Review of Cosmopolis (2012) by Jennifer B — 11 Feb 2013

Ah Cronenberg, never ceases to amaze me. I am a HUGE fan.... open to watch anything he ever creates. I think this movie may prove a necessary reviewing, but, I can't say "it didn't intruige me throughout". Though it was hard to follow the dialogue, I don't think this film is for not. There is something significant about Juliet Binoche having sex and then talking about Rothko paintings, it has a significance, it sets the scene. Perhaps one needs to tap into Patinson's character and his curiosity and the significance of the paintings and who they belong to and where they are displayed to understand what is going on here. This film takes attention. Thank You Wili[edia : In his essay, "The Romantics Were Prompted", published in 1949, Rothko argued that the "archaic artist ... found it necessary to create a group of intermediaries, monsters, hybrids, gods and demigods" in much the same way that modern man found intermediaries in Fascism and the Communist Party. For Rothko, "without monsters and gods, art cannot enact a drama....Rothko's goal; from this point on, his art would bear the ultimate aim of relieving modern man's spiritual emptiness".

I think that everything in this film has a significance, if you have attention to look for it. My attention is due to my Cronenberg devotion. Perhaps I need to watch this with the commentary, or to watch this with some analytical minds who dissect it while we are watching it, so that I have other perspectives to grasp the whole with, but I know this film it is not for nought. Is it necessary? Some would say Yes, it's the voice of our times, it reveals all underlying themes of modern living, others would say No, it's pretentious overthinking. Regardless, all has it's place and this is one film that is not worth a flippant review, at least watch the scene with Paul Giamatti and Patinson. Those last words are brilliant!