Saw it last night. Not bad at all, but not likely to win much audience or critical support due to grimness of plot. Brilliant score by Thomas Newman clearly designed to invoke the great days of Korngold and Steiner. Haven't heard this many music cues on a score since Far From Heaven.
Clooney's fires are somewhat banked in that he's play a patsy. Cate Blanchett amazing as always in tricky role. She's the Marlene Dietrich/ Hidegard Neff character with more than a touch of Alida Valli in The Third Man. The difference is those were good/bad girls. Here she starts as a good/bad girl and gets progressively more monstrous as the plot unravels.
There's an airport-goodbye finale that echoes many another airport-goodbye finale save for the fact that this one's REALLY bitter and not romantic at all, as all prospects for romance have been squashed by reality.
Toby Maguire excellent as the creepiest "dog-robber" of all time. In fact this would make for a great double feature with The Americanization of Emily. As in Wonder Boys, I think Maguire's best utilized as a supporting player. He can pull out all sorts of things in this context that simply won't do for a leading man.
The Good German (Steven Soderbergh, 2006)
-
Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:58 pm
Nice article on the making-of in the NYT. The short of it: Soderbergh shot it as if it were a Michael Curtiz film. Boom mikes, fixed focal length lenses, etc. I wish I knew the details on the film stock.
EDIT: Answered my own question. From an interview: "I'm shooting Kodak 5218 and printing black-and-white. The black-and-white print stock that Kodak has made is designed for this."
I'm really looking forward to this.
According to this post on The Hollywood Reporter's "Risky Biz" blog about a DGA preview screening and the comments that follow it, everyone hates, hates, hates The Good German. Which means I really can't wait to see it now!
I particularly liked this comment: "My take is that after it had been sold so strongly as being in the vein of CASABLANCA, the audience was simply not prepared for such a nasty film, one which is devoid of any trace of humor and heart, and in which every character, even Clooney's, is an asshole."
EDIT: Answered my own question. From an interview: "I'm shooting Kodak 5218 and printing black-and-white. The black-and-white print stock that Kodak has made is designed for this."
I'm really looking forward to this.
According to this post on The Hollywood Reporter's "Risky Biz" blog about a DGA preview screening and the comments that follow it, everyone hates, hates, hates The Good German. Which means I really can't wait to see it now!
I particularly liked this comment: "My take is that after it had been sold so strongly as being in the vein of CASABLANCA, the audience was simply not prepared for such a nasty film, one which is devoid of any trace of humor and heart, and in which every character, even Clooney's, is an asshole."
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
-
filmnoir1
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:36 am
I saw this last night and it is really an interesting film. It seems that Sodebergh is attempting to ask about what were the ramifications of US foreign policy after WW II and more importantly how much were Americans willing to sacrifice values and human rights in pursuit of weaponry.
The style of the film evokes that of the Warner's era of the 1940s as well as that of Carol Reed's The Third Man. It is not only in the music that he acheives this effect, he also breaks the actors down and forces them to move and perform in ways that mirror those of the 40s. Pay attention to how Clooney walks and tosses away his cigarettes.
The last shots of the movie are an exact shot for shot homage to Casablanca's farewell scene. Blanchett is even wearing an outfit that matches Bergmans.
One last thought, there are quite a few what I would refer to as Warner Brother house angles used throughout the film. It is definitely a film that shows a diligent amount of care and knowledge about filmmaking of the 1940s.
The style of the film evokes that of the Warner's era of the 1940s as well as that of Carol Reed's The Third Man. It is not only in the music that he acheives this effect, he also breaks the actors down and forces them to move and perform in ways that mirror those of the 40s. Pay attention to how Clooney walks and tosses away his cigarettes.
The last shots of the movie are an exact shot for shot homage to Casablanca's farewell scene. Blanchett is even wearing an outfit that matches Bergmans.
One last thought, there are quite a few what I would refer to as Warner Brother house angles used throughout the film. It is definitely a film that shows a diligent amount of care and knowledge about filmmaking of the 1940s.
-
Steven H
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:30 pm
- Location: NC
I can't wait to see this. It seems Bollywood is next on Clooney's "to do" list. Who wouldn't want to see Clooney as Thakur Baldev Singh in a remake of Sholay?filmnoir1 wrote:I saw this last night and it is really an interesting film. It seems that Sodebergh is attempting to ask about what were the ramifications of US foreign policy after WW II and more importantly how much were Americans willing to sacrifice values and human rights in pursuit of weaponry.
-
rs98762001
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:04 pm
-
Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
JoBlo interview with Soderbergh. A couple of interesting tidbits on the Che Guevara biopic and the best exchange in the interview:
Ocean's 13 doesn't have to be the last one…
Soderbergh: Yeah, it does.
-
Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:58 pm
I knew I was in for disappointment; every other film I've anticipated this year has let me down, why not this one?
First things first: I fucking hate Tobey Maguire. Unless he's jumping around in red and blue (or black) tights, I hope to never see another movie with him in it. Thankfully,
The film did not feel very '40s Warner Bros. to me. Believe me, I've watched a shitload of Warner Bros. movies from that era and for the most part, the lighting in this was too dark, the camera was too low (I was constantly seeing the undersides of people's chins), the music was too loud, and the opening titles were flat out ugly and wrong (I'm pretty sure that typeface didn't exist in 1945). The reviews keep pointing out The Third Man as a touchstone, but I didn't see that at all (except for the couple of minutes where a character is in the sewer). It felt a lot more like Sam Fuller's Verboten! (minus the awesome Paul Anka opening credits song) if it had been shot with a lot of fussy lighting by, I dunno, John Seitz or Bert Glennon--far more '50s Universal International than '40s Warner Bros. I was kind of shocked that Soderbergh would get it so wrong. You'd think if anyone could nail that style, it would be him.
Clooney's okay, even though his character should have been more of a patsy than he was, and Blanchett (for my money) was great, even though her character is kind of poorly written. She's the only one in the cast (except maybe for Leland Orser, of all people) who I could believe was in a 1945 movie, who was authentically inauthentic. Sure, it's a mummified performance, a sort of pickled version of Ingrid Bergman/Marlene Dietrich, but she nails it.
Also, get this: the movie is windowboxed. There are black bars on each side of the print to make it 1.66:1. The hell? If you're going to do that, why not go all the way and make it Academy ratio?
First things first: I fucking hate Tobey Maguire. Unless he's jumping around in red and blue (or black) tights, I hope to never see another movie with him in it. Thankfully,
Spoiler
he gets killed off after about 15 minutes.
Clooney's okay, even though his character should have been more of a patsy than he was, and Blanchett (for my money) was great, even though her character is kind of poorly written. She's the only one in the cast (except maybe for Leland Orser, of all people) who I could believe was in a 1945 movie, who was authentically inauthentic. Sure, it's a mummified performance, a sort of pickled version of Ingrid Bergman/Marlene Dietrich, but she nails it.
Also, get this: the movie is windowboxed. There are black bars on each side of the print to make it 1.66:1. The hell? If you're going to do that, why not go all the way and make it Academy ratio?
-
Galen Young
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:46 am
Matt wrote:First things first: I fucking hate Tobey Maguire. Unless he's jumping around in red and blue (or black) tights, I hope to never see another movie with him in it. Thankfully,
Spoiler
he gets killed off after about 15 minutes.
I have to admit I was fucking relieved after that as well. Maguire was miscast -- no matter how hard he tried I just didn't buy him, especially "beating up" George Clooney -- I had to laugh. Beyond that, I thought the rest of the film was great fun to watch. My expectations weren't that high, I had a gut feeling it would be no where near The Third Man or Casablanca, and I was right, it's not. But still, it was wonderful to watch something in a mainstream multiplex theatre that really attempted to go against the grain of everything else out there. Blanchett gave the best performance by far.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
I am really pretty surprised to see the rather lukewarm reception given to this film on this board. Elsewhere, such a reception does not surprise me but I expected more enthusiasm here. I went in with low expectations as well (given its critical drubbing) and I have to admit that I was drawn to this primarily for novelty value. I can't claim to be a particularly ardent fan of the films this one is supposedly paying homage to but I am fascinated by post-modern re-invention, even when it doesn't work, and that was my main reason for seeing Good German. I didn't expect it to be the best American film of the year.
And, who knows, it might not be. I have to still catch up with some important titles but the fact that this one blew me away to the degree that it did raises the bar for everything else that much higher. In short, far more than simply being some kind of post-modernist doodling (which honestly would have been enough for me), The Good German emerges as a rich, sophisticated, even profound work that evidences great intelligence in its fusion of formal elements and thematic ones.
To do this great movie justice would require multiple viewings but I will comment on a few striking features that come to mind. At first, I wasn't sure how to feel about the intrusion of sex and profanity into what is ostensibly a film designed to replicate the experience of another era in which these things would have been sublimated in one way or another. I wasn't won over by the movie's rhythms until after the first twenty minutes or so (notably the Maguire segment) but once I was I harbor little doubt that the film will come together as a completely organic whole upon another viewing. I can't say I was crazy about Maguire either, and I kept suspecting that Soderbergh was doing a DePalma/Black Dahlia on us, trying to make a point about kids playing dress up in archetypal roles. That worked for me there, because it seemed like just one more aspect of the deconstruction but here it was distracting. Still, upon reflection the incongruity of Maguire's "character", and by this I mean his character's inherent qualities, fit well with Soderbergh's larger goals. The dark aspects of this individual, when revealed, are jarring and help establish a tone for the rest of the picture; it eases us into a very complex design.
As I said, I am no great fan of the films this one is riffing on and would not know whether it adhered to the rigors of complete imitation; but then, that kind of imitation is not what I would want to see anyway. I think that this film, unlike Haynes' terribly over praised Far From Heaven succeeds because, for one, it doesn't get caught in the spokes of its own gears; it doesn't stumble on its own self-reflexivity, in other words. I really can't stand Far From Heaven much as I like Haynes' other work and also share his enthusiasm for Sirk. For me, that one is so caught up in its efforts at deconstruction and unwittingly calling attention to its own devices that it ends up being only an exercise in sheer formalism. I remember having this intense desire to eject the disc and throw it across the room, for instance. By contrast, The Good German transcends mundane formal deconstruction by virtue of its astonishing profundity. Soderbergh's greatest accomplishment in this vein is his ability to us a style which is familiar to many and by relentlessly layering the complications of real moral compromise, concession and equivocation he unmoors that style from its de facto role as an aesthetic that is seen (whether it should be or not) as a moral authority with certain assurances attached. All assurances are lost here. As David properly points out above, the ending is bitter and unresolvable, and not, thank God, in some fashionably glib nihilist indie way but in a way that resonates because it deeply disturbs; it calls our own investments and expectations of character into question, demanding a more nuanced engagement. And that is this picture's real power.
I was just telling someone the other day that I could barely remember the last script that really impressed me. And then this one came along. What a towering achievement of scripting this is, renewing my hope in the possibilities open to a literary or novelistic style on screen. I realize this is based on a novel but I have not read it and have no idea how much was transferred over. All I can say is that it is brilliantly constructed here, and in complete allegiance with Soderbergh's intuitive design. I wish I could recall specific points to comment on in more depth but it can be said that this was an over abundance of riches as virtually every single scene offered remarkably complicated plot and character mechanics, all at the service of large, hugely important ideas.
I was afraid going in that this might wind up being some kind of ham fisted Iraq "allegory" and though it is certainly relevant for our times, it is to this film's great credit that it would be relevant to any and all times. All times, that is, which are willing to struggle with the multivalent implications of the questions it raises. Nothing exists independently here; all ideas raised have impact on one another and complicate matters that much further. It is far deeper and more philosophically astute than something like Pan's Labyrinth with its absurd schematized situations and bald faced "subtext" communicated through blunt dialogue.
So much more can and should and will be said about this one in time. There is so much more to cover. Like the way Soderbergh is able to use the peace conference setting not for pat ironic value or half assed denouncements of hypocrisy but as a way of illustrating the false premises upon which such a project will inevitably fail--the hollow, superficial wisdom it seeks to elevate. Or the astonishing investigation of shifting modes of perception and identification which allow for animosities to develop and be maintained. Or the impossibility of moral absolutism or relativism; the need for a worked out synthesis to attain true wisdom. Anyway, as I said, I need to see this again to develop these thoughts further.
Oh, and the score is great. Glad to see that that got nominated but nothing for Attanasio or Soderbergh (for camera, at least)? For shame. Really. For shame.
And, who knows, it might not be. I have to still catch up with some important titles but the fact that this one blew me away to the degree that it did raises the bar for everything else that much higher. In short, far more than simply being some kind of post-modernist doodling (which honestly would have been enough for me), The Good German emerges as a rich, sophisticated, even profound work that evidences great intelligence in its fusion of formal elements and thematic ones.
To do this great movie justice would require multiple viewings but I will comment on a few striking features that come to mind. At first, I wasn't sure how to feel about the intrusion of sex and profanity into what is ostensibly a film designed to replicate the experience of another era in which these things would have been sublimated in one way or another. I wasn't won over by the movie's rhythms until after the first twenty minutes or so (notably the Maguire segment) but once I was I harbor little doubt that the film will come together as a completely organic whole upon another viewing. I can't say I was crazy about Maguire either, and I kept suspecting that Soderbergh was doing a DePalma/Black Dahlia on us, trying to make a point about kids playing dress up in archetypal roles. That worked for me there, because it seemed like just one more aspect of the deconstruction but here it was distracting. Still, upon reflection the incongruity of Maguire's "character", and by this I mean his character's inherent qualities, fit well with Soderbergh's larger goals. The dark aspects of this individual, when revealed, are jarring and help establish a tone for the rest of the picture; it eases us into a very complex design.
As I said, I am no great fan of the films this one is riffing on and would not know whether it adhered to the rigors of complete imitation; but then, that kind of imitation is not what I would want to see anyway. I think that this film, unlike Haynes' terribly over praised Far From Heaven succeeds because, for one, it doesn't get caught in the spokes of its own gears; it doesn't stumble on its own self-reflexivity, in other words. I really can't stand Far From Heaven much as I like Haynes' other work and also share his enthusiasm for Sirk. For me, that one is so caught up in its efforts at deconstruction and unwittingly calling attention to its own devices that it ends up being only an exercise in sheer formalism. I remember having this intense desire to eject the disc and throw it across the room, for instance. By contrast, The Good German transcends mundane formal deconstruction by virtue of its astonishing profundity. Soderbergh's greatest accomplishment in this vein is his ability to us a style which is familiar to many and by relentlessly layering the complications of real moral compromise, concession and equivocation he unmoors that style from its de facto role as an aesthetic that is seen (whether it should be or not) as a moral authority with certain assurances attached. All assurances are lost here. As David properly points out above, the ending is bitter and unresolvable, and not, thank God, in some fashionably glib nihilist indie way but in a way that resonates because it deeply disturbs; it calls our own investments and expectations of character into question, demanding a more nuanced engagement. And that is this picture's real power.
I was just telling someone the other day that I could barely remember the last script that really impressed me. And then this one came along. What a towering achievement of scripting this is, renewing my hope in the possibilities open to a literary or novelistic style on screen. I realize this is based on a novel but I have not read it and have no idea how much was transferred over. All I can say is that it is brilliantly constructed here, and in complete allegiance with Soderbergh's intuitive design. I wish I could recall specific points to comment on in more depth but it can be said that this was an over abundance of riches as virtually every single scene offered remarkably complicated plot and character mechanics, all at the service of large, hugely important ideas.
I was afraid going in that this might wind up being some kind of ham fisted Iraq "allegory" and though it is certainly relevant for our times, it is to this film's great credit that it would be relevant to any and all times. All times, that is, which are willing to struggle with the multivalent implications of the questions it raises. Nothing exists independently here; all ideas raised have impact on one another and complicate matters that much further. It is far deeper and more philosophically astute than something like Pan's Labyrinth with its absurd schematized situations and bald faced "subtext" communicated through blunt dialogue.
So much more can and should and will be said about this one in time. There is so much more to cover. Like the way Soderbergh is able to use the peace conference setting not for pat ironic value or half assed denouncements of hypocrisy but as a way of illustrating the false premises upon which such a project will inevitably fail--the hollow, superficial wisdom it seeks to elevate. Or the astonishing investigation of shifting modes of perception and identification which allow for animosities to develop and be maintained. Or the impossibility of moral absolutism or relativism; the need for a worked out synthesis to attain true wisdom. Anyway, as I said, I need to see this again to develop these thoughts further.
Oh, and the score is great. Glad to see that that got nominated but nothing for Attanasio or Soderbergh (for camera, at least)? For shame. Really. For shame.
-
moviefan
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:16 am
Tobey was miscast and I was wondering if he was going to turn into Spiderman. Another actor would have fit the role better. If it were the 1940's, the Hays Production Code was in effect. The swear word and showing Tobey fucking Cate probably wouldn't have been shown. Also I was dissappointed that it wasn't academy ratio (1.37). These are some criticisms that I have for the movie.
I thought it was good otherwise, but if it is trying to be like a 1940's movie more effort should have been made. Cate was the best thing in the movie.
I thought it was good otherwise, but if it is trying to be like a 1940's movie more effort should have been made. Cate was the best thing in the movie.
-
Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Sight and Sound's interview with Soderbergh.
An interview with Soderbergh in the Guardian. Here are some highlights:
An interview with Soderbergh in the Guardian. Here are some highlights:
and...Even once Soderbergh was back on track with confident, playful work like Out of Sight and The Limey, he was not one to parrot the party line on the enchanted world of film-making. The DVD commentary tracks for both those films feature sustained and bitter arguments between Soderbergh and his respective screenwriters, who berate him for every perceived distortion or compromise. "I get sick of everyone saying everything's great all the time," he says, seething slightly. "I like to hear about the blood and gristle of the creative process. I hate these fucking interviews where it's like there's sunshine shooting out of the director's mouth. So I try to be very careful about the syntax I employ. I don't want to suggest, 'We've done an amazing thing here'."
He thinks Solaris contains some good moments but concedes he didn't pull it off. He's critical of his second film, Kafka, which he is re-editing for DVD.
-
souvenir
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:20 pm
Ahh, the Guardian interview (seemingly) explains why The Good German was buried by Warner Bros. and never expanded beyond 66 theaters.
Regardless of reviews, I was mystified that a movie directed by a recent Oscar winner and starring two recent Oscar winners and Spiderman never had a wide release. Soderbergh's quote suggests a power that I'm a little surprised he had, even after making the Ocean's movies for the studio.When it became clear to him that no one could see the good in The Good German, he was straight on the phone to Warner Bros advising the distributor to scrap the planned wide release, repackage the film for the arthouse, and hit the college towns. "I don't want to spend $15m chasing $2m," he shrugs.
-
Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Soderbergh addresses the critical and commercial failure of the film with the Independent.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
-
manicsounds
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:58 am
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
The reviews (on dvdbeaver and htf) all state the DVD is in Full Frame 1.33:1 when it was clearly shown in 1.66:1 in theaters.
The back of the case says: "Standard Version: Presented in a Format Preserving the Aspect Ratio of Its Original Theatrical Exhibition."
But at the start of movie it claims, "This Film Has Been Modified From Its Original Version; It Has Been Formatted to Fit Your Screen."
hrm, plus no bonus material or a Soderbergh commentary. What happened, Warner? I doubt supplements are being saved for HD.
The back of the case says: "Standard Version: Presented in a Format Preserving the Aspect Ratio of Its Original Theatrical Exhibition."
But at the start of movie it claims, "This Film Has Been Modified From Its Original Version; It Has Been Formatted to Fit Your Screen."
hrm, plus no bonus material or a Soderbergh commentary. What happened, Warner? I doubt supplements are being saved for HD.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
-
souvenir
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:20 pm
I've read Soderbergh's comments to the effect of the aspect ratio theatrically being 1.66 because theaters couldn't accommodate 1.33. If that's the case then perhaps Soderbergh wanted 1.33 for the DVD.
I'm not surprised by the lack of special features or commentary because I think Soderbergh was a little shocked at the vitriolic reaction people had to this film and he might prefer to not deal with it right now. It has to be one of the highest profile failed gambles in recent years, both commercially and critically.
I'm not surprised by the lack of special features or commentary because I think Soderbergh was a little shocked at the vitriolic reaction people had to this film and he might prefer to not deal with it right now. It has to be one of the highest profile failed gambles in recent years, both commercially and critically.
Last edited by souvenir on Sun May 20, 2007 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
-
justeleblanc
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:05 pm
- Location: Connecticut
-
Belmondo
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:19 pm
- Location: Cape Cod
I have the DVD which is full frame, fuzzy, low contrast, and black black black and white. Is that unattractive woman you can sort of see really Cate Blanchett? Clooney looks alright, but Toby Maguire looks like he is wearing lipstick. The characters get to use all the swear words which were out of the question in the 1940's, and you may need a few of your own to describe this movie.
I suppose Soderbergh deserves credit for a certain amount of audacity, but we get neither style nor substance. I read the excellent novel by Joseph Kanon and major changes have been made to no good effect.
I love 40's films; I admire Soderbergh, I love the cast; I should have loved the movie. I didn't.
I suppose Soderbergh deserves credit for a certain amount of audacity, but we get neither style nor substance. I read the excellent novel by Joseph Kanon and major changes have been made to no good effect.
I love 40's films; I admire Soderbergh, I love the cast; I should have loved the movie. I didn't.
-
justeleblanc
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:05 pm
- Location: Connecticut
Cause it was kinda pointless. The concept of the film was a bit dated, and Soderbergh's supposed "love" for 40s cinema felt disingenuous. It's almost a textbook example of the weak side of post-modern cinema. I admire Soderbergh too, but isn't he better than these distracting exercises in style alone?Belmondo wrote:I love 40's films; I admire Soderbergh, I love the cast; I should have loved the movie. I didn't.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I thought it was the exact opposite of what you're describing. The aesthetic always felt justified and purposeful to me. The inclusion of obvious stuff like profanity and nudity was never meant to be an end to itself. It feels crude and imbalances the whole and Soderbergh wants us to think about why that is; what exactly is being disrupted here--is it more than just a superficial style? Is the style integral? Does it dictate our response to content more than we generally acknowledge?justeleblanc wrote: It's almost a textbook example of the weak side of post-modern cinema. I admire Soderbergh too, but isn't he better than these distracting exercises in style alone?
Anyway, GG is certainly not a mere exercise or homage. It's really quite great and I recommend it highly. I can't wait to see it again.
-
justeleblanc
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:05 pm
- Location: Connecticut