Nothing Spreads Like the Gap in Jude Law’s Teeth – The “Contagion” Essay

A Meditation on Realism in Film

Steven Soderbergh’s “Contagion” has earned mostly positive reviews.  Everyone I talk to says, “it was better than “Outbreak” (1995).  Is it really that difficult to be better than a movie where Dr. McDreamy plays a guy named “Jimbo?”  Admittedly, I immediately thought of “Outbreak” following the “Contagion” trailer.  How many of these films do we really need to see?  Is “Contagion” entertaining, scary, relevant?  Absolutely.  Is this what I really want to see from Soderbergh?  At this point, as long as it’s not “Bubble” (2006) or “The Girlfriend Experience” (2008) I’m happy.  Soderbergh must be applauded for continually attempting to push the medium forward, even if it is not in the direction we desire or expect.  With “Contagion,” Soderbergh blends films from many genres with the aim of creating the most realistic disease film ever made.  Aside from the fact that “Outbreak” and “Contagion” are both disease films, they have few similarities.   The pandemic we witness in “Contagion” is far more believable than the relatively contained outbreak of the Motaba virus in “Outbreak.”  Also, the inhabitants of Soderbergh’s “Contagion” never consider liquidating the population to contain the virus.

It’s a chore to list the brilliant ensemble cast that populates “Contagion:”  Marion Cotillard, Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Bryan Cranston, Demetri Martin, Elliott Gould, and John Hawkes are the notables.  Though not nearly as lengthy, “Contagion” shares stylistic elements with Soderbergh’s “Traffic” (2000).  Both films are examples of “hyper-link cinema,” films that utilize many storylines and characters that are revealed to be inter-connected.  The color palette is also similar in both films.  As in “Traffic,” Soderbergh gives each locale in “Contagion” its own unique look and feel through striking use of color.  The same cinematographer shot both films, Soderbergh himself (he shot “Traffic” under the pseudonym “Peter Andrews”).  While his style and technique were novel in “Traffic,” in “Contagion” it just comes off as more of the same.  I particularly enjoyed the focus that Soderbergh places on the “little things.”  He includes a great many close-ups of surfaces that sick people touch; always reinforcing the idea that disease can pass extremely easily and quickly if we are not careful.  I know I personally felt a bit queasy while gripping the arms on my chair in the theater while watching these instances.

“Contagion” opens with Gwyneth Paltrow whoring it up.  She is on the phone with a man she slept with just hours before, and this man is not her husband.  Gwyneth probably gave him a host of STDs, but the only thing we know for sure is that she gave him the deadly virus that will become known as MEV-1.  I bet that guy won’t be hooking up with a married woman, and not just because he’s dead!  All joking aside, the film moves at a pace that could be compared to Usain Bolt (“Contagion” differs slightly in that it does not get disqualified for a false start).  This pace does not leave much room for character development, but in a film where we are looking at caricatures of people that are familiar to us, the amount of character development included in the film is sufficient.

One can watch “Contagion,” enjoy the story for what it is, and go back to their daily lives.  It is quite easy though to start extrapolating social commentary.  Jude Law plays Alan Krumwiede, a man that operates a “truth” blog.  He has 12-million unique visitors daily, according to his own figures.  Krumwiede is a fear-monger of Glenn-Beck-proportions (please do not start a discussion with me about Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or fear mongering in general, it is not my intention to start a political discussion through this review).  Krumwiede tells his readers that there is a cure available for MEV-1, a homeopathic treatment derived from forsythia.  Krumwiede is, of course, profiting from his claims, making millions of dollars off the fear and panic that he is spreading.  For whatever reason, Jude Law sports some awful chompers in this film.  I don’t know if it was Law’s idea, or Soderbergh’s, but Law’s notably absent normally perfect teeth serve as a major distraction.  The film employs caricatures of people we all know, but Law’s Krumwiede is the only one with caricature like physical features; it comes off as nothing but cheap.

Laurence Fishburne plays Dr. Ellis Cheever, a high ranking official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Cheever gets into trouble in the film after telling his fiancée that she should get out of Chicago.  Cheever learns that states are going to be shutting down their borders, but he is instructed that he can tell no one.  In a public television broadcast, Cheever is interviewed by CNN’s own Dr. Gupta.  Gupta invites Krumwiede to join the broadcast.  Krumwiede uses this opportunity to publicly railroad Cheever in order to increase the public distrust in the government, and more importantly, their trust in a vaccine sanctioned by the government, increasing the value of forsythia.  Throughout the film, Cheever does everything he can for the good of the general public, and the people he cares about.  Cheever is a man of character, and as such, he knows that sometimes the rules must be broken.  He is the main political figure that we see in the film, and Cheever’s priorities seem to be far better than those of politicians we see in most films.  At the end of the film, Cheever says that he will gladly face an investigation into his actions, declaring that he was only saving the life of the woman he loved.  Would anyone have done things differently?

How important is it that “Contagion” is viewed as a “realistic” depiction of a pandemic?  I hope that no one out there actually watched “The Human Centipede” based on its claim that it was “100% medically accurate.”  In film it can be refreshing to see something that is true to life, but at the same time, it can also be a drag.  Is a scene more powerful because someone dies in a way that is true to life?  These are films, this is anything but real life.  I enjoy “Contagion” because it is an entertaining film that on the surface is about the spread of disease, and beneath the surface lies a social commentary about the way that people view each other and interact; I certainly was not too concerned with how medically accurate the film was.  Kudos (yeah, I just said kudos) to Soderbergh for making an entertaining, socially minded film that is also realistic, but I think that realism is the wrong reason to appreciate a film like “Contagion.”

//

Justin Cislo