Movie Review: Contagion (2011)
Scary, but emotionally cold
Photo: Warner Bros.
Steven Soderbergh has created a sterile, at-arms-reach viral thriller in Contagion that ultimately works, but still left me cold and somewhat indifferent. There's a frightening reality to everything you see, but it's all so contained the full scope of this viral disaster is never really felt despite its globetrotting plotline. Soderbergh doesn't create much of an emotional attachment with any of the characters, so as they struggle and fight to stay alive against an invisible villain it's hard to become emotionally invested.
The cast includes Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Marion Cotillard, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Laurence Fishburne, John Hawkes, Josie Ho, Demetri Martin, Jennifer Ehle, Bryan Cranston, Elliott Gould, Sanaa Lathan and Amr Waked. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Contagion" is a Warner Bros. release, directed by Steven Soderbergh and is rated PG-13 for disturbing content and some language. The running time is 1 hour 45 minutes.
Soderbergh is vigilant in showing every touch of the hand, brush of the face and sneeze, with each scene containing any number of opportunities for the disease to be transmitted. You almost feel as if he handled the editing process dressed in a contamination suit, not wanting to get too close to it or become too attached himself. It's that distance that I felt while watching causing me to not be able to become fully invested as technicality outweighed emotionality.
Attention to detail in Contagion is above and beyond thanks to tons of research put in by Soderbergh and the film's screenwriter Scott Z. Burns. Scientists in search for a cure begin spouting long strings of dialogue I'd need to spend all day on WebMD to understand, but it isn't presented in a way that leaves you wondering what they're talking about. With each turn in the narrative you're able to follow along as more and more people become infected. As things get worse, Soderbergh isn't shy in exploring the selfishness of human nature as the fight for survival becomes increasingly dire. Problem with all of this is is that you're almost watching a world in a fish bowl with little concern or care for what's going on inside. The characters you're watching have names, but that's pretty much the extent of the audience's attachment.
The media angle is also explored using a conspiracy theorist blogger played by Jude Law, posing theories on media cover-ups and exaggeration and the scientific and medical industry's unwillingness to tell the truth. The approach to the character is initially interesting, but he soon becomes overbearing and unbelievable to the point I increasingly lost interest.
The most frustrating character, however, belongs to Marion Cotillard playing a doctor for the World Health Organization searching for the source of the virus. Her involvement takes a melodramatic and silly tangent that gets worse and worse, even when you think it may be getting better.
I was able to find a slight connection with Matt Damon's character as he and his daughter do their best to survive while closing themselves off in their house. Damon has a delivery I simply tend to believe. His ability to tap into the heart of a character is one of the best out there today and for that reason alone I remained interested and hopeful for his character.
The best performance, though, comes from Kate Winslet as an on-the-ground young doctor working under Laurence Fishburne at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Winslet's character is out among the infected, doing what she can to stop the spread of the disease and set up quarantines and shelters. She's commanding in the role, and yet vulnerable. The vulnerability comes through not only in the fact she's risking her life, but also by her performance.
Admittedly, since seeing the film I have considered how many times I touch my face each day. I don't remember the stat Winslet throws out during the film, but on average, studies show humans touch their face 16 times an hour. When you consider how many unsanitary surfaces you touch during the day — a door handle, a coffee shop chair, a pole on the subway — and then begin to consider what would happen if a deadly communicable disease was running rampant, it's a bit of a scary idea. Soderbergh does his best to get this idea to sink in, and it does, but the absence of an emotional connection to the film's characters ends in a passive rather than reactive result.
I found Contagion to be interesting, but beyond the passing curiosity, the scare intended just didn't pack as much of a punch as it could have.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 5 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
So would you recommend watching this then or not, because a B- by your standards is a pretty high rating but from the review I couldn't really get the major positives justifying a B- rating.
I debated between a B- and a C+ and it was really hard to decide between the two. I went slightly higher on the grade because some of what I saw stuck with me, which makes me think it may benefit from a second viewing. It was a really tough call to be honest.
Some critics say that the emotional coldness is kind of the point, because in a situation like this you have to cut off attachment and look out for yourself. Do you think this is a fair assessment, or is it just a bad excuse?
I can't wait to see the movie.
Oh, I'm sure it was intentional, but it doesn't change the fact that it's hard to care for the characters as a result. It's a very well made film, I just wish even the smallest connection had been made to the characters to give it a bigger and better emotional punch.
I saw Contagion yesterday (after waiting until today to read most reviews, including this one), and the review here is directly on target. A B- is a fair grade.
In one sense, the film suffers from its attempt to be as realistic a possible. As in real life, there are no unequivocal heroes, no single person who saves the day. As in real life, we don't know what the climax is until longer after it has happened. And as in real life, we have little emotional investment in most of the people around us.
But — most of us do have an emotional investment in a few people around us. And that's where this movie falls short. Even the Damon character, who probably is on the screen more than any other, is someone who don't find much about beyond the fact that he loves his daughter and believed his wife to be faithful. He doesn't do anything extraordinary, just what a normal loving father would do. Even so, we never get to know him.
I have to give Soderbergh some credit for avoiding the cliches that would have abounded had this been a typical hero-rescues-the-world movie. Unfortunately, however, his low-key approach fails to make for a compelling drama.