Director: Sophie Barthes
Writer: Sophie Barthes
Producers: Daniel Carey, Elizabeth Giamatti, Paul S. Mezey, Andrij Parekh, Jeremy Kipp Walker
Starring: Paul Giamatti, David Strathairn, Emily Watson, Dina Korzun
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 101 min.

(3.5/5)

Row Three has been posting images and news about Cold Souls for the better part of 2009 in anticipation of yet even more great sci-fi ideas coming out of Hollywood. With Cold Souls, there was even more to be excited about. Besides what looked to be like a very real and clinical looking sci-fi tale, this film also had implications of deep philosophical meaning, fascinating and surreal camera work and good natured, dry humor to boot. And the kicker of course being the acting of Paul Giamatti playing Paul Giamatti. While the film has a really interesting premise and showcases really solid performances, it tends to rest on its laurels a bit and doesn’t quite delve into the possibilities as much as it could or arguably should.

The plot is disappointingly simple and linear. Paul Giamatti is a man who seems to be struggling with himself and his career. He feels weighted down for not entirely tangible reasons and simply unhappy with his life; sort of a mid-life crisis if you will or “stuck” as he calls it. Enter “Soul Storage,” a company that extracts one’s soul and keeps it in cryo so that the host of said soul can feel lighter and more care-free. And if one chooses, one can have another soul “imported” in order to experience “enlightment” (or something like that… More on that in a minute). Paul undergoes the procedure and chooses the soul of a Russian poet, only to realize that his life is much better off with his own soul. When the company goes to retrieve it from storage, they find it has been stolen and brought back to Russia as part of an international soul trafficking ring. And Paul must venture to St. Petersburg to find out who took his soul and how he can get it back.

It breaks my heart that while the movie is fun and has a completely fascinating and brain-engaging idea, it just doesn’t seem to want to expound upon it much. For example taking light hearted and dry comedic stabs at the fact that a soul sort of looks like a chickpea (with the male insecurities regarding size hinted at). Cute and humorous sure, but I would love to delve into what exactly are the repercussions of soul extraction? How do the mind and body connect and how do they deal without having what we’ve come to believe is the life source of the human existence? What exactly does the soul do? It doesn’t really seem to have too much of a profound affect upon its host. What happens when a person continually transfers souls over and over and over again – how does it affect their psyche and physical health? What happens when a soul’s donor dies? All of these questions are hinted at and then never really explored much at all. Now to be fair, it is possible that the filmmaker’s intent was to get people thinking and hypothesizing and philosophizing for themselves on the way home; but me? I’d like to see someone else’s vision of all that minutiae.

There are moments of examination but they just don’t quite take off. Strathairn as the chief scientist is solid and begins to answer questions but ultimately the film avoids deep discussion with either a comedic quip or situation; otherwise with a retort of, “we just don’t really know anything. This isn’t an exact science.” Cop out.

The other detail not fully explored is in the selling or borrowing of souls. It’s not really explained what it accomplishes. When a host “imports” another’s soul into their body, it’s not entirely clear how it changes the person. This is not “The Matrix.” When one imports the soul of a fighter pilot, they don’t suddenly have the urge to go really fast and they don’t have all of the technical know-how of a pilot. They’re just… different. Why? How? At one point Paul finally chooses the option (at first he is very reluctant) of “seeing inside” his soul. Here we get sort of a Tarsem Singh version of the inner soul of another person and it doesn’t entirely make a lot of sense. It feels like there is some fleeting look at early childhood psychology and other major events through one’s life, but it’s very surreal and as far as I could tell didn’t really connect with any known, quantifiable plot point or arc about the character. It was just kind of weird and ethereal just for the sake of being weird and ethereal. Having said that, in a strange way it does manage to give a drop of emotion that is difficult to pinpoint, but the ever so slightest essence of the person’s well being is sort of there. Leave it to only Paul Giamatti to pull that off.

So as much as I wanted to see more detail and depth, what is on screen is quite a delight. Giamatti is his usual great self, but one could argue that this is one of his best performances. Playing the spectrum of a character with a lot of inner turmoil to one who seems to sort of be enjoying life and carefree and then playing sort of another person altogether. On top of this there are some up-close and personal shots of him performing a Russian stage play at three different points throughout his character’s emotional journey and it is a wonder to watch him go at it full bore and with passion. The side characters all play second fiddle to Giamatti both in story and in acting prowess. Even the usually great David Strathairn seems to be almost playing this one blindly. Emily Watson works fine for what she needs to do but in every scene she appears, it is Giamatti who completely owns the camera.

While the humor is sometimes used to distract from real issues or philosophy, I must say that it is quite entertaining and laughable. The humor is rather dead-panned and very unexpected at times. A lot of it is so dry in fact that once in a while there’s an itch at the back of your brain wondering if you were really supposed to laugh at this or that; but clearly you were. And good on ‘em for making us think that way. Good comedy can often be very subtle and unsuspecting. Giamatti knows this and excels at that practice.

It is certainly possible that a second viewing could bring about more insight and revelations that were missed upon first glance but I’m skeptical. I think the film says what it has to say (which isn’t a whole lot) and leaves the ball in the audience’s court. It’s an enjoyable experience for a lot of the aesthetic to the film, it’s interesting locales (NYC, Russia, the various rooms of the science lab – particularly the “winding down” room with the marshmallows), tight performances and comedic timing. More than worth a look-see, but just don’t expect to be moved too profoundly – unless you choose to further the discussion on your own and venture where the film does not. You might have quite the interesting experience on your own in that regard.