Ryan McNeil
There are precious few actors that can draw me to a movie simply because they’re in it…actually, there might not be any. Directors however, are a whole different animal. One of the things that comes with following the work of a director, is that you have to take the failed experiments hand-in-hand with the maverick edginess. Soderbegh is perhaps the master of this duality. Take a look after the jump as I explain
Why I Love Soderbergh’s Experimental Movies… Perhaps more than any other big name director, Soderbergh has spent the last ten to twelve years alternating big studio movies with smaller passion projects. In a way I have to admire someone who would take money made from ERIN BROCKOVICH, OUT OF SIGHT, TRAFFIC and OCEAN’S 11/12/13 and turn it into non-profitable titles like SOLARIS and CHE.
I find myself deeply in the minority sometimes, because when it comes to movies like SOLARIS and THE GOOD GERMAN, it’s rare that I meet others who enjoy them. People come in to such titles hoping that George Clooney will be the big movie star hero. When they get a lower-boiling, personal story they are put off. I, on the other hand, find stories like these challenging and nuanced…the sort of thing I want to watch twice to make sure I’ve caught everything. Add to these titles a film like BUBBLE, where Soderbergh took non-actors, and got from them some truly sad performances.
One thing that will bring me in even more than a great story, is stunning imagery. To this end, Soderbergh is a master. Ofetn his own cinematographer, Soderbergh has a knack of taking an everyday sight and turning it into a truly visceral shot. Going back to SOLARIS, take a look at the opening scene…where the camera slowly pans over some airport ceiling tiles. It’s the simplest visual, but the whole thing has an elegance to it that could qualify it for an art gallery.
Such qualities are common with Soderbergh’s smaller projects a wonderful break from the dreck that populates a multiplex. He finds a way to combine big names and no names into the same movie, and give you a hard time telling who’s who since the performances are so darned good.
For that, I’m often excited when Soderbergh releases an experimental movie.
Why I Hate Soderbergh’s Experimental Movies… Sweet Lord. When the man misses the mark, he misses by a mile.
I applaud a filmmaker trying to give us something different, but for the love of God man…give us a movie that’s about something. Does anybody out there remember FULL FRONTAL? The movie featured a pretty darned good cast, but I swear the film had zero plot. Such experiments drive me nuts. I’m alright with a film following a casting agent around for a week…but be clear about what you’re doing. Don’t dress it up with famous faces and try to pretend it’s something bigger.
Another misfire that I’m still trying to forget is THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE. I’ll give the man points for one thing in that movie – it sure looked pretty. Too bad the film featured a lifeless performance by a porn star, and was filled end-to-end with scenes of overpaid scenesters complaining about their lot in life.
One theory goes that porn stars can seldom cross over into legit acting because they just aren’t good enough. So why Soderbergh gambled on Sasha Grey to carry this film is beyond me…there had to be a zillion other girls who could pull off an escort look, but still bring some talent to the heavier moments.
Like FULL FRONTAL before it, THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE just felt like a short experimental concept stretched into a feature film. Neither film is all that memorable, and both made me question if the director whose work I loved so dear had lost his mojo. I can applaud an effort to try and give audiences something different, but I have to believe that the man has enough sense to watch these films during pre-production and think to himself “I went wrong somewhere here”.
No such luck. They get released to the unsuspecting public, and twerps like me shell out $12 to witness a failed attempt. It’s the unfortunate side effect I suppose. Every CHE could very well turn out as THE UNDERNEATH. For that, I’m often wary when Soderbergh releases an experimental movie.
I've been contemplating putting myself through watching The Girlfriend Experience, but…hmm. I think I feel as torn between love and AUGH! where Soderbergh is concerned as you do. Movies like Traffic and Bubble show the depth and breadth of his range, but…yeah, I'm one of those Solaris-haters.
I'm more likely to see a film because of it director than its star, too (although I admit that I will see anything that features Emma Thompson; I think she and Anne Bancroft have been the only two who've ever guaranteed me that I'll get at least a few moments of a brilliant performance out of a movie). I have a few who get me all jumping-up-and-down-ish when I hear there's a new film heading my way; most people have no clue wtf I'm talking about and just want to know if Brad Pitt is in it. Sigh.
Directors guaranteed to get me into that theatre:
– Don McKellar
– Atom Egoyan
– David Cronenberg
– Mike Nichols (I know, "Three of these things bee-loooong together…" But, seriously: Wit. Closer. I could go on, but need I?)
– David Fincher
– Danny Boyle
So it would seem you have a fellow director groupie on your hands.
@ Ehch… I still cannot believe how slow GFX felt for a movie that's 80 minutes long. Do yourself a favour – skip it.
As for directors that get me into the theatre…
David Fincher
Martin Scorsese
Michael Mann
Steven Spielberg
The Coen Brothers
Christopher Nolan
All right. I've allowed you to convince me that it's best to let YOU take that 80-minute bullet, and I'll just…not! I'll thank you, preemptively.
If you happen to get MovieTime, there's a David Fincher marathon on all day today; they're airing "Se7en" right now, then "Zodiac" (which I hated – I know, I'm probably the only one), and later on? "FIGHT CLUB." Life, she's good today.
And I should've had Michael Mann on my list, too, now that you mention him. And there've been movies from each of your others that I have adored, too, though I'm not sure I'd automatically go to the theatre based on them alone. (Having said that, props to the awesomeness of films like "No Country For Old Men," "The Departed," "Munich," "The Prestige," just to name a few of the more recent masterpieces from your favourites.)
Thank you for NOT listing Larry Clark. Or Harmony Korine. Or Rob Zombie. Don't get me started.
I won't say a thing about Polanski, just in case someone comes after me with a pitchfork… o.O
@ Ehch… Yopu're welcome. Spend the 80 minutes doing something productive and I'll consider us square.
I don't get MovieTime, but given that I have most of Finch's DVD's, I could have my own little marathon. That might actually do me some good, as looking back on his older work would probably get the taste of BENJAMIN BUTTON out of my mouth.
Well, at least I agree on half your post here Hatter. The top part. I love his commercial stuff, but have a soft spot for his personal projects. "Solaris" is top notch, but I also really enjoy the three experimental films you poo-pooed…
"Full Frontal" is the kind of self-aware film about film that I really dig. When people criticize it, they tend to think it's bordering on masturbation with a camera, but think he is genuinely experimenting. Plot? Nah, not so much that's true…But for me there's lots more to chew on – the different layers of characters, the acting and all of Soderbergh's tricks.
"The Girlfriend Experience" also worked for me. I thought it zipped by – not because I was overly engaged in the characters or plot, but because it showed these two people (the boyfriend and girlfriend) walking through life with little emotion selling themselves to "get ahead" (whatever that might mean). There's a lot more going on then I think you are giving it credit for (the Vegas jaunt for example – the only reason the boyfriend was invited is that he'll help the other guys get laid).
"The Underneath" is also a fun watch – but this time with a plot! It's essentially a Film Noir, but in bright colours. I call it a Film Couleur. Of course, Peter Gallagher can be hard to take, so your mileage may vary on that one…
"Grey's Anatomy" is another story. Interesting framing throughout, but I just couldn't care less about anything Spalding Grey was saying. It's my least favourite Soderbergh.
@ Bob… FULL FRONTAL: I don't know why this is my reaction with such things, but I might have liked it more if it were a short film without the A-List talent. Going feature length and bringing in an armful of names makes it feel to me like a major film disguising itself as experimentation.
THE GF EXPERIENCE neither the hooker, nor her trainer bf were people I cared about. They were so bitter and cold towards each other, that their conversations didn't feel that far off from those she has with her johns. Their story could have been the bright spot, and instead for me it just stoked the fire of boredom.
THE UNDERNEATH was OK…but not nearly on a level of BUBBLE, CHE, or THE LIMEY.
"They were so bitter and cold towards each other, that their conversations didn't feel that far off from those she has with her johns."
Exactly.
The point of the film isn't the story or the plot. It's the characters and their their shallowness. You can argue that it doesn't make for an entertaining film, but I knew that going in and I enjoyed the way it was presented.
It's interesting how expectations can really effect a person's perception of a film isn't it? I had no expectations of Full Frontal being a major film, so it worked for me (don't really see an issue with the actors being big names).
Underneath seemed to be a decent enough story which he applied his own aesthetic to – kind of like how many B filmmakers would take standard B film scripts and play with all the other variables – just to make it more interesting and bring some artistic style to it.
@ Bob… Boy am I ever gonna have fun podcasting with you 😀