When I first saw "starring Robert Pattinson," I declined. Then I remembered who wrote the novel (Don Delillo - White Noise, Libra and Underground) and decided to give it a try. Cronenberg's direction and a friends suggestion helped my decision.
Usually, I refrain from any spoilers, but I need to break this down myself, so feel free to skip this if you feel it will sway your views. I'm writing this, because the reviews I've read, even those of professional movie critics, such as Roger Ebert, seem to have missed the point. Maybe I'm the one who has and the movie is just as simple and somewhat scattered as it appears. I'm not basing any of this on any reports or reviews, but on some quick research, I did right after viewing, in many ways to make sure I understood it.
My feelings are that the movie has nothing to do with Eric Packer, Pattinson's character. Everyone in the film is a group of people, a corporation, a government or more likely, an empire. It's my feeling that all the things that happen to Packer in one day are the combination of a larger crisis, drawn out over years. It's important to understand that the book was written during the beginning of the decline of the Euro and the film was made during the Occupy Wall Street era. The anarchy in the movie, while somewhat prophesied, is real. This film is about the 1%, maybe even the top 1% of that 1%. It's about the people with so much money, that their decisions, no matter how hastily made, can result in economic destruction. Packer's headquarters are referred to as the Complex and his car serves as his office, slowly meandering through the city, as his fortune dwindles. All the characters that come through the movie seem insignificant, but represent different aspects of wealth and power. There is even symbolism in the names. Packer's new wife shares the same last name as someone who is a powerhouse in global economy. His limo driver is Ibrahim, head of the Ottoman Empire for a short time and almost brought it to it's demise very quickly. Everything in this movie seems to be a metaphor. The lifespan of people is irrelevant in terms of years, because our protagonist explains we're dying every day, maybe even every second.
As the movie draws to a close, we see Packer losing hold of reality. When he's doing anything, even having sex, he's thinking of his demise. He has not true feelings, but seems at times desperate to feel. Much like the governments around the world, especially ours, which has lost that ability to feel for it's citizens As Packer confronts and accepts his "imminent danger," we realize that this character, is merely his alter ego. He's the 99%, who understands all that Packer does, but doesn't have the ability to attain the riches. Packer even states, "We're all one second from riches." The movie ends, with the assumed assassination of Packer and his complete downfall.
Two other important aspects, I learned after the movie was over. The movie starts with a portion of a line from a poem called Report from the Besieged City by Zbigniew Herbert. The quote is "a rat became the unit of currency." This line plays a role in the film, but there is a line later in the poem that states "if the city falls but a single man escapes he will carry the city within himself on the roads of exile, he will be the city."
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/report-from-the-besieged-city/
There is also a scene where Packer has sex with Juliette Binoche's character and they speak of Rothko's art. Packer is offered the purchase of one painting, but he wants the Rothko Chapel. A place of serenity, which he wishes to place in his apartment. Rothko is known for his abstract art, which usually shows to rectangular figures of varying shades and depicts bold contrast. Further leading me to believe that everything that is seen is unreal, everything Packer represents is about to crumble and further describes the differences between the haves and the have nots. Much like the excess enjoyed by those in power, those very few, in the Holy Roman Empire, one power can not avoid it's eventual destruction.
I could go on and on, but some of you might actually want to see the movie and get your own feelings and definitions of what you just saw. One warning, the dialogue is quick and filled with things that can either be taken at face value or perceived on a more grand scheme. Every little action is an explanation of a thought. Every line seems important, even when appearing no more than frivolous banter between two colleagues. I'm sure I'm leaving plenty out, but I'm sure the ten people who read this won't mind.
Usually, I refrain from any spoilers, but I need to break this down myself, so feel free to skip this if you feel it will sway your views. I'm writing this, because the reviews I've read, even those of professional movie critics, such as Roger Ebert, seem to have missed the point. Maybe I'm the one who has and the movie is just as simple and somewhat scattered as it appears. I'm not basing any of this on any reports or reviews, but on some quick research, I did right after viewing, in many ways to make sure I understood it.
My feelings are that the movie has nothing to do with Eric Packer, Pattinson's character. Everyone in the film is a group of people, a corporation, a government or more likely, an empire. It's my feeling that all the things that happen to Packer in one day are the combination of a larger crisis, drawn out over years. It's important to understand that the book was written during the beginning of the decline of the Euro and the film was made during the Occupy Wall Street era. The anarchy in the movie, while somewhat prophesied, is real. This film is about the 1%, maybe even the top 1% of that 1%. It's about the people with so much money, that their decisions, no matter how hastily made, can result in economic destruction. Packer's headquarters are referred to as the Complex and his car serves as his office, slowly meandering through the city, as his fortune dwindles. All the characters that come through the movie seem insignificant, but represent different aspects of wealth and power. There is even symbolism in the names. Packer's new wife shares the same last name as someone who is a powerhouse in global economy. His limo driver is Ibrahim, head of the Ottoman Empire for a short time and almost brought it to it's demise very quickly. Everything in this movie seems to be a metaphor. The lifespan of people is irrelevant in terms of years, because our protagonist explains we're dying every day, maybe even every second.
As the movie draws to a close, we see Packer losing hold of reality. When he's doing anything, even having sex, he's thinking of his demise. He has not true feelings, but seems at times desperate to feel. Much like the governments around the world, especially ours, which has lost that ability to feel for it's citizens As Packer confronts and accepts his "imminent danger," we realize that this character, is merely his alter ego. He's the 99%, who understands all that Packer does, but doesn't have the ability to attain the riches. Packer even states, "We're all one second from riches." The movie ends, with the assumed assassination of Packer and his complete downfall.
Two other important aspects, I learned after the movie was over. The movie starts with a portion of a line from a poem called Report from the Besieged City by Zbigniew Herbert. The quote is "a rat became the unit of currency." This line plays a role in the film, but there is a line later in the poem that states "if the city falls but a single man escapes he will carry the city within himself on the roads of exile, he will be the city."
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/report-from-the-besieged-city/
There is also a scene where Packer has sex with Juliette Binoche's character and they speak of Rothko's art. Packer is offered the purchase of one painting, but he wants the Rothko Chapel. A place of serenity, which he wishes to place in his apartment. Rothko is known for his abstract art, which usually shows to rectangular figures of varying shades and depicts bold contrast. Further leading me to believe that everything that is seen is unreal, everything Packer represents is about to crumble and further describes the differences between the haves and the have nots. Much like the excess enjoyed by those in power, those very few, in the Holy Roman Empire, one power can not avoid it's eventual destruction.
I could go on and on, but some of you might actually want to see the movie and get your own feelings and definitions of what you just saw. One warning, the dialogue is quick and filled with things that can either be taken at face value or perceived on a more grand scheme. Every little action is an explanation of a thought. Every line seems important, even when appearing no more than frivolous banter between two colleagues. I'm sure I'm leaving plenty out, but I'm sure the ten people who read this won't mind.
Your review was brought over to Rob's IMDB page. Really great read and some very interesting points I haven't read before and I've read a few.
ReplyDeleteI too came across your review from Rob's IMDB page. Interesting take. Glad you gave it a shot. Also glad you included a link to the poem. I have been fascinated with this movie and have seen it 3x so far.
ReplyDelete