in surival mode "so he can go out into the night to live!" To meet Destiny. Babette Babich is the name of a philosopher at Fordham University who is the international Nietzsche, Heidegger, Holderlin scholar of our time having inherited the crown of Hannah Arendt it seems. Babette is the name of Jack's wife in White Noise. Jack is the premiere Hitler Scholar internationally. All this is code from DeLillo who never uses a name that is just a name. This novel is as "packed" as Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake.
So no Packer doesn't know, Jesus doesn't know, Rand doesn't even know her part in beginning the destruction of capitalism, Francisco knows and John Galt knows and they set out to do it, having studies with the same philosopher, who is a disguised Nietzsche. Rand's mistake was her idealistic ending, but she did show the fictional way to destroy cyber capital and capital itself used as speculation which does not involve any product or work. That part is the crucial difference.
Actually you are one of my ideal readers. Can we take this to my blog, any of them really. All this is there in better form, in fragments as Nietzsche wrote, which makes it impossible to formalize the thinking, and in a format much easier to read and understand than the linear way I am writing here. You will have to register on disqus - which has other advantages - for me to have easy access to your comments on my blog posts. I hope to see you there my ideal reader.
Thanks, that actually cleared up a lot!
I really want to read the novel first (and give the movie a second viewing), but I will definitely remember your blogs for when I got more stuff to discuss. Must say I'm really interested in themes surrounding cyber-capital and economic systems in general, so I'll probably dig into that pretty soon.
Good. Glad to help. It's really a matter of thinking differently. It's pretty obvious in The Dark Knight Rises, an incredible film. Nolan is just unbelievably excellent. I saw it tonight for the 4th time and I always get a few more things as it is so dense. He uses a lot of Nietzsche/Rand/Baudrillard/Zizek inversions all through it. It is obvious he has been spending time with all this stuff since The Dark Knight and the Joker. He plays the neo-liberal and conservative oppositions against each other as Zizek teaches in his Hegel book. Oppositions serve the purpose of hiding what is being ignored. As long as you argue the opposition points you fall in the trap. Rand was very good at avoiding that as she was well trained in Nietzschean thinking. When Bane puts Batman in the pit with the sky at the top of that circular stone wall and says that you cannot really know despair unless there is hope. It is dense with oppositions like this. Yaaaay Zizek! Watch and listen to him on youtube.
shareNo, no dualism. DeLillo is out of the classic Hegelian dialectic of good/evil, life/death, and into the world of post modern thinking. Life is in relation to death, they are not opposites. Without the life/death relation, you only have survival. This is where Eric is in the beginning in the limo, with his over concern, his obsessive, excessive concern about his health. The book is defiantly against cyber-capital which is Virtual Capital. Capital unleashed from any restraints, floating free, is Virtual Capital, just numbers in the air as Eric tells Elise, money talking only to itself, to other currencies: no product; no labor; nada.
I would say that someone intelligent who has not read the book could probably find the film intriguing and enjoyable. But when it could have made a huge statement about cyber-capital, about the depth of the danger we are in, and instead to get a film that is, as Zizek would say, decaffeinated. Cosmopolis film "light" I would say.
Great question on free-will. Cosmopolis as DeLillo wrote it is a challenge to Foucault and Baudrillard, the importance of narrative transcendence, which DeLillo being Jesuit influenced believes in the power of while Foucault and Baudrillard do not. When Eric leaves the limo, kills Torval (invert and Lacanian pun on lav-rot/rat) he kills Torval because Torval is being paid to keep him alive. He cannot fully enter the Order of Seduction while his Guard is there, so he must kill the Guard in order to enter the Order of Seduction: reversibility; life/death; challenge; risk; passion; love etc. This is not the act of a narcissistic, amoral person, this is a mythological act, as the novel is mythical, not psychological.
Leaving the limo he enters the world. He surrenders to "let the world will him" to slough off decisions, responsibilities, wagers, irreversibility, accumulation, survival, comfort, where things balance as they do in the dialectic. He enters the asymmetry of the world, its radicality, its singularity, its seduction, etc.
A truly marvelous novel to be read hundreds of different ways. Just not psychologially, dialectically, not according to the principles and practices of the Dominating Discourse of literary criticism.
[deleted]
That's a nice reading! I like that! Have you read my blog posts on Cosmopolis? 70 different readings and still going. At some point Moby Dick will come in more than just a toss away.
share[deleted]
It's at blogspot under seymourblogger I don't know if I can put a hot link here but.... cosmopolisfilm2 dot blog spot
shareInteresting blogs, but have you actually seen the movie by now? I haven't read the book yet but I did see the film, which I thought was awesome and I recognised a lot of discussion points that you bring up in the film, which is very literal, lots of dialogue and stuff, which also made it quite boring/confusing for people who were going in for a entertaining movie in stead of approaching it as a work of literature. I don't know how descriptive the book is but the movie left a lot of things open to interpretation and lets some key-actions speak for themselves, perhaps with your rich knowledge of the book you might enjoy it even more than others ;)
I also wonder what Delillo thinks of the movie, I was hoping this movie would become the Fight Club of our time, which proved a movie can be better/richer than the book (the writer of Fight Club agreed on this himself), because personally I like movies more than books, especially those that manage to achieve the same level of depth like a work of literature can.
edit:
Found an interview with Don Delillo on the movie, turns out he likes it:
DON DELILLO TALKS COSMOPOLISshare
”It all happened very quickly, actually. [The script] was incredibly close to the book. Of course, Cronenberg cut out a few scenes that couldn’t work out, but it is totally faithful to the spirit of the novel. Of course, I had no intention to make comments when I read it, it had become a Cronenberg film. It is my novel, but it is his film, there is no question about it. Then, last March, I saw the film in New York once it was completed. I was really impressed. It is as uncompromising as it can possibly be. I liked it from the very beginning, from the opening credits: what an amazing idea to start with Jackson Pollock, and to finish with Rothko, for that matter. And the final scene, with [---] and [---], is just mind-blowing! Throughout the years, there have been many proposals to adapt several of my books, but they have never come through. I thought that adapting ‘Cosmopolis’ would be particularly tricky, since most action is confined within a car, which doesn’t translate well to the screen. But not only did Cronenberg respect that, he also shot in the limo some scenes that originally happened elsewhere, like the sequence with Juliette Binoche, for instance.”
And on Cronenberg taking swathes of dialogue directly from the novel:
“It is the strangest thing! These are my words, but they take on another life. I wrote this conversation about art that Eric and the character played by Juliette Binoche have, but somehow it felt like I was discovering it, or even understanding it for the first time.”
has said that the spirit of the novel must be kept intact. The details, the time, the location etc may differ but the spirit must be there.
Yes I have seen Cronenberg's Cosmopolis. Twice. The opening night at the Moxie in Springfield MO, an independent movie theatre whose audiences are used to thinking when they see a film. There were 3 of us there. And I think the young boy was there because his girlfriend wanted to see Rob Pattinson.
The second time there were 7 others beside myself. One young college boy wanted to talk about it. (No one I saw both movies with had read the book.) This young man said it reminded him of the TV show Red Rover (????) where people said things in foreign languages they didn't know or understand. I thought his naive criticism was spot on perfect.
Binoche, Pattinson sometimes, Kevin Durand,Giamatti were about the only ones with any idea of what they were saying. Morton, always splendid, said her lines "as if" she understodd them but not really.
Cronenberg misread the book, ordered his actors NOT to read it before shooting, directed it with misunderstanding, the actors misunderstood it, the reviewers misunderstood it, and the audiences misunderstood it. To make it worse the Cronenberg took Rob for publicity to ring the opening bell of the NYSE (after DeLillo's statement you quoted) for box office publicity. This was almost to a year of the anniversary of Occupy giving a very nice F you to Occupy and to all of DeLillo's lifetime work in writing and interviews. To add another insult the Cronenberg made fun of the "comic book" Batman in The Dark Night Rises by Christopher Nolan who knew absolutely post modern thinking, which he learned between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. A masterpiece IMO.
The two together could have made an enormous cultural impact to align with Occupy. If only David Fincher had directed it. Why DeLillo said what he said I do not know. I really don't. He is far to savvy on media corruption to not know what the Cronenberg did to eviscerate his novel. Me? I won't let him get away with it. I have been head writing my review quite awhile now but that Scandal of Stewart came up and I had to spend about 2 months destroying it and the tabloids. Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Zizek, and Ai Wei Wei will get you far these days with twitter. Actually only about 5 of us did it. Ai Wei Wei holds off the entire Chinese governemnt with twitter.
We have so much power and we don't know how to use it. But if you loved the book then I imagine you can imagine the film it could have been. All Spencer Tunick's naked body performance art pieces all over the world could have been used real or incorporated in the film. But the Cronenberg thought it was Packer's fantasy. I give up.
I agree with you it should have been a major film on the subject of cyber-capital but in an interview the Cronenberg kept saying capital indicating he didn't know the difference even though Morton used it in one of her lines. All the philosophy in the film was masked by the demonstration noise so you couldn't understand it if you were sophisticated and trying to hear it.
You aren't as intelligent as you seem, because Nolans film was a condemnation of the Occupy movement, as it should be rightfully condemned as a degenerate Leftist outcry. From impotent, confused, deranged, Marxist drones who will never amount to anything in life other than whiners and the beggar class and the need to drag humanity into the slums with them.
share[deleted]
No I do not think DeLillo had an ulterior motive. I wrote this quite awhile ago and I now think DeLillo simply thought Cronenberg should interpret his novel the way he wanted to. DeLillo is not an authoritarian/fascist writer nor do I think he is that kind of person.
I am not dead sue of my interpretation of the book because I have no particular interpretation. since I have read it over 100 says now, it should be obvious to anyone that there is no party line PC correctness concerning DeLillo's novel. Reading it is really a matter of following DeLillo's cookie crumbs which he scatters all over the place and puts you in a labyrinth of a novel. Cronenberg took the superficial easy road: self-destructive, suicidal Eric Packer who "loses" all his billions in one day. The novel is dedicated to Paul Auster and anyone who has read Auster's The Music of Chance will come up with even more resonances. DeLillo himself said that when he saw the film he saw things he hadn't seen before so that should tell you there is no one way to see it. But if you throw out Foucault, Rand, Nietzsche,Baudrillard it might be like reading Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead without having ever heard of Hamlet. Or Updike's Gertrude and Claudius without knowing Hamlet. Literature talks only to itself since Cervantes. Vija Kinski: Money talks only to itself. DeLillo's Cosmopolis is also about the loss of representation.Only "floating signs" circulating globally is where we are now. Have you been following Snowden and his strategy concerning all this?
So far, you've pretty much justified the criticism that post-modernist thinking means coming up with annoyingly twisted and opaque ways of saying what can be explained in very simple terms.
So if you are correct then what's the point of studying literature, film, etc or culture because studying at that level means listening and reading various interpretations of different works of art. Enriching your perception. It's not about liking it or not.
Which is the problem with this film, really. A meandering piece of wooden conversations dripping with symbolism and no sentiment. Less a film than a philosophical debate framed by gorgeous imagery. Whether it represents the book or not is of no consequence. I don't care if DeLillo likes it or the OP doesn't and the interpretation is all wrong. I saw it as a film, and as a film it failed. And that is my feeling. Giving me endless references to the book and the philosophy behind it to try and change my mind, if you were a fan, would do nothing because knowledge has no impact on emotional responses.
It's not about there being no point to studying it - just that you shouldn't look down upon people's opinions if they haven't. I clearly stated that knowledge can enhance an experience - but it can never fix your response to something when it is negative. If you like something you do and if you don't you don't. Then you can add knowledge to that experience and understand better why you reacted that way. But no amount of knowledge will improve a piece of art. It will only give it layers.
And denoting the film vs. book idea as something 'mediocre' simply plays into the idea of your hybris problem. There is nothing mediocre about it. Very few ever really explore it. Don't think I have ever read a review of a film based on a book that never mentions the book. That would be separating them. That would be interesting. Obviously someone makes a film version of something because they liked the book and want to represent it filmically. Clearly the interpreter will not ignore the book and nor should the book be ignored. But the result should be looked upon as a different entity. It should be interpreted on its merits as a film first - then on whether it lived up to the book - which is hardly ever done.
But you still bang on about how Cronenberg doesn't understand - and pompously needed to add that I don't either - when you have never had a conversation with either of us. It is the assumption of someone who believes that their knowledge supersedes all other's based on a notion of their own importance that they have created through consuming information.
Me feeling that Eric is the representation of the modern ego and its cold distancing from the emotional reality of the world is a valid idea. It should remain so even if you, for example, tell me that he is not. I can explain to you that his actions are cold throughout and his limo is like a cage that shelters his identity, his concept of himself from the outside world. The outside world is full of real emotions - the characters out there function like humans, whereas he functions like numbers, like facts, like the computerised world that is infesting us - separating us from our emotional selves. He needs to be killed by those who feel and be ignored and something new must emerge.
You may look upon this interpretation as not taking into account Aynd's ideas of capitalism and Foucault's and Baudillard's ideas of power and the individual and so on. That is irrelevant. Who cares. It doesn't matter if an individual's interpretation ignores thoughts of dead clever people. These clever thinkers from our literary and philosophical history serve only to give words to things that clever alive people can figure out for themselves. Quoting other people's ideas is not a sign of intelligence. It is parroting. It is repeating words someone else wrote. I'm not saying it isn't interesting to read - nor that one shouldn't. Please understand that. I am saying that the ability to reference does not mean you understand better. It means you understand differently.
And you have read this book over 100 times. And you seem to claim that because you have read it so many times you should be in a better position to judge Cronenberg's film than DeLillo who wrote the bloody thing. That's called delusion and obsession.
Oh. And Cronenberg has a distinct filmmaking style. His films are always political. He is one of the auteurs. If you like him or not is another question. End of discussion on that point. Not sure why you try to make that claim.
Me feeling that Eric is the representation of the modern ego and its cold distancing from the emotional reality of the world is a valid idea. It should remain so even if you, for example, tell me that he is not. I can explain to you that his actions are cold throughout and his limo is like a cage that shelters his identity, his concept of himself from the outside world. The outside world is full of real emotions - the characters out there function like humans, whereas he functions like numbers, like facts, like the computerised world that is infesting us - separating us from our emotional selves. He needs to be killed by those who feel and be ignored and something new must emerge.
But you see therein lies exactly my point... psychological interpretation will never be over because every human does it - just because Sontag and Foucault and whoever else of the literati say/said so doesn't mean it is so. I have read most of the writers you talk about. That simply isn't my point. Since University days(studying Literature/Philosophy/History so you know) of sitting and discussing things based on other people's ideas I have come to think that individuals ideas are far more interesting if they don't constantly reference. Referencing is parroting. It simply is. Being aware of these thinkers is great. But quoting to prove a point doesn't somehow make the idea more valid - it simply puts a name to a thought. You attribute one of my interpretations to Freud - as if to say because Freud went on about the Ego and the Id and the subconscious and so on, my idea ceases to be my own. When you pointed it out I thought - yes, that is rather Freudian - but the thought didn't come from me reading him or quoting him or referencing him. I was simply writing my spontaneous thoughts to make a point. You beautifully did exactly what I assumed you would do - you dismissed the idea because of some ridiculous philosophical, post-modern trend - as if that somehow denigrates my, or anyone else's, interpretation. It's 'over'. OK. For whom? For you? For Foucault? Clearly it is for him as he is dead. But for anyone else who has an idea based on a work of art or film, say?
The heart of the problem of discussions about any given subject when you deal with a 'referencer' is that this individual distances themselves from anyone who is unable or unwilling to discuss things using the same language. It is not necessary to go off and read a bunch of books to interpret something. Any clever individual with the ability to see beyond face value is able to have interesting ideas about a work of art. Even those who are not 'clever' so to speak will have ideas. Why dismiss them so rudely and pompously? Whom does that serve? Which feeds rather well into Foucault's ideas, doesn't it? The way that you, in this thread, are creating a certain discourse which gives you a certain element of power as your knowledge within this discourse is (apparently) beyond the others. You create subjects within your discourse that you try to absorb people into in order to oppress them as you have decided the identity of the subject within the discourse. Others are trying to explore the subject through other means and other forms of discourse which you dismiss, having placed yourself as the purveyor of the (unknowable) truth.
Surely you are a mere representation of exactly the problem he highlighted. Which is my point. I could quote Barthes here, but I don't want his words, I want mine. The plethora of thoughts and ideas and musings by all these former individuals as a way of raising the importance of your interpretation is merely quoting a series of individuals, who, just like ourselves, have lived and experienced and thought. So their ideas are in no way more significant than ours. They have simply written them down for posterity and legacy and for others to wield into some kind of sword of mythological power. It isn't real. It's a construct. You are constructing a reality that is merely one reality - or several if we count your '100' readings. No one is above being part of the construct. The books you are referencing are merely part of the discourse, the myth, the construct. Just because one is the person writing the theories doesn't make one exempt.
So... My issue lies with not allowing people their interpretations. Subjectivity is not dead. Objectivity is impossible. So instead of insisting that there can only be certain interpretations that qualify try to listen to some of your favourite philosophers and try to raise your use-value and exchange-value above your sign-value...
The problem with interpretation is the Discourse it belongs in. The Hegelian classical Dominating Discourse of the Dialectic which you and I are involved in. It is about who is to dominate: you or I? whose interpretation is to dominate: yours or mine.
I am disputing the Discourse you are in.
try to raise your use-value and exchange-value above your sign-value...and you are using the above incorrectly. But go ahead. It is a great sound-bite, a great ready-made. I can use them too and not attach where I got them from so as to make it seem as if they are my own ideas because I don't mention their origin. The person who originally thought them up. You are taking Zizek waaaaay out of context here in his Living In The End Times.
God... this is tiresome. Instead of listening you merely continue quoting and referencing and trying to catch out and attempting to out-read, reference, bla bla bla. I'm not trying to outdo your knowledge of philosophy. Even if I could that would be pointless. Because instead of responding to the content, like a politician, you try to devalue my point through intellectual analysis of words, phraseology, references - skirting benignly away from the actual content.
You are talking about domination within our discourse. I am talking about how you are unwilling to accept any other discourse unless those involved use ideas that are referenced with the same interpretation as you had when you read them - more 'seriously', apparently, than myself or anyone else that ever discusses with you, I assume.
But thanks for making my point for me:
And this is the way it gets all combobulated and confused until no one knows what it means and you have jargon that sounds intellectually important but means nothing.
try to raise your use-value and exchange-value above your sign-value...
Attribute what belongs to Caesar to Caesar.
Bazin the film critic: The spirit of the novel must remain intact. The details, the country, the time, the setting, all may change as long as the spirit remains intact. That sound-bite: "the movie is a different beast from the novel" is just that: A SOUND BITE, A READY-MADE that has been propagandized and sold so that filmmakers can use the book as an "empty floating sign" for the box office it will bring. BTW Gone With The Wind followed the spirit and the details and still hauls in the box office, so it can be done.
Yes the novel addresses the disdain of free will very consciously and so does the Cronenberg's film in an ignorant way of the dissolution of the character according to a medieval concept of fate. Baudrillard, whom the academics have read DeLillo's Cosmopolis through, makes it very clear. Eric Packer begins the day in the Order of Production, although we see glimmerings of the Order of Seduction that draws him in the character of Elise, which Gadon interpreted though 1974 Foucault The History of Sexuality I, in terms of not allowing Packer to hystericize on her. (What a sound bite education in film theory will do to an actress of her great talent.)Elise is Gradiva, as DeLillo scatters cookie crumbs all through the novel so you will get that. He ends different from Jensen's Gradiva and more consistent with Freud's Delusion and Dream in Jensen's Gradiva, and with Zizek's the disappearing woman in film in his book on Lacan.
If one reads DeLillo's Cosmopolis through Ayn Rand - lots more cookie crumbs - the character of Eric Packer is clearly paralleling Francisco of Atlas Shrugged although in the Order of Seduction whereas Francisco destroys in the Order of Production. Zizek has written on Rand in JARS on her over-identification with capitalism, as being more capitalist than any capitalist. Zizek does not know the early details of Rand's long love affair with Nietzsche. Like Bataille and Baudrillard he was her early mentor from age 16 into middle age when Fountainhead was finished, but Nietzsche was in her blood and bones by then, as with Badrillard and Bataille, who said Nietzsche was his only friend.
You might like all my blog posts on Cosmopolisfilm2 at blog spot. Don't know if hot links go through here.
wow someone has a bit of a god complex, you just love to read your own words don't ya? maybe someone will read all your blogs and wanna make a movie about you and you'll be the happiest person in the world and everyone will bow down before your infinite knowledge! send me an invite when you get your church started i'll drop by sometime
shareI will.
share"He is not aware of sexism in its finer manifestations". Yes, his sexism radar isn't hypersensitive. He showed a dark-skinned lady naked in Cosmopolis, whoop-de-do. He also had naked women in Crash and History of Violence, his earlier films, and Viggo's member had a cameo in Eastern Promises. All people of, oh I don't know, "non-color" I guess.
It's weird the way this poster describes Cronenberg as being self-satisfied at having written the script in six days. DC has acknowledged he was only able to do this because the writing was great and he basically transcribed it. He's not at all bragging.
@seymourblogger
Wow! You went on a rant that long and you haven't seen the film! I assume you are one of those people who live their life as a troll, and you don't even mean this as some joke. Well, let's hope not.
And, then you later type that you have seen it. You praise Fincher and Nolan, who have both gone down hill, while Cronenberg has gotten better. The Social Network took a complex, real story with deep philosophical underpinnings and a theoretical protagonist and created stereotypical nonsense. To make a movie about such recent history that is such utter bs, did take chutzpah; I'll give him that. The Dark Night was good but not as much as it's been made to be, and The Dark Night Rises was satisfactory. Certainly, it was nothing special. There is some interesting relevant philosophy in that franchise, bu nothing profound.
You throw together these philosophies and philosophers that don't go together, in fact in some instances oppose each other. You misrepresent the difference between Foucault and Baudrillard. Some of the points you make are good, but on the whole, your thoughts are scrambled, if they are really your thoughts. I like the effort, just confused.
If you really want to understand this film then I suggest you read some different readings of it. http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com I think you are projecting your experience of scrambled. Foucault and Baudrillard do go together which you will understand if you read Baudrillard's Forget Foucault!
Nolan is well aware of all this in The Dark Knight Rises. If you think post modern thinking is not profound that is your opinion. It is the basic difference between Wayne and Bane (get the Lacanian rhyme?)Bruce Wayne is stuck in the Dominating Discourse of the classical Hegelian dialectic. Bane is all post modern. "Despair cannot be deeply felt without hope." Hence the opening at the top to increase despair. That is post modern thinking. The masks is another aspect of it. Ayn Rand is also a serious student of Nietzsche where all this has come from through Foucault and Baudrillard. Zizek is coming from Lacan and Hegel so his slant differs and is also wonderful.
I can understand a film on my own, thank you very much. I, again, like your effort, but I don't think you make a good case.
I have not read Forget Foucault, but I will put it on my list. I felt comfortable commentating on that subject because I have read 3+ books by Baudrillard, and a good deal about his critique of Foucault. Perhaps, I even read the Forget Foucault essay. I am not sure. From my reading, I remember Baudrillard saw power as the key factor in the world that everyone wanted (but everyone is actually powerless because of the systematic constraints). Baudrillard believed desire really only existed in terms of power, so he rejected Foucault's use of it. The essay is called FORGET Foucault and you're tying the two together like they're Bert and Ernie.
I know Nolan is a smart guy, and I think he made a good franchise. But, I don't think having some philosophical references makes a movie or a person deep. It's good, just not good enough to opine about philosophically. It's a disservice to the complications in the philosophies. I am doing the opposite of making any comments against any philosophy, but trying to be respectful. I don't think you're recognizing the nuances, and I have a hard time understanding your philosophical interpretations and references.
[deleted]
box office what? no man in his right mind would think this could be a box office hit.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
If you read the book and can imagine David Fincher doing it then you have an incredible box office hit. But it would have had to have a bigger budget and someone who understood the book. Well, it will just have to sit in my imagination as it might have been. And what it might have said to the world taking place at the same time as Occupy Wall Street did.
shareyou saying there's enough action in the book for Fincher or Soderberg to fill around 2 hrs of screen time with suspense and excitement? I doubt that.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
Did you read it? YOu can read some of the things I wrote about it here:http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/?zx=e3ad60efd3d99e73 I love Lovecraft also BTW. Have you read Joyce Carol Oates who has been very influenced by Lovecraft.
Cthulhu is awakening.
Thank you for your commentary. It sure sheds a lot of light on some of the questions about the film... Even not having read the book, I got the recurring feeling that Cronenberg is just staging scenes without actually knowing what they are about - and typically I'd blame myself first for just "not getting it".
Not to mention your posts are superbly articulated. Cheers
Wow. You are about the first person that got it. The reviewers hadn't read the book deeply. I presented at a conference on DeLillo at St. Vincent's University last April and the panel I was on was Cosmopolis. There was one Eastern European graduate student who was just about the only one who had any grasp on DeLillo's work reading Point Omega through Antonioni's L'Avventura. I was appalled at the lack of continental scholarship especially since there were a number of books written reading Cosmopolis and other novels of DeLillo through Baudrillard.
And that's exactly what Cronenberg wanted you to do. Blame yourself. Blame the victim who is sitting in the theatre for not understanding. In the interviews he would even let Rob interpret Eric Packer when asked a question and then he would pat him on the head, "Good boy. Be quiet now." Most of the actors were reciting lines they did not know the meaning of. And the way they jumped all around in the limo out of nervousness. And the endless ranting on the pie throwing. For me it never ends with all the mistakes.
"In the interviews he would even let Rob interpret Eric Packer when asked a question and then he would pat him on the head, 'Good boy. Be quiet now'."
Are you referring to the panel at the Cannes film festival? REALLY?! Do acquaintances ever suggest you might be misinterpreting facial expressions, comments, or other physical gestures?
Don't bother answering....
An adult man does not pat another adult man on the head as he would a child unless he is showing a "floating sign" of dominance. Women know this very well, especially if they are shorter than the man. We get patted on the head to remind us that it's OK, be quiet now, everything's OK don't worry I have it under control, etc. It makes the modern woman furious. And Cronenberg is treating Rob as a man would treat a woman in this instance, in a public forum when Rob discusses TIME in Connection with Cosmopolis as the woman interviewer had brought up before. How obvious can DeLillo be in bringing up TIME with his references to PROUST, the prousted limo, the journey across town referring to Swann's Way and Remembrance of Time Past or another translation of the title, In Search of Lost Time. I could go on to the referring to Journey to Samarkand to meet Death but that's overkill. Rob was correct and Cronenberg shut him up. He evidently can't tolerate an actor telling what he has messed up so badly. If he allows Rob to open the can of worms of TIME the cat is out of the bag that he didn't understand the book. But you can bet the interviewer at Cannes knew about Proust.
The other time Cronenberg shut Rob up was when Rob made the statement that Eric Packer said, "When I die I won't die, the world will die." (close but not perfect)This was one of Ayn Rand's favorite sayings. If Rand's influence on DeLillo's Cosmopolis is permitted, then all hell breaks loose for Cronenberg who misread and misfilmed the entire book and the character of Eric Packer.He directed Rob in a miserable unfortunate way and took away what could have been one of the most riveting performances of his entire career had Cronenberg understood DeLillo's Cosmopolis AND been up to filming it in all its horrifying truth. To read Packer through Jesus is an appalling reading.
Very selfindulgent interpretation. More a personal statement, I think, than anything else. This is simply a reflection of being very comfortable, liking one another, and having a good sense of humor. You see this behavior with good friends, deep bonds. In any less defined relationships precious egos would be bruised. You can continue with your silly philosophical diatribes and OTT interpretations/ viewpoints. Ultimately, they only mean anything to you. I bet you could talk to yourself for days and not realize no one is paying attention.
sharewow, while i get the feeling you are probably right in cronenberg butchering this book. You seem like someone who is in love with themselves a lot. A pretentious artist, an emperor in love with his new clothes.
You are the equivalent for art, what I call wannabes that exist in modern society.
Wannabes are people who want to be a thing, not in and for reasons of itself, but rather for external reasons, mainly how society see's them rather than for the reason itself.
Main one being love. People are in love with "love", with the concept of love, mainly this takes the form of hollywood love, which is nothing more than romanticised lust. So instead of being "in love", people are in love with "being in love". Such people are the serial divorcees, the tailor swifts, and the Elizabeth Taylor.
Others being wannabe gangsta, kids who like to pretend they are hard and from the street, when they really grew up in well to do upper working class,s table household with two parents and a loving family.
Or another big one nowadays singers and pop-stars. Everyone wants to be a singer or a musician, not because they love music, not because they want to be a singer or a musician, but because "they want to be recognised as being a singer or a musician". What they want is social recognition as an artist, a pop-star, they don't really want to be a singer. take away the fame, the money, the artistic recognition and all these wannabes stop wanting to be the next manufactured Justin bieber.
you seem to be the same for art, literature, poetry whatever it is you seem obsessed with. Whilst no doubt such things exist (to some extent) you seem to be in love with the artistic nature of art, rather than just appreciating art for itself.
This wannabe disease is dangerous, and you seem to be suffering from a heavy dose of it. Stop being in love "with being in love with art". It makes it chic (is that the word? when something pretends to be art or artisitc).
That is not healthy.
@thornsthorns
Well said! This is more about this commentator's personality than anything. It is sorely lacking in philosophical details, and his understanding appears to be jumbled.
However, some effort to understand the philosophy is better than none.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ8AIIAgYpg
Xav
Wow. Have only watched the first part of this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ8AIIAgYpg
Ben and Eric represent the opposite ends of the spectrum. While Eric aims for perfection and is the rich guy whose every action determines volumes in the common man's life, Ben is someone who can't get himself to plan anything, let alone execute and none of his actions count for anything.
They both have had horrible lives; while Ben has lived out his time blaming the rich and Eric in particular for his plight, Eric has lost the simple pleasures in life when he is totally artificial - over-analysing simple things, being materialistic - sex, things, and being cold about other people, especially the ones who directly don't play a role in his life, but he plays a major role in their lives. Ben doesn't have enough for himself - there are thousand Bens in this world, but they have led their pathetic lives because they have not made any efforts to better their lives. Eric has enough for one country, but he buys things for massive prices just for the feel of owning; this in turn results in inflation and the money he makes is out from the pockets of the average man (there is a reason he is average - he represents the majority.) - from the millions of average men who barely have enough for themselves - and using them for a daily check-up? buying a chapel? - he clearly affects the life of the common man.
But Ben, who is in the other part of the spectrum and is not the common man - he is disturbed, doesn't have enough for himself and is clearly struggling to keep a hole and is worse of from the common man, and has so far not cared about the common man, pretends to care for them, when he blames Eric for their fate. Of course, Eric plays a part is secondary, but Eric had nothing to do with Ben's deficiencies that made him worse than the common man and hence Ben is responsible for himself.
They both change their ideas for a day - Ben makes plans finally and that is to kill Eric and blames him for his fate, and Eric shoots his Security Personnel to get free from overlaid plans and from being over-precautionary. Then they realise each of their problems together.
This movie isn't about philosophy. It's about a lack of philosophy.
It's about detachment, isolation, despair, loneliness, boredom, etc. If you want to give it a name, call it nihilism.
"Cosmopolis" is nihilism in its purest form, way beyond what we see in "Fight Club". Even in "Fight Club", the destruction and self-destruction still had a noble goal.
Cronenberg made the isolation tangible and extremely uncomfortable for the audience. Well done.
shareIt was clear to me when I saw him celebrating the NYSE opening to promote his film, and waving his hands in the air at winning the MTV award for Cosmopolis that he very much enjoys popular success which he denies in words in interviews and appearances while he looks like he basks in it. He complains a lot about his trouble in financing, still getting money from the Canadian Film Board which restricts him quite much in casting choices because of nationality. I don't think he likes that control over him but he has to take it because of the money.
He made the audience uncomfortable but the college students (8 of them) who saw it with me in an almost private showing had interesting things to say. They didn't like it and those who had read Cosmopolis said about the same things as those who had not read it. But all of them agreed that the lines were spoken as if the actors were reading words in a language they didn't understand. I don't think anyone has said it better.
Pattinson did the best, but Cronenberg's direction was not consistent with Pattinson's interpretation of Eric Packer, at which Cronenberg persistently shut him up about in interviews. DeLillo's novel is so easy to read that it is deceptive. You can read it and not understand it at all, but you feel as if you had and that it is a toss away book about a man's ride across Manhatten in one day to get a haircut which is the way Michiko Kakutani reviewed it rather contemptuously many thought. I'm not the only one.
But yes, I agree, Cosmopolis canbe read the way yo read it. That's the way Cronenberg read it. Or are you substituting your non-reading it for Cronenberg's reading of it? Just wondering.
Well, nihilism is a philosophy about a lack of a philosophy.
I agree that nihilism is central to the movie. The movie reads to me like a war on nihilism, with Benno being the central one rebelling against it. In some sense, Eric represents the nihilism, and the movie is a series of dialogues with others explaining the philosophy's fallacies to him.
There is the young protege who has the world in his hands, Michael, and whom Eric tells to seize it monetarily, but he wants something more elusive. There is the fiancé, Elise (beautifully acted by Sarah Gadon), who try's to explain to Eric why they can't have sex (suspected infidelity), which he responds to with even more lewd behavior. She searches for more in books, which he doesn't understand.
I need to see the movie a third time, but my initial reaction is every character could be interpreted this way. But, true or not, nihilism is central. Pure capitalism is nihilism; it is the belief in something that isn't real.
You are indeed right that this goes way beyond Fight Club. Great movie, but for a niche audience.
I've read the novel more times than I can count now, and I have seen the movie a number of times, and I still think it is awful but with some insightful moments from some performers. Cronenberg's direction was without an awareness of Continental Philosophy which was themed all through it - and through many of his previous films and this is what astonished me, and Pattinson's character of Eric Packer suffered from this. Now Nolan or Fincher would have aced it. Oh what it could have been,what a political force it could have been. The same theme as Atlas Shrugged:tear it all down!
Maybe Cronenberg was afraid. He's always looking for money for his films and can't afford to - or thinks he can't - antagonize them In his interviews he is sour grapes about it.
Great post. Agree with this, special mention to the last line - spot on.
shareWhat Eric Packer does is the same thing Francisco d'Anconia does in Atlas Shrugged. Both of them bring down the prevailing financial exchange system. This is what DeLillo himself says he wanted his character to do. And then he and the interviewer (Krasny on youtube) say of course it couldn't happen that fast in real life. And then of course it did in 08 but the book came out in 02 I think, after 9-11. The derivative crash during Obama's campaign in 08 went in 3 days - BOOM! - so once agains DeLillo is prescient.DeLillo drops a lot of references to Ayn Rand in Cosmopolis that you only get if you have seriously read Rand. And lots of references to Moby Dick if you have read that novel seriously.
So yes it can be read as pop psychology also:It's about detachment, isolation, despair, loneliness, boredom, etc. If you want to give it a name, call it nihilism. and that is a decent reading. It just isn't the only reading. I have gotten up to about 100 and I keep thinking of more. But that's what a great novel does and is.My reading would have made a more politically iconoclastic film. I prayed for Fincher to do it.
Cronenberg likes to represent history with characters. In the History of Violence the main character represents human kind. In Cosmopolis the main character represents capitalism going towards self destruction.
This is not a signature!