“Contagion”
Written by Scott Z. Burns Directed by Steven Soderbergh. Stars: Matt Damon, Lawrence Fishburne, Kate Winslet, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow. Story: A thriller centered on the threat posed by a deadly disease and an international team of doctors contracted by the CDC to deal with the outbreak.
Seen by Lars & Adam, Sept 10, 2011
LARS:
There is no such thing as ‘A Stephen Soderbergh’ picture. His films are so diverse that they may as well have been directed by a whole bunch of different people. He sometimes acts as his own director of photography and will carry the camera around himself. He has starred in one of his own movies (“Schizopolis”) and has made excellent popcorn movies like “Out of Sight” and “Oceans Eleven” as well as his initial claim to fame, the film that kicked off a 1000 bad imitations but was at the time a ground-breaking indie, “Sex, Lies & Videotape”. This preamble is just to say that you generally have no idea what to expect, when you go to see a movie directed by Soderbergh. It could be one of his crowd pleasers, or a small personal experiment. In that respect, he is one of the true originals of American film in the last two decades.
The story of his latest, “Contagion”, is not exactly an original concept. It aims to show exactly what happens, when a lethal virus jumps from animals to humans, much like we’ve seen with AIDS, SARS and N1H1 (you can’t be a lethal virus and not have an abbreviation, apparently). This plot has played out in a number of films before, e.g. “Outbreak”, and the whole doomsday scenario is the driver of many a science-fiction movie. When I first saw the trailer for “Contagion”, it looked like an amazing thriller that stood out based on a spectacular cast (Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law et al) and that’s what I expected. Instead I got something very different.
The first word that comes to mind when trying to describe the film is ‘clinical’. It is a step-by-step depiction of what would likely happen if (or, more likely, probably when) a global virus breaks out. The script, written by former ad guy Scott Z. Burns, flows logically from event to event and does a great job in terms of believability. What it doesn’t do so well is entertain. In many ways, without the stars and the name director, this would have been a fine documentary on History Channel. The problem is that there is never anyone to relate to, nor a central conflict (other than stop the virus, of course). The first rule of any disaster movie is that you have to establish casts of characters that the audience loves and hates and then make the former survive horrifying ordeals and the latter perish in inventive ways. Then you have to come up with a fun way of stopping the disaster – a central point where this movie fails spectacularly. “Contagion” flaunts these rules, and its reportage style becomes (dare I say it) a little boring.
This is certainly no fault of the actors, who are uniformly excellent. Matt Damon’s reaction when he learns that his wife has died is a magnificent piece of acting. Jude Law’s annoying and insane conspiracy theorist is thoroughly unlikeable and a nice departure for Law. And, personally, I really enjoyed seeing Gwyneth Paltrow die. And it’s always nice to see Lawrence Fishburne – even if he does increasingly look like the answer to the question ‘who ate all the pies?’
ADAM:
Do you take responsibility for your actions, or are you the type of person who places blame upon what set things in motion? It’s an interesting psychological question about behavior. Saying the poor service I received at a store led me to leave at a certain moment, which led to the particular cab which smelled of gasoline, that gave me a frustrating headache, which is why I kicked the cat when I finally got home is not logical; it’s an excuse for bad behavior. However, statistical-based cause and effect data is much more profound (in fact undeniable). What’s most interesting to me is that, at least in Hollywoodland, regardless of which of these templates is the backdrop for telling a story, ultimately fate has a hand; what will be, apparently will be. Two films (both featuring Gwyneth Paltrow) really prove the point. One is the wonderful romantic comedy “Sliding Doors,” in which Paltrow plays a fired advertising exec whose life heads down two divergent paths (shown intermittently and flawlessly within the film) after a specific moment: her ability/inability to catch an underground train. The other is “Contagion.” Here, Paltrow’s character works at the wrong company, is on the wrong assignment, and arguably makes the wrong decisions at the right time to become carrier one of a hybrid bat/pig disease from Asia that proceeds to potential end human civilization as we know it.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh, who I personally think is competent behind the camera when filming drama, “Contagion” actually ran like a documentary, straightforward and lacking twists, so the audience is putting together the mystery along with the members of the CDC, WHO, etc. This is a bit of a problem since very little if anything is done to make the audience appreciate or like many of the characters.
The cast is competent, though I wouldn’t say challenged much, highlighted by strong efforts from Laurence Fishburne, Kate Winslet and Marion Cotilliard. They’re supported by Matt Damon, Jude Law, Bryan Cranston and others who do the best with what they’re given. And the scare factor is there: the brutal reality of how quickly and easily something like this can happen (and potentially wipe out so many before a cure is found, developed and distributed to the masses) is simply maddening — a concept that’s like fear-based claustrophobia for your brain’s ability to process logic.
The film is certainly not without its faults, and I assign them more to gaping omissions or odd choices than anything else. Jude Law plays the fly in the ointment, both to the illness itself with his atypical cure, and later to the government that’s trying to solve the crisis. Law’s character is revealed to be a capitalist more than a savior, but his storyline comes across a bit foggy. He meets someone who can help facilitate his role as informant, but we never get a sense of who that contact is, what his role is, or what the endgame is. It still works (sort of), but it feels far less developed than other parts of the film. Also, apparently as a character trait, Law or Soderberg decided to give Law’s character a crooked front tooth. Weird to do that to an actor with one of the best known perfect smiles, weirder still that propaganda posters abound in the film with hand-drawn illustrations of Law, showing his perfect smile. And the tooth itself is clearly fake when Law is shot at certain angles. Some shots even show his real tooth under the prosthetic.
But this isn’t about nit-picking or attention to detail…wait, maybe it is; the movie does outwardly preach(even if in the last minute) the danger of tearing down natural habitats and rain forests and points more than subtle fingers at adultery. So I don’t feel too bad pointing out a few small mistakes of the film that might add up to something more significant as a sum? Still, it’s a decent effort all around, but certainly not something to see if you plan to travel to the orient, unless you are prepared to boil yourself every night in a pot of Purell.
