Week Five: Cosmopolis

This week we reviewed the work Cosmopolis, both the book by Don DeLillo and the film directed by David Cronenberg. These works addressed the trek of billionaire Eric Packer traveling in a limo across New York City over the course of a day. When I first heard about the book, I was excited. The constrained course of time, limited space of a limo, and theorized journey to growth of a young billionaire was intriguing. However, the character was not meant to be liked, which would be a difficult read.

 Eric Packer was stone faced, cold, and unfeeling. He seemingly saw women only as methods of sex, and little else. I felt that in the film, Packer’s brief focus on work was vague and flashy, more to give the impression of work that doing work itself. It was as if we were kept from connecting to him even in his talk of work.

It was interesting to read the New York Times review of the piece here, where they quoted Mr. Patterson, who played Packer in the film. Mr. Patterson said: “I kept trying to hold on to that element of not really understanding him. I think David liked the takes when I had literally no idea what I was doing.” From the audience to the actor who portrayed him, and likely the character himself, nobody knew quite what he was going through. I felt this came across quite strongly, and I wonder how the author wrote the character originally in such a confusing but consistent way.

Artistically, I felt they utilized pairs in the film for comparison. From the interior restroom on the limo that Packer used, which felt indulgent and obscene, to the broken down, hole-in-the-ground toilet of Packer’s stalker: Levin, we clearly see the line between classes. They compared smells between Packer and Levin, even directly compared that both had uneven prostates. We see the connection between the two, almost as if they could be in each other’s shoes. We also see why they each broke.

Packer seemed to test things throughout the film. When he shot his chief of security, it was almost as if he just wanted to see what would happen when he pulled the trigger. When he shot at his own hand, it was with the same uncaring curiosity.

Overall, this film and work did discuss privilege, but more in the manner of a side tangent. I felt the main focus of the work was about understanding others and where they come from, and understanding self when we step outside our expectations.