I’d seen “Contagion” a month or so ago, but neglected writing about it because it seemed to me at the time little more than a smartened-up version of one of those 1970’s all-star disaster extravaganzas, where the movie poster was covered with a row of little boxes containing the faces of the cast members, many of whom had either earned Oscars or nominations for earlier, better performances.
And the roster here is like an Academy Award fantasy team: Matt Damon (Oscar for Good Will Hunting’s Screenplay, and two acting nominations), Laurence Fishburne (Acting nomination), Gwyneth Paltrow (Oscar for Shakespeare in Love), Marion Cotillard (Oscar for La Vie En Rose), Kate Winslet (Oscar for The Reader and a half dozen other nominations), Jude Law (Two acting nominations), Elliot Gould (Acting monination), John Hawkes (Acting nomination). When you add multi-Emmy winner Bryan Cranston and Tony winner Jennifer Ehle (who gives the film’s best performance), you’ve got enough gold statues to sink the Titanic (sorry, Kate Winslet).
The more I think about it now, though, I admire the tight direction of Steven Soderbergh, who proved in his dynamic “Traffic” in 2000 that he is a master at handling multiple plot lines and a large cast of characters (much like my movie god, the late Robert Altman). This time around though, Soderbergh and the screenplay put a few too many balls into the air, and a couple of them get lost in the shuffle.
In a nutshell, a scary worldwide epidemic begins thanks to that obnoxious Gwyneth Paltrow, who luckily for me, expires about ten minutes into the film. Her husband Matt Damon, in a completely believable performance expresses a multitude of emotional reactions to the full effect of the crisis on his and his family’s life. Damon was a handsome young man, and granted he’s aging and put on a little weight, but these things seem to be making him a better actor: he’s forced to rely on his talents and abilities rather than just his looks, and in fact may be a true character actor in the making.
Among the other big money names are: Fishburne as a CDC big shot, albeit one with world weary wisdom and a kind heart, who gets into trouble for spilling info to family members to keep them safe, in other words, the typical Morgan Freeman role. Cotillard is a brilliant actress who earned well deserved praise for her work in “Nine” and “Inception”, but here she is completely wasted as a specialist with the WHO that gets kidnapped in a third world country (this is one of the story strands that gets dropped every so often, and when it is picked back up, we ask ourself “now who is this woman again?”) Winslet has what used to be the Jodie Foster role, a dedicated young research scientist who puts her job above everything else. She’s good in the role, but she’s too good to be appearing in what is basically an extended cameo appearance in this movie. Law has an interesting character, an internet muckraker and conspiracy theorist, yet he too is never developed fully as a person and thus becomes one of the plot strands that we lose interest in. Gould has a very small role as a research scientist, barely worthy of a mention, and Hawkes is good (as always) as a janitor who desperately seeks Fishburne’s help.
Acting honors in the film though belong to Jennifer Ehle, whose portrays the most believable character in the picture, even though she does take a very unprofessional step to try and stop the epidemic as an earnest young researcher. Ehle resembles a young Bonnie Bedelia, and their acting is similar as well: unobtrusive, serving the story, and creating a character or grounded reality among all the craziness going on around them. She gets more screen time and dialogue than several of the bigger stars, and handles her role nicely. Overall, it’s a rather smart, enjoyable little popcorn movie, although it does make you think about just how many times you do touch your own face every day. It might be a good idea to stock up on some more Purell.
No comments:
Post a Comment