It’s hard to pinpoint where the novel-to-film adaptation directed by David Cronenberg and starring Robert Pattinson went wrong — maybe it’s something that works better for fans of the book.
“Cosmopolis” follows Eric Packer (Pattinson), a young billionaire asset manager as he travels in a stretch limousine across Manhattan to get a haircut while still attempting to conduct business. The day becomes increasingly hectic as he moves through traffic at a snail’s pace, continually facing security threats and obstacles, such as the president’s arrival in town and a famous hip-hop artist’s funeral.
The film definitely attempts to mentally stimulate the audience, as the dialogue is difficult and heavy to digest. The script writing by Cronenberg should be commended considering that he wrote the script in six days and stuck closely to the novel.
While this sounds interesting in concept, the conversations take on a stream-of-consciousness feel and don’t really having any sort of topical consistency.
The actors perfectly excelled portraying the characters from their literary counterparts, but the issue lies in the medium through which the story is told.
The dialogue isn’t very effective in a cinematic setting, either. When reading a novel, there’s an opportunity to grasp the full meaning just by pausing, but it goes right over the audience’s head in this film, which could leave them feeling disinterested and bored.
This happens quite a lot throughout “Cosmopolis.” One scene with Pattinson and Paul Giamatti is delivered well, but full appreciation and understanding of the scene feels hazy. It’s hard to relate to the interaction of the characters as they continue to carry on their philosophical musings, never making any connections that the audience cares about.
In line with the intellectually elevated language is a confusing context. While it’s clear that they are in a city, nothing definitively sticks regarding time period, and Eric Packer’s profession is never fully flushed out.
They do a good job sketching out the socioeconomic issues, probably because the idea of angry, lower class rioters upset with the wealthy few doesn’t need much explanation.
Overall, the script is distracting from some of the film’s more alluring aspects – interesting cinematography and good casting.
There are still memorable scenes, especially one involving a conversation during a prostate exam, but whatever meaning was meant to be conveyed will most likely fly over the majority of audiences watching.
