
>Hey
>Have you seen Demonlover? It’s that 2002 Olivier Assayas corporate thriller. It’s got a 49% on Rotten Tomatoes, your first clue that it’s a great film.
>It’s almost impossible to talk about why Demonlover might be the film of the 2000s without spoiling its frenetic plot. Suffice it to say the film is a contemporary dystopia where globalization has unleashed pure, unadulterated corporatism and a society of amoral mercenaries, confidently argued by Assayas through Internet age pastiche and hazy ellipticism. It’s also a culture cyclone digesting everything from video games to fashion mags that would be alarmist if it weren’t supported every day by the western public response to atrocities in the years since. Spoilers.
>As per usual, it’s what the naysayers call the problem areas that are most important. Sure, the opening hour is remarkably seductive, exposition-light to keep us actively involved and intrigue-heavy to reward us for paying attention. We get a break during the translation scenes, which are so drawn out as to be funny while inherently suspenseful, especially given the icy unpredictability of Connie Nielsen’s lead saboteur Diane. Already we get a taste of the film’s modus operandi with a hentai interlude and a penchant for blurry light/colorplay.
>But the central murder catalyzes the film into an even more addled state of consciousness. We’re constantly inundated with new and incomprehensible sequences, and it’s this rabbit hole effect that many critics find problematic. I suppose they wanted Michael Clayton. But Assayas’ paranoid corporate warfare is not a vehicle to one character’s moral accounting—an idea that, given Demonlover’s universe, is hysterical—but a portal into a world of dangerously growing distance from reality. The rabbit hole isn't the problem; it's the point.
>It’s in every frame of the film. The first knot in the negotiations is the question of whether the 3-D porn characters were modeled on real, prepubescent girls. And it’s here we see that laws still regulate some morality, but we get the idea that characters only subscribe to laws that are self-serving. Later there’s question as to the reality of the murder, the real allegiances of practically every character, and of course the reality of the Hellfire Club. Images of violence hardly phase the boy at the end, but that’s not his fault. It’s doubtful he’d be so cavalier if he thought they were real. What's more, in the meta analysis, it isn't; it's all a metaphor. Assayas isn't saying suburban Americans are perpetrating torture. Not with their desktops, anyway.
>So here we are at the great moral provocation, which possibly cements Demonlover’s millennial magnum opus status. If desensitization to sex and violence is one byproduct of globalization and the Internet age that has knocked us even further back from reality, how do we justify the graphic elements of Demonlover? The same way we do Caravaggio or Scorsese: this is not sexy, this is confrontational sex/death in service of a serious cultural reckoning. If we’re going to be torturing people and selling women, we ought to be quite clear on what we’re willing to live with as a civilization.
>I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the film's agents are overwhelmingly women, evidence of the film's misogyny as much as its feminism. Me? I found it quite welcome, though I question the purpose. Maybe the film was cast gender-blind, though certainly some roles needed to be female. But does this jibe with the state of today's boardrooms? Maybe, maybe not. After all, the women of Demonlover have all the power, but only Gina Gershon's American Elaine is actually at the top of her company's food chain.
>Assayas isn’t simply moralizing about violent video games or comic superheroes; he’s ripping from headlines that have only proven more prescient in the years since. He’s nothing less than our Ozymandias, watching an array of televisions, extrapolating cultural trends, and destroying our world in an attempt to save it.
>You there?


















































