Cosmopolis [Thoughts]

Another less critically focused ‘thoughts’ post, this time on David Cronenberg’s big screen adaptation of Don Delillo’s near-future sci-fi novel Cosmopolis. This is the first time I haven’t done any background reading for a post (aside from a couple of reviews for context), so expect plenty of oversight and half-assed conjecture. That being said, getting into the habit of working purely on my own intuition will no doubt prove useful, so I expect I’ll try something like this again soon. Note: I’ve not read the book yet, so this post is based purely on the film. 

If you judged it solely on its standing on IMDB, you might dismiss Cosmopolis without giving it a chance. Going into it I certainly expected another let-down a la The Counselor; a film that overcame even my stalwart McCarthy fanboyism and drastically disappointed. Thankfully Cosmopolis, on the other hand, is exactly as good as its director and source material promise it to be. It’s a coldly beautiful glimpse into the rarified top-level of the capitalist hierarchy and an excellent, nuanced character study of the impossibly rich so far removed from the triumphs and terrors of ordinary society that they are - to paraphrase William Gibson - not really human at all. Pattinson plays the young billionaire Packer perfectly; imbuing each deadpan line with just the right shade of apathy, desperation, resignation or amusement as the situation requires. A host of co-stars all shine - I particularly love Kevin Durand’s imposing but perpetually bemused chief of security - but the true co-star for me is Packer’s limo; a fully ‘Proust-ed’ (cork-lined like Proust’s bedroom study) behemoth resplendent in screens scrolling endless data accessed with the barest flicker of movement. More than half the film takes place in the soundproofed limo and when the doors are shut the city crawling by outside feels an eternity away. In one excellent scene Packer sips vodka and exchanges epithets on the philosophy of capital whilst safely cocooned inside the limousine with his chief of theory; outside his security team go toe-to-toe with anarchists in the midst of a full-blown riot resembling a violent, Occupy-style demonstration gone bad. Like a summer shower the brief flare of violence dissipates, whilst inside the limo Packer and his guest barely blink except to remark on the unoriginality of a self-immolating protester. It’s a stark, pessimistic metaphor: the 99% exhaust themselves in protest whilst the 1% pay them no heed, languishing comfortably in the knowledge that any protest, any uprising or attempted revolution will be utterly ineffective. 

For Packer, the true threat lies inside. Like so many SF stories, man’s demise begins with the ego. Packer’s ego is understandably large and for him the joy of winning anything has long dissipated into expectance. He eats and fucks like an animal, shoots guns and tries desperately to feel the thrill of living again. His marriage - a financial arrangement - is stillborn (though we get the impression he’d prefer it not to be), and his intelligence is so imposing his advisors deny him even a conversation for fear of humiliation. Surrounded by people, Packer is utterly alone. He gambles at the impossibly high-stakes tables of cyber-capitalism and as the film opens he makes his first bad move, underestimating the Yuan and losing untold millions in the process. His ego fractured by this blow, Packer begins to engineer his own demise, all in the name of ‘looking for something more.’ His dissatisfaction is an indictment of the relentless pursuit of wealth to which he has devoted himself. His obsession with the Rothko Chapel - for example - is an obsession to own, not to experience: he has reduced everything in his life to a quantity or an asset and has negated his humanity in the process. Hermetically sealed inside his limousine, Packer no longer shares any commonality with the world outside. 

Packer and his limo experience their demise in sync, at least superficially. In the beginning he is impeccably suited and it is polished to a mirror. As the film progresses he loses his clothes and half his hair and is covered in pie whilst his limo is vandalised with paint and bricks almost beyond recognition. He fucks several women and has his prostate examined and breaks down at the news of the death of a musician and friend. By the time Paul Giammati’s character takes a pot-shot at him in a run-down industrial estate on the edge of the city, Packer is no more recognisable than the vehicle he leaves behind. This close to the edge, having already felt the rush of killing, Packer seems finally to almost enjoy himself; he bounces nonchalantly through the dark alleyways grinning and waving his revolver, finally enjoying the game of life now that the stakes are high enough to illicit a real emotional response. 

The final twenty minutes of the film are a powerhouse of acting; a two-man, one act play in which Packer faces disgruntled ex-employee Benno Levin (Giamatti). The two go head-to-head in a sort of mutual analysis-cum-therapy session, in which Packer attempts to deconstruct the fantasy world of which Benno believes himself to be the hero, whilst Benno forces Packer to face the demise he has engineered for himself. Packer quickly realises Benno is not the martyr he believes himself to be; he is simply a weak and bitter old man desperately losing touch with a slick, youthful world. Benno is obsessed with Packer, in his head believing him to be the living embodiment of this world that has discarded him and that no longer makes any sense to him; an increasingly abstract world of cyber-capital and the aggressively excessive consumerism it engenders. Fundamentally, though, the two are alike. Before his haircut Packer pisses in his limo, and at Benno’s squat they both discuss Benno’s improvised waste disposal; and whilst Packer is constantly preoccupied with sex - having it, thinking about it, even talking in its 'throbbing' language - Benno’s sexual anxiety manifests as a syndrome-fear of his penis receding. Remove everything around the two men and they are both living, breathing, shitting, procreating organisms. This is the hard truth Benno faces: he is convinced that killing Packer will be akin to severing the head of the capitalist snake, convinced that it will bring him redemption and martyrdom and fulfil his destiny, when in actual fact this is a delusion, a 'useless fantasy,' and all that is left is the simple fact of murder. 

Benno reluctantly acknowledges his conceits but his fantasy is too engrained, he has devoted too much of himself to his goal and his imagined syndromes too comfortably relieve him of the responsibility of his actions; thus Packer ultimately fails to avoid his fate - but not before he too faces some difficult truths. Having already toppled his empire at the first shock of failure, in Benno’s squat Packer faces the far more terrifying realisation that the world around him is without order or pattern. Inside his limo Packer could predict everything and was surprised by nothing. But outside, his system buckles: Brother Fez dies of a weak heart - surely it should be a gunshot wound? and Benno, a person who should not happen, happens. The Yuan, Brother Fez’s heart, Benno Levin: all represent the uncontrollable, chaotic nature of the universe; a nature Packer (and his real-life financial counterparts) mistakenly denies. 

But what about the very end? Packer dies, certainly; but for most of the film death - or at least the real, intimate threat of death - is his objective, the ‘something more’ he is looking for. He eats, fucks, eats again, fucks again, is tasered, kills his bodyguard, shoots himself; and finally all that is left is death. But conversing with Benno brings Packer to self-realisation. Suddenly the significance of the asymmetric prostate is revealed: it is significant precisely because it is not significant. It’s just a tick, a quirk, a symbol of a chaotic universe impervious to mapping and predicting. Understanding that, Packer is freed from the confines of his limousine - his monument to data and patterns - and thrust out into a world where death lurks behind every door and life is painful and funny and vivid. He says himself his 'situation has changed,' and it has: once a monstrous omniscient ego situated at the center of his own universe, suddenly Packer finds himself one among untold millions, somewhere at the edge of something too big and too chaotic to comprehend. The limousine - the wall between Packer and the world - has disintegrated. The repercussions of this are death; but crucially he achieves his transcendent moment - something his companion Benno fails utterly to do - and thus (I think) Packer achieves a victory, albeit a bitterly pyrrhic one. Packer's chronic fear of death is overcome in these last seconds. As the music rises he opens his eyes to face death, and calmly relinquishes control of his destiny. ‘I wanted you to save me,’ says Benno; but who really saves who?

Man, I really loved this movie, but I don’t think I comprehended half of what was going on. Analysing it without any contextual reading has been difficult too - I’ve pretty much been working out my own thoughts as I’ve been writing and with hardly any editing I fear this post is going to be a touch incoherent and verbal-diarrhoea-y - but relying solely on my own opinion has made for a pretty satisfying, refreshing way of approaching criticism. Definitely something to try again. Also - and I think I must have said this about every film I’ve written about so far - I shall definitely revisit Cosmopolis. I didn’t touch at all on the dialogue in this post, which I found fascinating while watching: the odd phraseology, the occasional specification and the throwaway comments in seemingly important scenes (such as Benno’s remark about mutton right at the end) all suggest something going on with the dialogue that - without a second watch - I can’t quite put my finger on.

Akira [Thoughts]

As I have said on the 'about' page, one of the functions I intended for this blog to fulfil was to be a place for me to record my thoughts on new cyberpunk and postmodern SF works as I watched/read them. Unfortunately my first few attempts at posts mutated into long thematically concerned essays, and I sort of forgot that I could write a sub-2000 word post. In an effort to correct this, my next few posts will be short[er] form treatments of some of the books and films I have recently enjoyed, lest I forget what it is that piqued my interest in them. First up is Akira, still fresh in my mind after being watched last night. Note: the reader will have to forgive the knee-jerk reaction and relative lack of critical substantiation in these posts - the aim after all is for me to record my own honest and often ill-informed opinion. 

Akira. Probably a good ten years since I first heard of the behemoth of anime, the one that brought the east to the west and jump-started the whole craze that as a young teenager I eventually became a part of. Criminally, though, despite me (and every other teen) going through the obligatory ‘anime phase’ at school, I never got around to watching Akira. In a way I’m glad. I don’t think my teenage mind would’ve fully appreciated Akira. I don’t think my adult mind fully appreciates it, for that matter; one viewing barely scratches the surface of all that this anime has to offer. I can, however, say emphatically that it is very, very good. 

At face value it’s an extremely slick piece of work. I won’t bother with plot synopsis here, but suffice to say that even watched purely for entertainment value the collision of ice-cool Neo-Tokyo biker gangs and sinister government-operated psychics makes for an incredibly satisfying visual spectacle. From the blistering, kinetically charged bike-mounted battle between Capsules and Clowns to the film’s climactic final act in the ruins of the Olympic stadium, the animation, pacing and direction of the film is spot-on. 

When the action lets-up and the pace slows, there remains an almost unbearable tension; a relentless uneasiness. Every scene points towards something rotten at the heart of Neo-Tokyo. Events play out against a backdrop of civil unrest; of rioting and looting and police brutality, of people tired and desperately clinging on to their belief in the saviour Akira. Neo-Tokyo is not the utopia it promises, rather it is burned-out, its inhabitants fallen back into the old dyad of oppressor/oppressed: the rich have become bored of development and gentrification and the poor are left waiting. Imagery of decay is constant. Fights play out knee-deep in sewage and on the periphery of every scene can be spied a homeless couple here, a burning car there. The desperation comes to a head with the arrival of Tetsuo: the underclass latch onto him as an embodiment of the saviour they have been praying for and against the convention for bystanders in an apocalypse scene, the onlookers rush towards Tetsuo, only to be cut down by a police force given the full reign of martial law.   

The film is rich with symbolism and thematic content and invites endless interpretation. Events in the film are shadowed by boardroom meetings and money-stuffed suitcases, and authority figures from the military to the teachers are portrayed wholly as corrupt and abusive of power. Apocalypse book-ends the film, suggesting (in a similar way to The Second Renaissance) that the events of the film are cyclical: the consequence of repeating mistakes already made. In this sense the film is a socio-political warning; one particularly resonant to a late-80s Japan struggling to find its place in modernity as it comes to the height of its technological dominance but remains fractured by the events of WWII: a country striving to rebuild itself without blueprints. 

Development - and how to best handle development - is arguably the overriding theme of Akira. Whilst externally Neo-Tokyo develops and science rushes headlong into the unknown, Kaneda and the gang and particularly Tetsuo develop internally too. There is a strong psychological and sexual undercurrent to the film. Tetsuo’s journey takes the form of an exaggerated puberty: he experiences both mental and physical changes, changes that give him new power but also scare him. He accepts these changes eventually; harnessing them and becoming incredibly powerful, but without guidance he is ultimately consumed. His reversion back to the physical appearance of a baby is symbolically powerful; Akira, father/messiah, represents for the orphaned Tetsuo a new security, and Akira in return gives Tetsuo a new playground in which to explore his new self. 

I’ve referred twice now to Akira as the messiah, which isn’t a wholly correct or fair characterisation. Messianic he certainly is in the eyes of the cultists desperate for a saviour, likewise Akira must represent to Tetsuo’s tortured longing a messianic figure of redemption with the ability to somehow relieve him of his pain. He doesn’t appear to Tetsuo because (bare with me here) much like Lord Voldemort in the first Harry Potter book, Tetsuo is not an innocent and his desire is impure - something already noted by Kiyoko - and he is therefore deemed unworthy of the Philosopher’s Stone/Akira. To the Espers, however, Akira represents healing and friendship and their invocation to him is selfless, thus he appears from the inanimate specimens that the scientists likewise couldn’t correctly apprehend, and saves Neo-Tokyo. There is a lot to fathom in this conclusion and it would take me many viewings of Akira to separate out the tangled strands of symbolism and myth that converge into that great ball of light and the haunting final words: I am Tetsuo. 

OK, so that still wasn't very short. Yet still everything I have talked about here I have barely touched upon, and I haven’t touched at all on so much more. I could have talked about the film’s dualities, instances of Eastern theology, evolution and reincarnation, but above are the things that most prominently impressed themselves on me during and immediately after watching Akira. I always meant for this blog to be a way for me to skim all the thoughts off the top of my brain before they dissipated, and this half-coherent mess is the result. But it has done the job. I’ve got a whole heap of stuff to think about now before I revisit Akira for a second viewing; and I have a feeling that that second viewing won’t be far away. 

SF Theory: 'The Snoozer Went Off At Seven'

A less formal post this time; something that will hopefully keep me motivated to work on the larger essay style posts. Life has a habit of getting in the way of blogging, especially when the only deadlines are those you impose upon yourself. The title of this post, by the way, is the first line of Bruce Bethke’s Cyberpunk, the short story that started it all. I’ve got seven points, see, and I wanted something slightly wittier than ‘seven things to think about’ as a title.  

So, the other day I bought some books. They are:

- Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment

- Storming the Reality Studio: A Casebook of Cyberpunk and Postmodern Fiction

- Beyond Cyberpunk: New Critical Perspectives

They’re all multi-authored collections of essays (with a splash of reprints, extracts and short fiction too). As you would expect, they all focus on analysing cyberpunk and postmodern SF film and literature, though all in quite different ways and with their own unique perspectives. Storming the Reality Studio was published at the tale-end of the cyberpunk movement in the early 90s, and does a great job of throwing together contemporary critical work from people like Brian McHale with more established postmodern literary and social theory from - amongst others - Baudrillard, Lyotard and Derrida. Beyond Cyberpunk is a much more recent publication and it takes a retrospective look at the initial cyberpunk movement and considers its legacy and relevance today, and Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk narrows the focus down to questions of transformation and transcendence of the body in cyberpunk. 

All three anthologies also have great introductions from their respective editors, which brings me to the crux of this post. As introductory pieces, these three essays all try to contextualise cyberpunk; to site it in the larger tradition of philosophy, technology, social theory and literary history from which it was born and with which it converses. My idea with this post is to take some of the points the three essays make and highlight them as things to think about and return to as I continue to examine individual works of cyberpunk literature and film. 

These are the three essays in question:

- ‘Introduction: The Desert of the Real’, Larry McCaffery, from Storming the Reality Studio

- ‘Introduction: The Sea Change(s) of Cyberpunk’, Graham J. Murphy and Sheryl Vint, from Beyond Cyberpunk

- ‘Cultures of Technological Embodiment: An Introduction’, Mike Featherstone and Roger Burrows, from Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk

And here are the seven things that piqued my interest:

GENRE: Just as pulpy noir crime rose to prominence in the age of high modernism, so cyberpunk shares its place in literary history with the avant-garde postmodernists. But noir and modernism maintain a relationship largely characterised by mutual disdain and/or ambivalence, whereas cyberpunk and postmodernism share a much more sociable - even collaborative - relationship. McCaffery calls cyberpunk a ‘synthesis’ of science fiction (SF) with the aesthetic tendencies and thematic impulses of postmodernism. Later he describes the same effect in reverse: how postmodernists (Pynchon, DeLillo etc.) are drawn to the modes of SF because of the genre’s ‘maximal level of artifice.’ McCaffery notes the ‘complexities’ of postmodernity and the rupture of postindustrial society, and suggests that traditional realism is ill-equipped to cope with the massive, destabilising changes that characterise postmodern life; thus postmodern writers wishing to explore this rupture and these changes are required by necessity to take on aspects of SF. 

Looking backwards, cyberpunk draws upon a number of genres as influence: most prominently felt is the influence of crime noir, but gothic horror (Alien, for example) and the cop formula and heist narrative likewise inform the genre. Cyberpunk takes a characteristically postmodern attitude to its influences; playing with, appropriating and creating pastiches of these genres with a self-awareness typical of postmodernism. Particularly interesting are the parallels between thematic influences of noir and cyberpunk. The development of the highway and the surrounding false-utopian metanarrative of the American dream - deconstructed by noir - bares resemblance to the new information superhighways and the initially expounded utopian possibilities of the internet, a utopia likewise sullied by the threats of cyber-fascism and cyber-terrorism that feature so heavily in cyberpunk writing.   

CAPITALISM: Featherstone and Burrows consider cyberpunk the ‘supreme literary expression […] of late capitalism itself.’ For Murphy and Vint, the ‘single uniform element’ under which all cyberpunk work can be collected is the ‘triumph of planetary capital.’ The trope of the evil megacorp is all pervasive; the inhumanly rich and the omnipresent multinationals dictate the lives of the ordinary dweller in cyberpunk’s many dystopian worlds. McCaffery invokes the economist Mendal, who theorises three stages of capitalism, with post-WWII society occupying the third. After market capitalism and imperialism comes the ‘postindustrial capitalism.’ Typified by its all-encompassing nature, Mendal notes the reliance of this form of capitalism on harnessing rapid technological development in order to compete and expand, and specifically to harvest and store data, and notes that rather than any physical resource, the new key global resource in this stage of capitalism is information itself. McCaffery characterises postmodern capitalism by the rapid expansion of three industries: information, advertising, and the media (or culture) industry; each typified by the practice of reproducing and commodifying human experience into a saleable product (more on this later). This is the state of postmodern society, and this is what the cyberpunks and the postmodernists alike must negotiate in their writing. 

POLITICS: An interesting note on the politics of cyberpunk: its rebellion is pre-emptive. Featherstone and Burrows call the genre a source of ‘prefigurative social theory,’ and ‘anticipatory opposition politics to coming cyber-fascism.’ Traditionally social theory and literature have been separate disciplines - one feeds into the other, but not vice versa. Cyberpunk’s extrapolative approach to the technological and societal developments its authors observe allows the genre to act recursively with social theory, creating fictional worlds which social theorists can observe and contrast with our own. More directly even than that is the influence the genre has on technology; prefiguring many technological developments (Gibson’s cyberspace informing VR development, etc.) Thus Cyberpunk can act as warning and agent of change, simultaneously predicting and redirecting the future.  

THE MIND: An interesting side-effect of rapid technological advancement, notes McCaffery, is the sudden tangibility - and urgency - of previously abstract philosophical problems. Questions concerning the nature of reality, death, consciousness and immortality, previously resigned to the firmly hypothetical, have been suddenly foregrounded by developments in medical technology, artificial intelligence and virtual reality. The new practical relevance of these previously abstract problems require a new form capable of tackling them, and - as mentioned above - postmodern SF takes up this challenge. In terms of specific philosophies, one name supersedes all others: Descarte. Solipsism and the Cartesian mind/body duality absolutely permeates cyberpunk. At times the duality is transfigured into the human/machine - where the vestiges of the human mind (the ghost) fights for control of the machine body. Elsewhere the mind is divorced from the body, either by force (in The Matrix, for example) or as a choice, a form of transcendence from the limitations of the ‘meat.’ In both cases multiple realities vie for legitimacy, whilst all the mind can be sure of is itself. 

REALITY: The commodification and reproduction of human experience seems a defining feature of postmodernity. The technology of photography, motion capture and other forms of recording data have formidably impacted human culture and the self. Featherstone and Burrows characterise Gibson’s thematic preoccupation as one of ‘blurring boundaries,’ specifically the boundaries between biology and technology, natural and artificial, human and inhuman. The boundary between natural and artificial is a particularly interesting one and one problematised by the act of replication: memory of an event becomes memory of the recording of an event; memory is thus compromised and memory (as I've mentioned above) is held as a key facet of humanity in the face of the machine. The idea that an event may even foreground the process of capturing for later consuming over the initial experience itself is likewise an interesting one, and prescient to modern society’s obsession with photo-sharing and data recording. 

THE BODY: In their interrogation of the body Featherstone and Burrows quote Weiner, who theorises the effect of increasingly rapid scientific advancement on the perspective of the body: where once the body was considered a mechanical creature, whose primary function was the transference of heat energy, in postmodernity the body is instead a ‘communications network’ and its prime function is the transference of information. Note the similarity here to the changing beast of capitalism; the parallel shift from industry to information. Featherstone and Burrows construct a continuum of humanity, a spectrum beginning with pure human and continuing thus: first the aesthetically modified human, then the human with fundamental functional modifications, then the ‘wired-in’ cyberspace occupying human with avatar, and finally the AI in cyberspace (with no ‘real’ referent), which could also be the human who has achieved total transcendence of the body. Self-identity, they note, is no longer linked to physicality, and in cyberpunk the mind is vastly foregrounded in favour of a body that can be modified, reconstructed or disposed of entirely. Considering the spectrum, it is interesting to consider whereabouts we as species currently sit. Certainly aesthetic modification has been achieved, and functional modification - while experimental - is achievable too. With VR rapidly developing also, it would seem to me we have at least halfway crossed the line. 

THE CITY: The city plays a key role in cyberpunk. The physical city ties the genre back to its noir routes, but more interesting still are the new worlds cyberpunk creates. Featherstone and Burrows note that the transcendence of the body and the rise of the post-bodied or post-human man offers with it the possibility for entirely new environments; new realms of sensory experience with which to interface. Cyberspace offers this potential for the hacker willing to temporarily forsake the ‘meat’. Interestingly cyberspace projects itself as a simulation of the city, a city ‘redoubled’ through the architecture of its information networks. One can map the cyberspace city over the real city, and make visible the new phenomena of the ‘information ghetto,’ the shadow amongst the neon. The urban experience in cyberpunk is paradoxical: the city seethes with people, but the crowd is lonely, particularly to the fetal car-dweller divorced from his environment behind panes of glass. 

So there you have it. Seven things to think about. This post was very much - more even than the others - one for me to get down the thoughts rattling around in my headspace. These points I have made are neither revolutionary, nor have I explored them with anything even approaching depth, but they are a start.