Do Movies Matter Anymore? Steven Soderbergh Doesn't See Any Evidence They Do
Have movies become disposable?
Photo: IFC Films
Last night I cracked open the forthcoming two-disc Blu-ray set of Steven Soderbergh's Che, due on Criterion DVD and Blu-ray next Tuesday, January 19. Before firing up my second viewing of the film I decided to check out the 49-minute making-of documentary included on disc one and while listening to the story of the eight year process of bringing the film together was fascinating, the quotes from Soderbergh at the end of the piece are simply too good to save for my review alone.
The last five minutes of the doc discuss the difficulty in selling the film and getting distribution as it made its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival while only weeks earlier five independent film distributors shut their doors leaving the film with few options. As a result, and at Soderbergh's encouragement with IFC's help, a roadshow distribution deal was established that would screen the two-part film as one four-and-a-half hour double feature. Title star Benicio del Toro comments on this saying, "In the iPhone era four hours is like a week," but Soderbergh doesn't brush it off so easily.
Just as he begins delivering his thoughts on the current state of movies, the doc flashes to Todd McCarthy's Variety review from Cannes, highlighting the following snippet:
Neither half feels remotely like a satisfying stand-alone film, while the whole offers far too many aggravations for its paltry rewards. Scattered partisans are likely to step forward, but the pic in its current form is a commercial impossibility, except on television or DVD.
While the above block is featured Soderbergh begins his commentary, which I have transcribed and added below:
It was odd to see people who allegedly are pro-cinema, kind of rooting against it conceptually. Taking the position of why would somebody make a movie of this length and try and release it this way? My attitude is, well, why wouldn't you encourage somebody to do something that's out of the box? Whether you like the movie or not — you can not like the movie — but it was odd to see people slamming the idea of making it.
We now are in a time period where if a film doesn't receive unified acclaim then it's viewed as damaged, or a failure, or something worse and that's unfortunate. I don't feel like there's a sense anymore that a movie can be polarizing and that can be a good thing. It's literally, what is the number you got on RottenTomatoes and if it's below a certain number then your movie's not any good. You can imagine what 2001 would have gotten on RottenTomatoes, but that's what's going on now.
I can't sit here and tell you [making Che] was worth it. The time, the money — my own money — and the effect it had on people that worked on it. It also made me consider the issue of whether or not movies matter anymore… at all. I think there was a period where they did matter, culturally, but I don't think they do anymore. So that added to the sense of what was the point of eight years of work when movies, I think, have become so disposable… There aren't many opportunities for them to be taken seriously, the way they were in the late '60s and '70s here in the United States.
I agree 100% with everything he says and it's evidenced by the swath of recycled garbage and sequels we are seeing recently. Take for example my recent post detailing eight upcoming sequels and then only a day later we learn Ivan Reitman will be directing a Ghostbusters 3 and I never even mentioned the continuing talk of a sequel to Avatar and to top it all off there is word of a sequel to Four Brothers of all films. The world of film is dominated by this kind of chatter and movie blogs feed on it, primarily because it's what brings in the most traffic.
I can't blame anyone for trying to make a buck, both on the film side and the news reporting side, it's a business, but it's a business that has gotten progressively dumbed down to the point a director such as Soderbergh sounds entirely defeated.
Photo: Fox Searchlight
Along these same lines is the decision many directors are faced with, which is whether or not to continue making smaller independent films or go the blockbuster route. It appears 500 Days of Summer helmer Marc Webb has just that question to ask himself now as yet another report has come out saying he is the leading candidate to direct the Untitled Spider-Man Reboot.
Devin Faraci at CHUD does a good job boiling the scenario down to one paragraph:
For one thing Webb has to think hard about what kind of career he wants. Signing on to Spider-Man Love Mary Jane: The Motion Picture means the next few years of his life are spoken for. That's great on one hand, but if you're not looking to be just a blockbuster director that's kind of a scary proposition. But who knows what Webb wants to do – he's only made one movie so far, although he's done a bunch of videos and stuff. Maybe he never wants to go to Sundance again.
Strangely enough I asked Webb a question exactly along these lines back when I interviewed him for 500 Days of Summer. We got to talking about the subject of blockbusters as it was reported Fox put a feeler out there to see if he would be interested in directing The A-Team, a gig that ultimately went to Joe Carnahan. When I asked him if he could see himself taking his career down that route he first replied, "You never know, but probably not," before delivering the following statement:
To me it doesn't matter, blockbuster or small movie, that shouldn't be the criteria. It's whether it's good or bad, because I think there are movies, like Pirates of the Caribbean – the first one – I thought was really an interesting movie about being true to your blood. It was saying very interesting things in a very pop way, and that I find very compelling. I'm a huge fan of popular movies if they're done well and I think you can say a lot in those bigger movies and I think independent cinema in the past few years has had a huge impact on the complexity of bigger movies. The Dark Knight is definitely a great example of that.
So, it's not the size of the movie. Whether or not The A-Team is going to be a good movie or not I have no idea, but I wouldn't discard it out of hand.
Who could blame Webb for taking part in such a massive franchise? But just imagine if all the up-and-coming indie filmmakers went that route. What if Rian Johnson and Duncan Jones gave up on their personal style of filmmaking and decided to direct superhero movies for a quick buck instead? With Guillermo del Toro directing The Hobbit and its sequel who knows when we will see an original project in the vein of Pan's Labyrinth or Devil's Backbone directed by him again?
Now don't get me wrong, I love blockbusters, bring 'em on. The movies wouldn't be the same without them. However, there comes a point when the marketplace can get so saturated with them that the quality continues to decline to the point mediocre films can appear to be better than they really are because everything they're competing against is so bad. Even worse, truly awful films settle among the year's top grossing movies, while films that move you and make you think are left to be found on DVD. If we aren't careful the sugar-coated crap is all we'll be left with and films from directors such as Soderbergh will be harder to find.
Soderbergh's final quote in the Che doc speaks to this continued decline and the fact Criterion and producer Kim Hendrickson decided to use it as the doc's parting message after 49-minutes of interview footage really says something to me:
I guess the point of some art is to illuminate. I just don't see any evidence that it's happening. It happens for ten minutes and then everybody's thinking about where they want to go eat. [fade to black]
I wonder, can any of you argue against his points? If so, where do you find flaws in his logic?
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 48 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I can't speak for everyone but movies matter a great deal to me. They helped me out during a very dark period of my life. Whether they're indie or blockbuster, the craft is what matters. There is nothing greater. If people are to stupid they listen to what rotten tomatos has to score it instead of going out and making their own opinions than thats their loss. Sure it's good to get other opinions, but that's all they are. Someone elses opinion. And everyone's got an opinion. One man could watch a movie and say it's the worst peice of crap he's ever seen and another could watch it and it would change his life forever. But the people who listen to everyone else instead of making up their own mind will miss out on great films like che. So don't give up hope. There is an audience for everything.
I hate Todd McCarthy as much as the next man, but it seems like he was just stating a fact, rather than opinion: it is a tough sell to make. I think that's quite different from protesting that a film should never be made.
I have mixed feelings about mainstream cinema. I think Webb makes a good point: the inclusion of indie directors into the mainstream isn't necessarily a bad thing. The reason that I think the past decade has had so many solid blockbusters (and, overall, I think it has) is because the studios actively sought out independent and fringe talent to helm tentpoles like Batman Begins and X-Men. These directors bring their vision with them and – generally speaking – the audience benefits.
I'll accept that it's easy to get lost in this – it is entirely possible they may never go to Sundance again – and that many directors have been ridiculously compromised by playing into the system (Sam Raimi may count, considering recent headlines), but I think it's possible for those directors to benefit creatively as well. It might be unlikely, but it can happen. And, yes, a lot of that comes down to the studio – take Fox's manhandling of Gavin Hood for example – but it is possible for the way things currently work to benefit everyone.
Say what you will about The Dark Knight, it gave Nolan the freedom to make his own films with the full resources of the studio behind him – The Prestige and Inception wouldn't have been possible had he not helmed the Batman reboots.
I would say that Soderbergh is too pessimistic on this. Movies matter a great deal to me too; it's just that you can't expect every film to illuminate and to be taken seriously. If you asked me to provide examples, well, sure, when I watch stuff like Daybreakers or The Men Who Stare at Goats, all I care about after 15 minutes is a cold weather and the fact that I'm gonna spend more than an hour getting home. On the other hand, Inglourious Basterds, Benjamin Button, There Will Be Blood, The Lives of Others, United 93 (if we look at the most recent films) have stayed with me for months. Movies can still be true pieces of art, and those Soderbergh quotes – last one in particular – sound like there's nothing left in the world except braindead time-wasting horror/blockbuster trash. There was a lot of trash in the '60s and '70s too, it's not like every single film was a masterpiece; it's just all that we remember are masterpieces. There are loads of trash now, but in 20-30 years it will all be forgotten, and pieces of art like the aforementioned films will stay with us forever. I'm never going to give up hope, and it looks like Soderbergh's did.
I'd also like to add that Webb says some very true things. Blockbusters can be brilliant when done right and by good directors like Nolan and Singer. It doesn't matter to me whether the film in question is an indie or a blockbuster. And if Duncan Jones or Rian Johnson signs on to direct, for example, Wolverine 2, I wouldn't blame him. Just as I wouldn't blame Webb for signing on to Spidey; his attachment actually gives me some hope. All that matters is the quality. And you can't predict what it will be until you've seen a finished product.
He's right! But I don't blame just the producers and directors about this… The audience too!!
People just don't want to see a 4hs long movie like Che anymore. Why not? I haven't watched Che yet, but I have no problem watching long movies. Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, they're all near 4hs long (I think Cleopatra is actually OVER 4 hs) and I watched all of them and I loved them! Too long? No way! Every single minute of Gone With the Wind is worth it, come on, the movie could've been longer, I adore it!!
But like Del Toro said, these days, movies that are 2h30 hours are considered 'overlong', if they're not special effect extravaganza like Avatar or Transformers 2 (impossible to sit through that, 150 min that felt 150000 minutes!!)
People talk like they 'don't time to watch long movies' adn stuff like that, and it's bullshit, because after their 90 min romantic comedy they'll go home and watch another 90 minutes of American Idol or Big Brother or whatever. =/
Too bad we've come this far.
It's like people are going to the movies only to 'pass time' (weren't we all supposed to not have time anymore? that's a contradiction)
People really don't care about cinema.
Everyone's giving billions of dollars to Avatar, but nobody is caring about the message it gives. 'Ambientalist message? What you're talking about? IT'S IN 3D!!!!!'
Same happened with The Dark Knight. I friend of mine said it was 'so much fun', I got out of the theater completely depressed, that movie was a downer. But nobody cared.
No one actually cares to movies, I agree to Soderbergh here.
They just SEE it, they don't WATCH it anymore.
I think Soderberg is basically sayiing that movies, for a brief time, were modern art, and that they have been moving back to a place of more traditional art. And he's bummed. I'm not.
The bigger your movie, the bigger the number of people involved who have a say in the creative process (including the audience). There's no getting around that. The difficulty is that comprimising often makes things worse instead of better. A director has to be constantly on guard against that.
I'm getting rather sick of people suggesting I find value in certain films but not others. Elitist critical bullshit.
Preferences are personal. Preferences change over time. What I find value in at any given time is none of your concern.
To be honest, not having seen the context of the comments first hand, they sound like they're coming with a great deal of ego attached. Experiments fail… usually at an alarmingly high rate. That's why it's considered brave to do something experimental… and why those who won't take that risk will cluck their tongues and predict the folly of those that do.
But that's how it works… you can't really get credit for taking a risk if you're going to receive a pat on the back whether your experiment works or not… there's no risk involved in that case. (Artistically, I'm not convinced it would improve the medium if you did. Criticism for any artist can be brutal, but are a huge component to improvement.) If he wants to change the perceptions of what a movie format can/should be for the people who doubted him, then he actually has to come through with the final goods.
I'll note that, even among "disposable" entertainment, there have be notable experiments that did come through… "Kill Bill" and "The Lord of the Rings" obviously come to mind. Hell, the entertainment industry seemed to collectively be rooting against James Cameron's last two mega-blockbusters leading up to their releases… there were so many people saying what massive folly it was to spend the time and money he did making his 3-hour period shipwreck movie that suggesting that the industry was rooting for it to fail is an understatement. In the end, however, all of these projects succeeded (both critically and financially) and so the creators were vindicated.
Soderbergh seems to want credit for creating a "polarizing" 4+ hour experiment on a subject that was an incredibly hard sell to begin with, and he seems to want to hear it from the side that thought it was unsatisfying in both halves, and contained meager rewards across the entire run time. One has to ask… is that reasonable? Surely there are some people out there on both sides of the divide that will give him credit for taking a risk, but largely the people who said "That's never going to work" are going to say "I told you so" instead.
And another thing.
People that don't have to buy tickets to films tend to forget that the rest of us do. The price is fixed before we see the movie. There is no tip or merit based system where one pays what they think the movie is worth after seeing it. If you want to see what movies people value, check out the disc sales. And if you don't like what you see, too bad for you.
If Soderbergh is right, I guess we can write off Sam Mendes for ever going to the Oscars again. I mean, he jumped the ship to a blockbuster and he will NEVER do his own ideas again. Right?
Great piece sir.
I do agree with that he says. And Brad, you summed it up nicely when you said it seems like a director like that feels defeated. Very nicely put.
I was just thinking about this the other day. I enjoy watching a movie like Transformers 2 for what it is, and I'll leave the theater entertained. But those movies where you walk out the theater and go: "Wow, what a cast, what a great director, what an amazing script etc…" I find myself saying that less and less these days. It really is all about what movie makes the most profit.
Notice all these 'greatest movies' lists and how most of them all come from a different time of movies. Granted, everyone's tastes are different but these lists tend to have the same movies: The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Raging Bull, etc….Those movies meant something. There was good acting and story and character development. But what has the past 5 years had to offer to cinema? Even the past decade? Tons of sequels, remakes, re-boots.
It's true, if you are an indie director and you are given the opportunity to take on a franchise like Spiderman, what do you do? If you don't, the guy behind you will in a heartbeat. It's sad, but that's what it is now. It doesn't matter if you make 10 movies like 500 Days of Summer, it matters if you make a franchise out of something and bring profit to the studios. So when you are a guy like Soderberg, it's no wonder you get discouraged when you try to make something with some substance and quality to it.
Movies still have the ability to matter, culturally speaking. Just not a 4 hour long movie about Che Guevara. How much more egotistic and self-centered can Soderberg get, to say "movies don't matter anymore" just because no one was interested in his Guevara biopic? Soderberg needs to get over himself.
@Roger: You seriously believe the last 5 years had nothing to offer to cinema? Well then, where have you been when they were releasing There Will Be Blood, The Lives of Others, United 93, The Departed, No Country, Ratatouille, Wall-E, Eternal Sunshine and other great films like those? The Godfather wasn't the only movie to have come out in '72, I'm sure there were lots of terrible films then too. And I'm sure people would have been complaining just like you are now. I just honestly don't understand opinions like yours. There were always lots of trash, and there were always great films. And there will be. Trash will come and go, great films will stay with us forever.
@Jeeshman: Totally agree with that too.
I don't think I can speak my views without getting sentimental, but movies are a way of delivering entertainment, enjoyment or telling a story and what not, and if they achieve this goal, and make a watcher happy they have achieved this goal. They frequently achieve this goal with me and I'm eager to allow them to do so, so of course they mean something to people like me.
On the whole I do agree, but sometimes you just want something magnificently bad for you – the Saw series, Transformers, Club Dread, etc… – that's throwaway and mindless, just like you occasionally need a McDonald's cheeseburger, if only to remind you of how wonderful good cinema/food can be.
That said, there is simply no excuse for Epic Movie – the one film even this trash fan has never been able to sit through!
Movies still matter and always will.
I agree there has been an unnecessary bout of sequelitis and remakeitis on the market in the last decade (or longer); however, there has been some fantastic – low and big budget – movies released too.
Nobody forced Steven Soderbergh to make a four hour vanity epic about CHE GUEVARA and put his own money into the project to boot. A filmmaker cannot have success with every film. I imagine he wasn't complaining when his OCEAN's TRILOGY made so much money at the box office.
I've seen CHE – PART 1 – and while it has a great lead performance and was technically outstanding from a filmmaking perspective – it was not a great watch in my opinion. I felt distanced from the character and knew know more about what motivated CHE GUEVARA by the end of it. Perhaps, more character development is shown in CHE – PART 2?
While CHE – PART 1 may have been historically accurate there was little drama, suspense or emotion in the movie. For me, it felt like one long history re-enactment – brilliantly realised – yet devoid of stand-out cinematic moments.
I much preferred – Walter Salles' THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES. This may have been historically inaccurate or an 'imagined' version of CHE GUEVARA'S early life but the movie had heart, humour and drama that CHE – PART 1 very much lacked.
I can't stand it when filmmakers or writers or producers complain about their 'lot'. They have a privileged job and get paid a lot of money if they achieve certain success. Steven Soderbergh should consider himself lucky to have had such success and stop moaning!
When the brilliant TRAFFIC was quite rightly a critical and commercial success, I imagine he didn't complain about movies not mattering. They do and always will!
Movies will always matter, at least to those who love watching and analyzing them, those of us who check sites like these for news, updates and op-ed pieces. It's not like every movie will have a major effect on every single person ever, but any one film will have some sort of impact after viewing it, no matter how minor it is. Someone will embrace the movies that people find "inaccessible"; there are always audiences for 3+ hour epics on the life of Che, as there will be audiences for dumb movies like "The Pacifier". Don't doubt movie lovers, because we won't turn our back on our passion, at least, not unless our passion turns their back on us.
Last point:
"Have movies become disposable?"- No, but "The Informant!" certainly was! Oh snap!
He's right. They don't seem to have the same gravitas as they did in the 60's and 70's. They are popcorn now. Technology is partly to blame. Attention spans are down, worldwide. Robot Chicken is the preferable length, and even that is pushing it. People do not want to think when they see a film. In fact, they get upset if a film dare attempt to impart a message instead of simple "t 'n a."
Do movies matter….did the Dark Knight matter? Well, being one of the biggest films of all time during one of the countires worst recessions, there's a movie that mattered. Movies are a way to escape life's problems, and gives the filmmaker a way to express themselves in a way nothing else can come close to. Movies will always matter.
Commercial movies are not art. Commercial movies make money. Bloggers generally only talk about commercial films to drive traffic. The business of movies is different these days. Equate it to music, downloading and ring tones. The art of making an album is no longer. It is about making a hot song or two and adding filler. It is all a vicous cycle and one of the reasons I left the blogging game. Too little interesting conversation (like this one) and too much name calling and finger pointing and illiterate banter on a post. Depressing.
@Nick:
Looking at your list of movies, I agree with some (The Departed, Wall-E) but still stand by statement. The past decade of cinema comes nowhere near to what is considered a classic.
Eternal Sunshine, Ratatouille, United 93 may be decade defining for you, but I wouldn't put it on a list with The Godfather or Lawrence of Arabia, 12 Angry Men, Kramer vs Kramer etc…
I didn't say the past decade hasn't given us good movies, just nothing majorly defining and classic as what has been made prior.
@Roger: Well to be fair, I never actually called them decade defining, just great films. That said, I believe that There Will Be Blood, Wall-E, LOTR, The Lives of Others, Eternal Sunshine – and, most likely, Basterds, Up, Slumdog and Departed – are bound to become classics. Whether you and I think they deserve it or not is irrelevant… they just will be. Not on the level of Godfather or Cuckoo's Nest maybe, but pretty highly regarded nevertheless. I don't think last decade was richer overall than '70s and '90s, but it most certainly gave us several masterpieces and quite a number of some truly great works.
i think you can say the same thing about the movie industry as you can about the music industry. People seem to like dumbed down products and i dont know why. I listen to these lyrics today and its 90% trash and 10% bells and whistles. But i wouldn't go as far to say that movies dont matter anymore. There have been a few occasions over the last couple years where i was left staring at the credits rolling down the screen having to pick my jaw off the floor out of disbelief from the film id just seen. Its not that the music industry doesnt matter, its just too many people like crappy movies. People seem to get more out of ridiculous action scenes than in depth film making. Its evident by how when i watch some movies with my friends I have to explain the reasons for certain things happening in the movie, when they might think its dumb or boring, but might be the deepest part of the movie. The film industry just needs better filmmakers, and less Michael Bays… there I said it.
You're all missing the point, as does this article. Soderbergh isn't commenting on the audience in general or his specific audience (at least, not until the final quote). He's commenting on critics, who submit to a group think. Rather than giving a film a chance for taking chances, they will criticize the hell out of it and instantly move on. You see this at the festivals all the time. A movie fails to win over the audience at Cannes, Sundance, etc and suddenly its written off as a failure. Well you know what, critics are often wrong. They have preconceived notions and bring them into the theater. When challenged, they pan the film. Then it gets limited or no distribution and audiences ignore it because they can't even see it.
It's a pathetic system and we're all the worse for it.
@Nick:
I can agree with that, we do have some great pieces of work that came from the past decade, but might not end up up with the same high level of appreciation as movies like The Godfather.
Yawn, he thinks he made a great movie, and no one saw it, so it's out fault? Maybe it's not as good as he thinks.
@loxmang:
This is off topic, but I'm getting real annoyed with this Michael Bay crap.
Everyone needs to ease up on Michael Bay, he is a fantastic director for what he does: grand, visual, FX-driven blockbusters. He isn't there to win awards for screenplays or for his actors, and everyone involved from the production crew to the actors to the studio heads know exactly what they are getting with a Michael Bay movie.
He won't make movies like 500 Days of Summer or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind so let's get over this. He makes big, dumb and fun action movies. You don't like it? Don't watch it.
Not every director has to make these extremely dramatic and serious movies to be considered great.
And until his movies stop making hundreds of millions of dollars (or in other words, if all the haters continue to go see his movies), then we will continue to see Michael Bay movies being made.
I saw "Che" in theaters. The idea of releasing a film that's 4 hours long was very intriguing to me, and I wanted to support that. So I watched part 1 one night and part 2 another night.
Unfortunately, the film just plain wasn't that great, neither as two parts of a film nor as a film as a whole. And part 1 was basically a repeat of part 2, only it took place in Bolivia instead of Cuba, and the ending was more of a bummer. I wouldn't call it a memorable theater experience or a good film. Sadly. I wanted it to be good. It just wasn't. But there's no need for Steven Soderbergh to say that movies don't matter anymore. That just makes no sense. Just because no one liked HIS movie doesn't mean they don't like other movies that are outside the box.
@Roger:
I'll just limit this to one reply (hopefully) but Michael Bay is NOT GOOD AT WHAT HE DOES. Yes, he makes dumb, loud action movies. But I can name you five directors off the bat that can make supremely stupid big-budget films, and make them entertaining. "2012" is about twice as stupid and twice as fake-looking as "Transformers 2" was, and yet it was far more entertaining and engrossing. Bay is only concerned with choppy editing, long, drawn-out and boring stretches of unrecognizable & supremely boring action sequences. Bay has no idea how to pace a film; he is the only person in the world who can take alien, transforming robots who fight with laser swords, and make them boring as hell.
I think Soderbergh should stop being so obsessed with making movies that are different for the sake of being different, and focus more on making films that people actually want to see. The director is ultimately an entertainer, and if the director makes a film that people don't want to see then he has failed. Soderbergh is a talented filmaker, and he should stick to making films that people would enjoy, like The Oceans Trilogy.
I'm a huge fan of classic cinema. Gone With the Wind, The Godfather, Bonnie & Clyde, Lawrence of Arabia, The French Connection, 8 1/2, M, Jules and Jim, Star Wars, 2001 ….and the list goes on and on. These films defined an entire generation, they changed the face of movies forever. No film will ever be able to affect Hollywood the way Citizen Kane first did, or the way Jaws unleashed the mega-blockbuster upon the world, or the way Star Wars ensured that "Special Effects" would be the wave of the future, or the way Francis Coppolla ignited the rise of the crime-epic (which still resonates today, from The Sopranos to The Departed).
The world has changed dramatically since the late 60's and 70's. It's becoming harder and harder to impress audiences. While I do blame the studios for focusing on such cash-cows as Transformers & Alvin and the Chipmunks, I don't see a shortage of small films getting recognition, distributors and respect from a significant portion of the population. A Serious Man, A Single Man, An Education, Crazy Heart, The Messenger, Precious; all these small films have gained recognition and an audience. Are they making all kinds of money at the box office? Not really.
I believe critics and directors such as Soderberg are demanding too much. They are demanding that audiences care about their work. If you want your little movie to attract an audience, well maybe market it a little better or make it so good that everyone is impressed, including critics. I don't hear the director of the $15,000 Paranormal Activity complaining. I don't hear Mel Gibson complaining that he had to pay for most of his $35 million passion project back in 2004 (Passion of the Christ). Is the director of Precious upset?
Maybe Soderberg should just be happy that his job is to make movies. I'll bet you he lives a very nice life, one that millions of Americans would gladly trade their own for. Directors should remember what it was like to be a nobody. They need to remember that they make movies because they are art. Stop complaining. You're a director that won an Oscar and has made millions of dollars and you own a great house and a few great cars, boo hoo.
Also, while Letters from Iwo Jima, The Pianist, & Milk may never be as groundbreaking as Fellini's work or as mind-blowing as George Lucas' space opera, they are still cinematic masterpieces. While it would be silly to deny the impact of Elvis Presley or Jazz upon rock music, is it wrong that I like The Rolling Stones or U2 more?
I watched your little film Mr. Soderberg. It was very well done. However in my humble opinion, Saving Private Ryan and There Will be Blood were better. When I compiled a list of my favorite decades in film, guess what I discovered to my surprise? The Majority of my favorite films came two decades. The 1980s and the 2000s. Sure a significant amount of my favorite films came from the 60s and 70s (and the 90s), its the past 20 years (including recently) that I've enjoyed the most.
I'll never forget the past. But man do I love the present. I think its an exciting time for movies.
A great read. I just think Soderbergh sometimes has too much on his plate and he becomes burnt out.
It's funny because next month he is filming a spy thriller with a non-actress playing the lead. The movie is Knockout and it seems to be pretty mainstream. I wonder what inspired him to make this kind of film??
To be honest, looking at movies that are released in theaters and some of the movies that make hundreds of millions of dollars, I kind of understand where Soderbergh is coming from. Some of the movies being released now are simply garbage. Or as Brevet points out, just sequels to big movies hoping they can recreate the past success of the franchise. But I just don't see how the argument can be made from a man who himself directed a trilogy which, in my opinion, fell quite a bit from the original movie. Personally,I feel like Soderbergh is just frustrated about his own film's lack of success, when he has made some that have put millions in his pocket. He understands what goes into a popular film in this day and age, yet strays away and complains that nobody will distribute/see his film. Just grow up and either make movies you are passionate about or those that will fatten your wallet. Don't complain when you make more money than 95% of the people in this country by doing something you love.
@Vince (Not Vance):
Hey man, I respect your opinion, but the Michael Bay hate is much larger than needed by most people. There's more than just Michael Bay working on the movie when it comes to editing, cinematogrophy and the overall post-production of a movie, including the studio's say. So is he really to blame for the complete final product?
Come on, T2 may not have been the most intellectual movie of the summer, but boring? Far from it.
And you know what, I'll take Transformers, The Rock and Bad Boys over 2012, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow any day of the week, if you want to compare those 2 directors.
There's certain movies from some directors I don't particularly enjoy (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich didn't wow me like it did for many), but I don't blame the director. I'll watch it and move on without getting all hot and bothered by it.
@Nick: Daybreakers was pretty good film, give it break! It had unique twist on the all ready over saturated vampire genre, for that alone i think the film is pleasable.
What was so great about Inglourious Basterds? To me that was one of the worst movies of 2009, I have no idea what all the hype about this movie is? The only thing I got out of this movie was Brad Pitt reprising his role from Kalifornia and Quentin at his worst with his over blown character dialog. Through it all i asked my self, "why am i continuing to watch this bore of a movie?" I'd take Death Proof any day over this flick!
@ENOLA:
Thank you, I thought I was the only one.
@Roger: I'm sure there are many like us, but i guess its a sin to speak negative about this film?lol
@ENOLA: I quite liked Daybreakers, but it didn't rock my socks off and made me pick up my jaw from the floor. It was pretty good one-time treat, and that's it. Same with Goats.
@ENOLA: It's no sin, but I think you realize that when you have negative feelings towards the film as loved by everyone as Basterds, you've got to have a very good reason, otherwise you just won't be taken seriously. To answer your question, in short… in my opinion, absolutely everything was great about it :)
@loxmang: I know why people like trash now more than ever. Because people are dumb.
@Nick:
Im sure Bastards didn't make you drop your jaw to the floor when you seen it, or did it? I thought my reasons for not giving the film such praise as it's been recieving were valid reasons. I am a fan of Quentin's but i think this film just bites the bullet for me. As Roger agreed, not everyone is in love with this film.
A lot of the dissing of the current decade seems really wrongheaded to me. There are lots of bad movies that make lots of money today. Indeed; and it was exactly the same in the 1990s, and the 1980s, and the 1970s, and the 1960s, and the 1950s, and the 1940s, and the 1930s, and the 1920s. Hollywood has always made plenty of bad movies that audiences have enjoyed, while good movies have been overlooked. Popularity is a crapshoot. And while remakes and sequels have been somewhat amplified of late, they've always been on the table. The famous version of "The Maltese Falcon" was the third adaptation of that novel in a decade.
A lot of the complaints about how its all about money now imply that at some magical past moment it was never not all about money, and that's utter fantasy.
@AAA: It did. Each time :)
@Sean C.: Exactly.
Ocean's 11 12 and 13 mattered? The Informant mattered? Get real, you pretentious fuck. Some movies DO matter to me, like 2001 as you mentioned. But YOUR movies do not. If you were more talented behind the camera I would agree with your sentiments, but your films are just not good, man. I do love Rian Johnson and Moon, though.
@Ryan: What, you didn't like Traffic (at the very least) too?
This article is the reason why we should be thankful for the great and uncompromising Terrence Malick!
Who could blame Webb for taking part in such a massive franchise? But just imagine if all the up-and-coming indie filmmakers went that route. What if Rian Johnson and Duncan Jones gave up on their personal style of filmmaking and decided to direct superhero movies for a quick buck instead? With Guillermo del Toro directing The Hobbit and its sequel who knows when we will see an original project in the vein of Pan's Labyrinth or Devil's Backbone directed by him again?
—-
What a stupid idea, doing one does not in any way preclude doing the other. del Toro could well go back to doing original movies again after the hobbit, in fact he will probably have a lot more freedom to do so on his ownt erms for having done it.
Oh no wait sorry I forgot, as soon as you "sell out" the indie film fans will immediately cast everything you ever produce afterwards as "hollywood". Which just shows how out of touch with reality they are.