I've never found much use for the term "hack," as it tends to caricature or obscure the specifics of the creative process. How do we know that Soderbergh doesn't work closely with his screenwriters? That he doesn't feel strongly about the material?
I do agree that the "one for them, one for me" pattern in his filmography is worrisome. I wonder if his films have suffered for his artifical dichotomy between compromise and experiment--"wonder" because I haven't seen the last two.
― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 March 2003 21:43 (twenty-one years ago) link
― robin (robin), Tuesday, 11 March 2003 21:54 (twenty-one years ago) link
― hstencil, Tuesday, 11 March 2003 21:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 March 2003 21:58 (twenty-one years ago) link
― john fail (cenotaph), Tuesday, 11 March 2003 22:09 (twenty-one years ago) link
I *did*. I was a movie critic back then, and I thought it was a hoax. Honestly, the idea that something quite that fake could be sent to Cannes, let alone be the talk of the place, could only be explained by it being a pratical joke. Did anybody listen? Am I still a movie critic? (Is Bush about to bomb Iraq for humanitarian reasons?)
― Nyarlathotep, Tuesday, 11 March 2003 23:33 (twenty-one years ago) link
Which, according to the interview he and Clooney did on the Charlie Rose show, is precisely how they ended up remaking Solaris. To his credit Soderbergh said that he could bring something new to the story, but that it wasn't his project from the get go.
― Chris Barrus (xibalba), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 00:09 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Andrew L (Andrew L), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 00:48 (twenty-one years ago) link
it's called THE LIMEY!! (= it isn't even remotely concerned with actual real british people you've met!)
also it's unfinished and oddly-paced in a way quite faithful to the films it's emulating (60s Point Blank-style revenge pictures, not film noir). What's great about soderbergh's genre work is also what i guess can be frustrating about it - its aesthetics are more meticulously "studied" than usual (and it's here where his film-geekiness really kicks in, not in the arty pictures nobody sees), which means you wind up getting his homage to what's good AND bad about the source material
i REALLY didn't get the fuss the "how dare you remake this venerable classic" contingent raised when Ocean's 11 came out - the original is exactly as shallow and silly as the remake is.
― jones (actual), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 00:54 (twenty-one years ago) link
bed for me i think
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 01:10 (twenty-one years ago) link
Solaris was a good waste of 2 hours but once again not something I'm gonna add to the stacks anytime soon.
I have apparently not seen any of his really good stuff. Maybe someday I will fix this.
― Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 02:41 (twenty-one years ago) link
As a cinematographer (under the nom de cam "Peter Andrews"), however, he is particularly good - those Mexico scenes in Traffic.
The Alan J. Pakula reference is OTM on at least one point - he stole the closing credits for Traffic from All the President's Men.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 05:05 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Carey (Carey), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 05:22 (twenty-one years ago) link
the way the end-credits appear in both traffic and EB (maybe in his other films too but i either haven't seen them or wasnt paying as much attention) - while the movie is still in process, so you don't have this BLACK SCREEN appear and wrap things up and force you into making some kind of judgement/summation. so we get a kind of a profundity-of-the-everyday quality - the 'final judgement' already happened without us noticing (actually, both end scenes i'm talking about here are very much ABOUT the mundane turned profound - benecio attending the little league game which becomes this beautiful cosmic event with the help of eno and everthing being saturated in mars red and erin's workroom squabble which resolves itself into 2 million dollars)
― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Friday, 12 September 2003 14:38 (twenty-one years ago) link
sure, some films of his are great, some are okay - and some are crap.but i'd like to hear anyone who's seen schizopolis bad mouth soderbergh. go on, you know you can't.
― dyson (dyson), Friday, 12 September 2003 15:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Girolamo Savonarola, Friday, 12 September 2003 18:45 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jed (jed_e_3), Friday, 12 September 2003 19:24 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 12 September 2003 19:30 (twenty-one years ago) link
― ryan (ryan), Friday, 12 September 2003 19:41 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 12 September 2003 20:34 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Saturday, 13 September 2003 08:18 (twenty-one years ago) link
George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh don't have much trouble getting the media's attention. The swooning and curiosity that's surrounded their quasi-fictional political show for HBO, "K Street," never fails to mention Clooney's charm, wit and sparkling grin, and to lavish praise on Soderbergh, glossing over self-indulgent flops "Solaris" and "Full Frontal," and ignoring his obvious embrace of his own celebrity despite humble, "Gosh I just hate this stuff" interviews to the contrary. A few signature leading-man looks from Clooney and a little self-deprecation from Soderbergh and these two are sophisticated, talented, swashbuckling guys just crazy enough to try something new, blurring the line between politics and Hollywood (what line?) and breaking down the barriers between reality and fiction (what barriers?).
http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/review/2003/09/15/k_street/index_np.html
― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 16 September 2003 00:33 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 01:04 (twenty-one years ago) link
― sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 03:42 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 09:21 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:20 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:21 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:41 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:45 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:56 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Andy K (Andy K), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 12:42 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:10 (twenty-one years ago) link
On the other hand, Albert Finney's accent. Oy.
― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:13 (twenty-one years ago) link
The first settlement was 500 mil, but that was supposed to be the first of many, in the film...
I just saw EB again last night, and the scene where Aaron Eckhart and Julia Roberts break up is so great. Her speech is so realistic, her delivery. Everything with Finney is hilarious (and I only noticed his accent once). There are some scenes that are overplayed--the brittle female lawyer bitch is too much. But the townspeople are portrayed with so much care that I'm totally baffled by the reaction here. Should movies never deal with small-town victims of corporations? These people are shown to be skeptical and smart. The scene with no sound, with the dad throwing rocks at the company at night--scenes like that put this movie WAY out of the realm of TV movie.
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:18 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:20 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Coat Hanger (c_hanger), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:24 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Coat Hanger (c_hanger), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:25 (twenty-one years ago) link
Traffic is probably my least favourite Soderbergh. Erin Brockovich kicks its ass.
― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:26 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:32 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:38 (twenty-one years ago) link
― amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 20:22 (twenty-one years ago) link
― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 00:08 (twenty-one years ago) link
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 00:12 (twenty-one years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 01:02 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 01:04 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 17 September 2003 02:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
(Pete Scholtes can regularly be seen at www.complicatedfun.com.)
― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 02:02 (twenty-one years ago) link
That said, I stand by my previous statement that Soderbergh 89-99 was better than 00-onwards, but I've decided to try to go through the entire oeuvre and see if a closer look yields anything worth reconsidering.
There.
― Girolamo Savonarola, Sunday, 18 April 2004 04:13 (twenty years ago) link
― Miles Finch, Monday, 31 January 2005 15:09 (nineteen years ago) link