As anyone who ever looks at this will be acutely aware, I see a lot of films. If I'm correct, (I haven't counted lately) I've seen 32 different films this year. That's quite a few. My previous record in a year was about 13. We're only half way through, and the blockbuster summer's still to come. Every film is different and each one has prompted a different reaction from me. However, they tend to fit along the great washing line of emotion. If the end closest to the house on this metaphorical drying mechanism is 'It's good' and the furthest away if 'It's bad', you've got the likes of The Muppets, The Artist and Moonrise Kingdom plonked within view of the window, while Battleship and Top Cat are as far away as possible. Everything, even Dark Shadows which is only noteworthy because it was so un-noteworth, prompting no reaction from me whatsoever, slots calmly on that line to dangle for the rest of eternity, thanks to my particularly strong film-pegs. I know what I think. It's a system that works.
Or at least I thought I did until I saw Cosmopolis last night.
I can confirm that Cosmopolis is, most certainly, a film. There's a BBFC plaque at the start and a titles card, and actors, and some credits and I was certainly watching something. In fact, it was the same experience as watching any film. Light was being projected onto the screen. Only it was nothing like it. On the great washing line of logical film reviews, Cosmopolis is lying on the floor. I really, honestly have no idea what I thought of it. Not as in 'I have two contrasting opinions'. As in I litteraly had none. And that wasn't because it didn't prompt a reaction, Dark Shadows style. I found elements of it interesting- The ending, the way it leaves the long pauses in, the actual character of Eric Packer himself. Robert Pattinson is actually very good in the lead role, just as I began to really tire of him (A combination of him being dire in Bel Ami and sitting through all the Twilight films back-to-back on depressing morning). His misery-centric act was a perfect fit for the buisness man who's gone beyond the point of dispair. There's a great scene involving the man from the control room in The Truman Show. And the way it cuts about is interesting.
But at the same time, all those things are flaws. Pattinson may be well-cast, but that's because both him and his character are miserable and annoying. The ending, without spoiling it, is quite abrupt and is as such also quite frustrating. The long pauses lead to a seemingly dull and broken film, although I was surprised by how not-bored I felt. The film seemed to demand your concentration, yet didn't reward it in any way. It's full of individual conversations that scarcely make sense in a 5-minute context, but make even less as part of a film.
My brain seems to fail to function whenever I think about the film. Was it a metaphor for life? For the economy? For happiness? If so, it's the exact opposite of my stupid washing line. My image is simple, clear and explained. Director David Cronenberg's is far too clever for its own good. Yes, it'd be good, but the purpose of a metaphor is to describe something, to help you say what you mean, not to baffle everybody involved. I doubt he knew what film he was making. A lot of it reeks of 'Because I can'. Why leave long pauses? Because he's an A-list director. Why cast an A-list actor? Because he made eXistanZ. Why make it so baffling? Because he bloody well can, that's why. I've managed to cram all the emotion Cosmopolis got out of me into under 800 words, and for a feeling-spewing machine such as myself, that's not good. There's absolutely no level of emotional engagement involved. I'm slowly beginning to work out the film, sort of, almost, but my brain has been strained an unbelievable amount in writing this. For all I know, Cosmopolis could be the best film of the year, it could be the worst. But it's certainly the most confusing experience anybody is ever likely to have at the cinema.
No comments:
Post a Comment