COSMOPOLIS (SPOILERS)

[BakingNath]

Hi,
I saw the film yesterday (see "review" on the flat)... and by browsing this topic, i got some answers (the main one being why did he kill his bodyguard ?)
I still have some interrogations :
Who is the woman he speaks with while they are passing the riots ? someone from his staff ?
From what i have read here, the end seems to be different, because there is no movie set and naked wife... when does this occur ?... from the answers i may have other questions..
If you have (detailed) questions on the film feel free to ask.

[kelbel75]

Hi,
I saw the film yesterday (see "review" on the flat)... and by browsing this topic, i got some answers (the main one being why did he kill his bodyguard ?)
I still have some interrogations :
Who is the woman he speaks with while they are passing the riots ? someone from his staff ?
From what i have read here, the end seems to be different, because there is no movie set and naked wife... when does this occur ?... from the answers i may have other questions..
If you have (detailed) questions on the film feel free to ask.

no naked (or rather nearly naked ) movie set? I had a feeling they might cut that scene because it was rather strange, but that disappoints me eric stumbles into a movie shooting in the street, where all the people are in their underwear it's a heavily emotional scene tho because eric lays down with them ( they're supposed to be dead for some reason) and it's so calming to him. he connects to it in a very big way and I think it finally brings him some clarity his wife just so happens to be there as well, and so after thay share that experience together they stumble off into an abandoned building and finally have sex. eric actually "feels" something during it, for once, and I was so glad these two characters got to share that

I assume the woman he talks to during the riots is from his staff, but I can't really remember. from what I've read in interviews and whatnot, the location of some of the scenes has been changed. the movie has almost everything taking place in the limo, whereas the book has him out and about more.

[BakingNath]

Hi,
I saw the film yesterday (see "review" on the flat)... and by browsing this topic, i got some answers (the main one being why did he kill his bodyguard ?)
I still have some interrogations :
Who is the woman he speaks with while they are passing the riots ? someone from his staff ?
From what i have read here, the end seems to be different, because there is no movie set and naked wife... when does this occur ?... from the answers i may have other questions..
If you have (detailed) questions on the film feel free to ask.

no naked (or rather nearly naked ) movie set? I had a feeling they might cut that scene because it was rather strange, but that disappoints me eric stumbles into a movie shooting in the street, where all the people are in their underwear it's a heavily emotional scene tho because eric lays down with them ( they're supposed to be dead for some reason) and it's so calming to him. he connects to it in a very big way and I think it finally brings him some clarity his wife just so happens to be there as well, and so after thay share that experience together they stumble off into an abandoned building and finally have sex. eric actually "feels" something during it, for once, and I was so glad these two characters got to share that

I assume the woman he talks to during the riots is from his staff, but I can't really remember. from what I've read in interviews and whatnot, the location of some of the scenes has been changed. the movie has almost everything taking place in the limo, whereas the book has him out and about more.

No definitely no movie set... does it happen after or before he gets a hair cut / is left by his driver near the limousine garage / finds who wants to kill him ? And does he actually, "explicitly" get killed in the book ?
Some scenes are outside of the limo :

when he has breakfast, lunch and dinner with his wife, when he fucks his bodyguard lady, when he sees his wife in a library before having lunch, when he goes in a theatre where there is a rave after having lunch and when he gets "pie-ed" by the romanian guy ... and all the end, when he gets a haircut then gets shot and go find who wants to kill him.

[kelbel75]

No definitely no movie set... does it happen after or before he gets a hair cut / is left by his driver near the limousine garage / finds who wants to kill him ? And does he actually, "explicitly" get killed in the book ?

it happens before all of that. and he doesn't get "explicitly" killed in the book.(does he in the movie?) he sees a "future shot" of an unidentified dead body in his high-tech wrist watch, that he realizes is him. he's come to terms with it tho, and the story ends with him silently awaiting the shot from the gun that will kill him.

[BakingNath]

No definitely no movie set... does it happen after or before he gets a hair cut / is left by his driver near the limousine garage / finds who wants to kill him ? And does he actually, "explicitly" get killed in the book ?

it happens before all of that. and he doesn't get "explicitly" killed in the book.(does he in the movie?) he sees a "future shot" of an unidentified dead body in his high-tech wrist watch, that he realizes is him. he's come to terms with it tho, and the story ends with him silently awaiting the shot from the gun that will kill him.

No sign of the super high tech wrist in the film too.. even if at some point he asks why he sees things in advance... only the inside of the limo has high tech gadgets. The movie ends

with Benno saying repeatedly "I wanted you to save me" while pointing his gun on Eric s head, while Eric expects to be shot (i think he is a crying .. a bit... no full on sobs, only a few silent tears... if i remember well).... it is kind of "abrupt" : the tension builds... builds... and poof it is the end with a black screen..

[kelbel75]

No definitely no movie set... does it happen after or before he gets a hair cut / is left by his driver near the limousine garage / finds who wants to kill him ? And does he actually, "explicitly" get killed in the book ?

it happens before all of that. and he doesn't get "explicitly" killed in the book.(does he in the movie?) he sees a "future shot" of an unidentified dead body in his high-tech wrist watch, that he realizes is him. he's come to terms with it tho, and the story ends with him silently awaiting the shot from the gun that will kill him.

No sign of the super high tech wrist in the film too.. even if at some point he asks why he sees things in advance... only the inside of the limo has high tech gadgets. The movie ends

with Benno saying repeatedly "I wanted you to save me" while pointing his gun on Eric s head, while Eric expects to be shot (i think he is a crying .. a bit... no full on sobs, only a few silent tears... if i remember well).... it is kind of "abrupt" : the tension builds... builds... and poof it is the end with a black screen..

oh, no! I don't like that at all

at least in the book you had hope that it may not come to pass, even tho you're pretty sure it will and in the boook eric is prepared for it to happen and has made his peace with it, whereas in the movie it sounds like he's scared and regretful

[kelbel75]

There’s a lot of crazy scenes in this… what were your favourite and least favourite scenes to film?
"The prostate exam scene got cut down, the last line of that scene was [Eric saying] ‘I wanna bottle-fuck you slowly with my sunglasses on.’ I remember reading that scene [when reading the script], with a doctor’s finger up your arse – and having absolutely no idea how to say that. Or even if I could get on set and have a camera in my face and say that. But that fear is what made me want to do it."

awww, man! I was looking forward to that line

[kelbel75]

Eric and his wife never touch in the film – in the book they take part in a massive public orgy, which doesn’t make it into the screen version. What’s your reasoning for this?
Cronenberg: Well, I didn’t feel that they ever touched in the book, frankly. And the scene in the book of the filmed orgy, hundreds of people in the streets of New York, I honestly thought when reading it that it was Eric’s fantasy of reconciliation, and a rather juvenile one at that. And the way that Eric is rather infantile in some ways I didn’t believe that it was real. And I thought on screen it would be laughable, you’d never buy that, it could never happen. So I thought, no, he disconnects from his wife and he never does touch her, and they never do have sex. It’s over, and that’s one of the things that leads him to destroy himself. There are several moments – it’s the death of brother Fez, it’s the break up of his marriage, it’s the killing or Torval, it’s these moments that lead him to the end, which is a kind of suicide, really. He’s going back to his childhood, and then beyond, before his birth, which is to say death.

it irritates the HELL out of me when interviewers try to set themselves apart with interesting questions, but FAIL to do their homework it was not a public "orgy". they were filming a scene in a movie where everyone was supposed to be DEAD! then eric and his wife wander away from the set to have sex I dont agree with cronenberg's take on this scene, but a book like this is open to all kinds of interpretation

speaking of which: did those of you who read the book think it was "about" wallstreet and capitalism? I'm sooo sick of reading this assesment in interviews. I think that is so off the mark, that it makes me sad; they've clearly missed the whole substance of the story aside from the rats and the reason for the riot, of course I do like that cronenberg pointed out that eric was commiting a type of passive suicide tho, I thought that as well

[kelbel75]

THIS interviewer actually knows what she's talking about watch rob's reaction when he realizes he can actually have a real conversation about this movie with her; so cute



Time: which is another reason they shoudn't have cut the wrist watch scene; just sayin'

[MariaCecilia]

Eric and his wife never touch in the film – in the book they take part in a massive public orgy, which doesn’t make it into the screen version. What’s your reasoning for this?
Cronenberg: Well, I didn’t feel that they ever touched in the book, frankly. And the scene in the book of the filmed orgy, hundreds of people in the streets of New York, I honestly thought when reading it that it was Eric’s fantasy of reconciliation, and a rather juvenile one at that. And the way that Eric is rather infantile in some ways I didn’t believe that it was real. And I thought on screen it would be laughable, you’d never buy that, it could never happen. So I thought, no, he disconnects from his wife and he never does touch her, and they never do have sex. It’s over, and that’s one of the things that leads him to destroy himself. There are several moments – it’s the death of brother Fez, it’s the break up of his marriage, it’s the killing or Torval, it’s these moments that lead him to the end, which is a kind of suicide, really. He’s going back to his childhood, and then beyond, before his birth, which is to say death.

it irritates the HELL out of me when interviewers try to set themselves apart with interesting questions, but FAIL to do their homework it was not a public "orgy". they were filming a scene in a movie where everyone was supposed to be DEAD! then eric and his wife wander away from the set to have sex I dont agree with cronenberg's take on this scene, but a book like this is open to all kinds of interpretation

speaking of which: did those of you who read the book think it was "about" wallstreet and capitalism? I'm sooo sick of reading this assesment in interviews. I think that is so off the mark, that it makes me sad; they've clearly missed the whole substance of the story aside from the rats and the reason for the riot, of course I do like that cronenberg pointed out that eric was commiting a type of passive suicide tho, I thought that as well

I did think that the Wall Street and capitalism theme tended to get a little over-emphasised in the comments on the movie, but I haven't seen it yet, just snippets here and there. I find the book more an existentialist exploration about what happens to a man when he gets unlimited access to everything a man's supposed to want: wealth, fame, sex, success, and it doesn't make him happy, not at all. Instead he implodes into this mixture between a completely cut off and isolated, cold person existing solely through his mind, trying to shock his mind into feeling something and a small child, completely bewildered by the world around him.

The mirrors of the high-rise buildings and the windows of his car and the shop fronts are all empty, because he can't find his reflection anywhere: he has completely lost sight of himself and nothing makes sense anymore, and so he tries to kill himself in different, convoluted ways, saying goodbye to everything that connects him to the world in that one day when he travels across town. I guess DeLillo is trying to make a statement about our time as well, how it can be narcissistic and void of meaning, when we begin to believe the lie that everything can be bought, and then everything becomes value-less.

Sorry to rant on, I just happen to think it's an interesting book, and I really, really want to see what Rob makes of this!

[MariaCecilia]

THIS interviewer actually knows what she's talking about watch rob's reaction when he realizes he can actually have a real conversation about this movie with her; so cute



Time: which is another reason they shoudn't have cut the wrist watch scene; just sayin'

Thank you for sharing this: he's so freaking cute when he lets loose in interviews and talks about the things he cares about!

I would love to see him in a good ensemble doing something completely out of character, like a smaller, comic part in Twelfth NIght by Shakespeare? He has such a lovely, moveable face, it would make for great comedy too..

And did you hear that he was going to do a movie about the hunting down of Saddam Hussein? Can you believe it? Robert Pattinson does a Matt Damon and goes Jason Bourne on all of us?

[kelbel75]

Eric and his wife never touch in the film – in the book they take part in a massive public orgy, which doesn’t make it into the screen version. What’s your reasoning for this?
Cronenberg: Well, I didn’t feel that they ever touched in the book, frankly. And the scene in the book of the filmed orgy, hundreds of people in the streets of New York, I honestly thought when reading it that it was Eric’s fantasy of reconciliation, and a rather juvenile one at that. And the way that Eric is rather infantile in some ways I didn’t believe that it was real. And I thought on screen it would be laughable, you’d never buy that, it could never happen. So I thought, no, he disconnects from his wife and he never does touch her, and they never do have sex. It’s over, and that’s one of the things that leads him to destroy himself. There are several moments – it’s the death of brother Fez, it’s the break up of his marriage, it’s the killing or Torval, it’s these moments that lead him to the end, which is a kind of suicide, really. He’s going back to his childhood, and then beyond, before his birth, which is to say death.

it irritates the HELL out of me when interviewers try to set themselves apart with interesting questions, but FAIL to do their homework it was not a public "orgy". they were filming a scene in a movie where everyone was supposed to be DEAD! then eric and his wife wander away from the set to have sex I dont agree with cronenberg's take on this scene, but a book like this is open to all kinds of interpretation

speaking of which: did those of you who read the book think it was "about" wallstreet and capitalism? I'm sooo sick of reading this assesment in interviews. I think that is so off the mark, that it makes me sad; they've clearly missed the whole substance of the story aside from the rats and the reason for the riot, of course I do like that cronenberg pointed out that eric was commiting a type of passive suicide tho, I thought that as well

I did think that the Wall Street and capitalism theme tended to get a little over-emphasised in the comments on the movie, but I haven't seen it yet, just snippets here and there. I find the book more an existentialist exploration about what happens to a man when he gets unlimited access to everything a man's supposed to want: wealth, fame, sex, success, and it doesn't make him happy, not at all. Instead he implodes into this mixture between a completely cut off and isolated, cold person existing solely through his mind, trying to shock his mind into feeling something and a small child, completely bewildered by the world around him.

The mirrors of the high-rise buildings and the windows of his car and the shop fronts are all empty, because he can't find his reflection anywhere: he has completely lost sight of himself and nothing makes sense anymore, and so he tries to kill himself in different, convoluted ways, saying goodbye to everything that connects him to the world in that one day when he travels across town. I guess DeLillo is trying to make a statement about our time as well, how it can be narcissistic and void of meaning, when we begin to believe the lie that everything can be bought, and then everything becomes value-less.

Sorry to rant on, I just happen to think it's an interesting book, and I really, really want to see what Rob makes of this!

oh it's gettin all deep and philosophical up in here I agree with the statement that eric has access to everything that's "supposed" to make him happy. I'm not sure he's ever BEEN happy tho, so it's not like he's longing for something he once had. I think he's traveled thru life not really feeling, which may be why he's been able to survive and accomplish everything he has at such a young age ( I've not seen the movie yet, so all my opinions are based on the book ) when he starts to see glitches in the movie cameras that document his daily life, something inside himself is awakened. it's not like he suddenly "feels" tho, it's more like he wants to acquire it. I don't think he's consciously committing a kind of suicide by purposely making dangerous and out of character decisions, I think it's more like he's giving up control and following where ever the wind takes him. he's so focused on getting that haircut from the man who used to cut his father's hair, which says to me that he's remembering a diff't time and trying to make sense of everything between then and now. he's trying to UNDERSTAND. I look at eric as someone who is very analytical and has never had much use for emotion. it's in there somewhere inside of him b/c he is human, but what quantity and to what extreme he doesn't know. so the day becomes a quest, and it's the type of quest that's an all or nothing gamble.

the reflections of the buildings metaphor that you used, did the book alude to the fact that he was constantly looking for his reflection? or is that just what you think may be going on inside of him? it's a very poetic thought I also like when you said that when we believe that everything can be bought, then it all becomes value-less; that is very true

[kelbel75]

And did you hear that he was going to do a movie about the hunting down of Saddam Hussein? Can you believe it? Robert Pattinson does a Matt Damon and goes Jason Bourne on all of us?

I doubt it's going to be a "jason bourne" thriller, this is rob we're talking about here I'd guess that it's more about intelligence strategy and the diff't interogation methods used to track saddam's location. he is a sergant in the army tho, so maybe we'll see a more forceful, well-built rob

[Rob4Deb]

Hi,
I saw the film yesterday (see "review" on the flat)... and by browsing this topic, i got some answers (the main one being why did he kill his bodyguard ?)
I still have some interrogations :
Who is the woman he speaks with while they are passing the riots ? someone from his staff ?
From what i have read here, the end seems to be different, because there is no movie set and naked wife... when does this occur ?... from the answers i may have other questions..
If you have (detailed) questions on the film feel free to ask.

Hi Nath, I saw Cosmopolis on Saturday - it totally blew my socks off, thought Rob was amazing in the role.
Vija Kinsky, Eric’s chief advisor is the woman he's talking to during the riots - this is the only bit I didn't really understand, but Mr Deb loved this whole scene!
Did you find any answers to why he killed his bodyguard? I presumed it was just for the heck of it, and so he could go on to kill himself possibly? I mean, without his bodyguard there anything could happen to him (and it did LOL!) I'm glad there wasn't a scene where everyone is naked and lying on the floor, I agree with DC, it would have been laughable and not translated from book to screen!!
I LOVED the ending, and him shedding those tears was heartbreaking. I also loved him with Elise - I think some of his best moments were with her - don't you think he was almost sort of autistic or something, the way he just didn't know how to have a conversation with her?
Can't wait to get the DVD and watch it again. LOVED every second of it.

[amynkansas]

ok, I saw it today. at an art house. it was an afternoon movie and there were 8 of us total in the theater (2 got up and left after 45 minutes and one person left near the end)

-I thought he did a great job in it... but I am bias

-I read the book about a year ago and that DID help but watching the NYTimes interview with him and Cronenberg helped the most. I sort of knew what to expect from the film after that and not to take it so literally.

-my thoughts on why he killed the bodygaurd was that it was his only way to be free to "be killed" later.

-that hair cut that he got from the barber was horrible!! why? why couldn't he give him half of a good hair cut?

-and how long does prostrate exam take? that doc seemed to have his hand/finger up there for about 5 minutes!!

ALl that being said, I kind of found the movie to be boring. I just kind of kept waiting to care about SOMEONE in the movie and that didn't really happenfor me. I didn't feel a connection with anyone. I didn't hate anyone or love anyone or understand anyone. I had no emotions for any of the characters.

[JodieO]

ALl that being said, I kind of found the movie to be boring. I just kind of kept waiting to care about SOMEONE in the movie and that didn't really happenfor me. I didn't feel a connection with anyone. I didn't hate anyone or love anyone or understand anyone. I had no emotions for any of the characters.

This is how I have felt watching every Cronenberg movie I've ever seen.

[kelbel75]

-my thoughts on why he killed the bodygaurd was that it was his only way to be free to "be killed" later.

do you think that was a conscious reason tho, or was the bodyguard just preventing him from carrying out his reckless behavior? It seems that the movie has a slightly different tone than the book, and I haven't seen the movie yet, but I never felt like eric set out to get himself killed that day.

[amynkansas]

-my thoughts on why he killed the bodygaurd was that it was his only way to be free to "be killed" later.

do you think that was a conscious reason tho, or was the bodyguard just preventing him from carrying out his reckless behavior? It seems that the movie has a slightly different tone than the book, and I haven't seen the movie yet, but I never felt like eric set out to get himself killed that day.

Interesting question...
Eric definitely wanted to push boundries, throughout the entire day.

[amynkansas]

a review of Rob and what might become of him from a movie critic here in KC...

A recent report came out that Hollywood executives have labeled Robert Pattinson “Rip-Patz” because of his recent box office struggles, post-Twilight. The Daily Mail (not always the most reliable source, so believe what you will) is pointing to the recent flops of BEL AMI and the UK release of COSMOPOLIS as the proof that his career isn’t going to be able to take off after the Twilight series is finished. I’m not sure BEL AMI and COSMOPOLIS are the best examples to show whether or not an actor is bankable, but the news struck me as an interesting turn for one of the most popular stars on the planet. Personally, I’m not sure what the public sees in him and I never thought of myself as a Robert Pattinson fan, but I also don’t like it when publications and Hollywood executives make generalizations about someone without considering all the facts.

Let’s review the films of Robert Pattinson, excluding the Twilight series and HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE. He had HOW TO BE and LITTLE ASHES before Twilight, both of which made virtually nothing at the box office (and if you click the titles, you can read our reviews). Focusing on post-Twilight films, he had REMEMBER ME ($19m domestic gross) in 2010, WATER FOR ELEPHANTS ($58.7m domestic gross) in 2011 and BEL AMI ($82k domestic gross, but still in theaters) in 2012. Granted, those aren’t great numbers for any star, but I want to point out that all of those films are niche dramas from virtually unknown directors. I couldn’t see any of them being box office smashes with any star. In fact, the argument could be made for some of them that without Robert Pattinson, those films wouldn’t have been seen at all.

If we’re going to judge R-Patz on the performances of his dramas, then why not hold other stars accountable or their under-performing dramas? George Clooney (THE AMERICAN, $38m, among many others), Brad Pitt (SEVEN YEARS IN TIBET, $38m, among many others), Tom Cruise (MAGNOLIA, $22m) and Bruce Willis (STORY OF US $27m, among many others) have all had their share of dramas that struggled at the box office. And sandwiched in all of their films have been big budget blockbusters like MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, DIE HARD, OCEAN’S 11, etc. Isn’t the same true with Robert Pattinson and the Twilight films? He has his money-making films and then he has the niche dramas that he wants to make.

The point is that we don’t know what Robert Pattinson can do at the box office post-Twilight because Twilight has consumed almost all his time up until now. But now that he doesn’t have any commitments to the Twilight universe, he can focus his time on quality films with talented directors. On the horizon, he has several projects, including the military interrogator drama MISSION: BLACKLIST, THE ROVER with Guy Pearce, an untitled re-teaming with David Cronenberg and a biopic on The Band. If all of those films fail to impress critics and audiences alike, then maybe we can start writing his Hollywood obituary. But until then, let’s give Robert Pattinson a fair chance to prove he’s more than Edward Cullen.