IN WHICH THE AUTHOR IS REALLY, REALLY NOT AMUSED... "COSMOPOLIS"

Stop and think for a second, if you will, what kind of things Mothers tell their daughters. To smile more, wear prettier clothes, make more jokes, you know, be more positive... Not mine. Mine reads my film reviews on my blog and goes “you can’t like every single film you watch dear, be a bit negative from time to time”. I don’t even know how to deal with the comment and it keeps coming up roughly every three weeks.

It is true that when I started off I only wrote about films I liked. Because I had started the blog to recommend films – in a funny kind of way it made sense to me that I would write about the positive and not the negative. I have – even Mom agrees – changed my tone a little as I have continued writing on this blog – and on other websites  - I have begun to veer more and more towards films that have – for better or worse – incited strong emotions in me.

Cosmopolis is one of those films. And the strong emotion it incites in me is a deep sense of disappointment. I mean, hand on heart, I have never been a massive fan of Robert Pattinson (I haven’t even been just a tiny bit of a fan of Robert Pattinson) but I wanted him to do well on this one. The plot looked surreal and intriguing, I am a massive fan of David Cronenberg, you know… I had hopes…

This is the story of young millionaire Eric Packer. One day he gets into his limousine and orders his driver to take him across town, for a haircut. This is easier said than done because this is no ordinary day; there are many “happenings” along the way that will waylay him. In the process, Packer comes across all kinds of characters; some known to him, some strangers… Some friends, some foe… And as you plunge with him deep into this extraordinary odyssey, you can be sure, this is no ordinary drive across town.

Ok so here’s the lowdown. Basically the film is a poetic and philosophical essay on our times, delivered to us mainly through Pattinson and a plethora of other characters  whose main raison d’etre seems to be to demonstrate various philosophical points rather than to actually advance the storyline in any way.  I mean, I say storyline. The film has the bare bones of a storyline and little else besides. For the most part, Cosmopolis is a slow moving essay, read out loud by multiple, changing voices. And how does the film solve the problem of these multiple voices – by harmonising the tone and delivery of all the characters throughout the entire film.

As far as logic goes there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Even if you don’t really expect a 22 year old computer genius and a Packer’s 41 year old mistress (Juliette Binoche) to speak in the same way, ok, let’s suspend disbelief like a good audience. The one main thing about Cosmopolis that really, really stuck in my throat was the complete unnaturalness of every single actors delivery all the way through the film. I have read a lot of online commentary blaming it largely on the writing. And the writing is no doubt a part of it, it does have some very strong, very valid philosophical points buried in there but it couldn’t have been expressed in a more roundabout way if it tried. The aim with the delivery was, I think, to make it slightly stilted to give a sense of a sort of “end of times” brand of ennuie. The whole “problem” Eric has is that, at 28 he has reached the top, he is at the pinnacle, and he gazes out in a world-weary way around him (at 28. I know) and sees… Well, nothing good. And more importantly nothing new. And at the beginning I was very tempted to lay the blame on Pattinson’s door and an inability to convey subtle emotion but as the film advanced, I realised they were all talking like that. By like that I mean a distinct falseness that is almost certainly put on. The aim is probably to firstly give an impression of the uncomfortable and “false” world Eric lives in and is sick of, but also to stop us from “connecting” to the characters and makes us concentrate on the contents of the philosophical discussion – a sort of self-reflexivity, if you will. The problem is, where it should have just hinted at this and left it as an almost indiscernible undertone, Cosmopolis cranks the volume up to “are you nuts” and leaves it there.

Now let me make another point clear. I usually love films like this. They are not everyone’s cup of tea, I myself am not always in the mood for them. But Terrance Malik is one of my favourite directors. I love loosing myself in a good philosophical point. But the problem with this kind of film is that it has to be very, very delicately balanced and very well thought-out. Otherwise the film stops being a dialogue-driven philosophical masterpiece and wanders off into the domain of pretentious drivel…

I am sorry to say this, but I found Cosmopolis grossly miscalculated and utterly unwatchable. I devoutly hope that in the future Cronenberg will stick to what he is good at, i.e. making philosophical points via striking stories and actions, not explaining the living daylights out of it…

JUST TRYING TO SURVIVE "THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING"

I was worried about this film. I really was. Not because I thought it would turn out bad, on the contrary, I was rather afraid it would turn out very good. If you don’t know what I mean, you haven’t read the book. Those who have will understand why three hours of one of the most depressing books known to man, re-enacted by an all-star cast would seem a tad bit daunting. I was literally afraid of being pushed to depression. I am so very glad I watched it in the end; it was such a cinematic experience. I do need a cuddle though. And about six large boxes of chocolate.

The unbearable lightness of being is the story of Tomas (Daniel Day Lewis). And Tomas’ life is inextricably entwined with the lives of Teresa (Juliette Binoche) and Sabina (Lena Olin). Tomas is a brain surgeon living in Czechoslovakia in the 1960’s. When our story opens, he has a successful career that is rivalled only by his success with the ladies. But despite his steady string of girlfriends in the background he always comes back to his intensely sexual and passionate relationship with Sabina. This changes slightly (but only slightly) when Tomas runs into the naïve, childlike Teresa. She is very much a country bumpkin and embodies everything the women around Tomas have lost, such as purity and illusions. Tomas falls madly in love with her; they get married in a matter of months.  However one thing in Tomas’ life does not change. Even married, he still continues to return to Sabina, much to the distress of Teresa. But this is not the beginning of the woes of the couple as soon the USSR invades Czechoslovakia and a truly brave new world begins to unfold all around the country, the couple – and Sabina – barely escape Prague with their lives. But now there is a new problem. Now, apart from the fact that Tomas finds live so very “light” and can only live by drifting along and breaking hearts no matter how much he would love something to tie him down, the couple have been cut loose from every single root they ever had in their home country. It is a point of no return, and there is nothing on earth that can fix those teares, even returning to Prague…

I don’t quit know where to begin with this one. I’ll start with what I thought was the best about it; Juliette Binoche STEALS the show for me. I think she is BRILLIANT as Teresa. I really think she came into her own here, personally I never was that big of a fan of hers before. But no longer. She is a wonderful contrast with Lena Olin who is point perfect as the deeply passionate Sabina who is every inch a woman. My Mom will be disappointed to hear this but I had considerable trouble warming to Daniel Day Lewis as Tomas. It was only when I was actually writing these lines that I realised; that actually shows exactly how good Daniel Day Lewis was in this role. The whole point of Tomas is, after all, that he cannot be “attached to” as he is in a constant mode of detached floating, unable to connect. And quite beautifully, the two women could not be more different one from the other, but neither of them can truly “catch” Tomas. Some might argue that Teresa succeeds in a way, as they do end up married for the duration of the film, but ask yourself this. If Sabina had not “taken things into her own hands” towards the middle of the film (bending over backwards not to give spoilers away here) what would have changed in that triangle? Categorically nothing. Which is, possibly, the whole point of the film. It is, I think, the story is trying to draw a portrait of humanity among other things. Humans, their heads full of dreams of being settled and “settling” for something but constantly unable to do so and constantly being “acted upon” rather than being active in their own lives. Buffeted by other people, political systems and events. Just drifting – unable to set down roots… The difference of this story from a lot of others of its kind is that it doesn’t portray Tomas suddenly transforming into the active hero we want him to be deep down, if only so at least one of the women can find contentment and happiness  (I defy to be able to sympathise with just one of the women by the way). But Tomas ends up being buffeted around from pillar to post and then… Well I’ll let you discover what then, but suffice to say, he doesn’t turn into a shiny, polished Hollywood hero. Thank God.

And lastly of course, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. A particularly fascinating point in this particular work of art as it is based on the personal, first-hand observations of Milan Kundera, the writer of the book. Of course a book and a film are very difficult to compare as far as style goes, but I felt the film gave a very artistic, very brilliant rendition of the invasion, using various different mediums including Teresa’s photography (oh the nostalgia in me when I saw her old camera!) and black and white footage, not actual documentary footage of course but shot in the same style, giving it a further air of authenticity.

Life is, at the end of the day, about going places. Not always physically but also as a person, or simply exploring different sides of your own personality. This film will definitely “take you places”. You may not necessarily like every single place you end up in… But well… That’s life for you.