criterionforum.org

Just saw this last night, and had a pretty negative reaction to it.

I love the fact that a whodunit is presented and then dismissed in a stretch of about two minutes. A mystery is suggested, but it becomes immediately evident that there's no real mystery. And I absolutely love the police interrogation room scene (Decker Moody, who plays the cop, is probably my favorite thing about the movie). The editing and camerawork reminded me a good deal of video art (Doug Aitken maybe) and, going closer to the source, music video and advertising. And regarding the previous debate, I quite like that the trailer didn't prepare the audience with plot clues.

However, I'm inclined to align myself somewhat with that Hollywood Reporter hatchet piece.

The sense is of a filmmaker looking down his nose at a kind of life of which he has not the slightest understanding.

I don't actually care if Soderbergh has firsthand familiarity with the socioeconomic circumstances of his characters or not, but I do find something opportunistic and unseemly about his hyperrealist presentation of small town poverty as something so oppressively and relentlessly miserable and, well, void. This particularly sticks in my craw given the fact (obviously, feel free to disagree with me here) that the setting is effectively the film's main character. Far as the dialogue goes, it has a credible realism that's certainly admirable. But I just don't know that anybody stays that bored all the time. I think those lunchbreak conversations reveal far less about the characters than they do about the film's take on the characters' lifestyle. Ditto the bordering-on-ridicule shots of Sprite cans and bags of chips in Rose's apartment. I've read others who find Soderbergh sympathetic to his characters here; I didn't see that. Instead I saw a numbed lack of compassion (not, in itself, a bad thing) that, combined with the stylization of setting, sets up a very dubious "They don't know how much their lives suck, but we do" dynamic.

I had a similar reaction as backstreet when I saw it in September (especially to that wonderful interrogation scene that just feels like a revelation when compared to countless cop-shows where every actor has to be showy), but I have to disagree slightly with a couple of points.

backstreetsbackalright wrote:I saw a numbed lack of compassion

I'm not so sure the film lacks a compassion towards these characters, so much as it just seems to pity them. It's not like Soderbergh is completely unsympathetic to their plight, it's just that he seems to assume he has a position of greater significance that allows him to judge them.

backstreetsbackalright wrote:sets up a very dubious "They don't know how much their lives suck, but we do" dynamic

Actually, I felt Soderbergh was able to convey the idea that these people do know how much their lives suck. The mildly offensive part for me was that he seemed to posit that they were unwilling or incapable of changing their lives for the better. It felt like he was saying the "bubble" is preventing them from making their lives better, and they have resigned themselves to accepting their station.

The main problem I had with this entire set up is that the Soderbergh seems to convey the idea that the "bubble" is self-imposed more than it is created by outside forces. I'd say that the presence of the "bubble" within small-town America is due to both internal and external forces working simultaneously. Soderbergh does make some mild references to outside forces, such as the constant presence of fast-food. However, by using these non-actors and attempting (and succeeding) to create this sense of realism, he never really broadens the scope of his film. The intimacy he creates in terms of a simple straight-forward plot makes the problems of these lethargic characters seem to be their own fault. Obviously, this is true in some sense, but it certainly isn't the whole story. I think part of the problem is due to using non-actors and not broadening the examination past their own lives and onto the entire town or economic system. We spend time in the factory and understand the monotony and boredom created by the daily work, and how these workers are becoming "dolls" themselves, but I never had the sense that the economic system was a problem. Factory work is known to be boring, so I'm not really too sure what the revelation is here. I just felt that if he was going to set out to scrutinize the small-town mentality, he might as well get a bit more in-depth as to what creates this mentality instead of just being content to display it as realistically as possible.

I also had a real problem with Soderbergh shining that white hot spotlight on Martha while she is in church. The white light makes Martha look like one of the numerous manufactured dolls that are created in the factory, and this essentially makes it appear as though the church is also manufacturing her into their own doll. I guess this is supposed to be a subtle yet scathing observation, but it feels rather simplistic and easy coming from Soderbergh. I just thought Soderbergh could have given some consideration to the fact that the church may actually provide Martha with some sense of spirituality as well. Instead, we have to settle for the easy "church is trying to make you bland" answer. Coupled with the ending, it just didn't feel all that thoughtful an examination coming from Soderbergh.

Considering I'm such a fan of Soderberg's work, this one was a real disappointment. The bright spot was the acting of Debbie Doebereiner (Martha) and Decker Moody (the police inspector). Actually, Soderbergh had a funny line about what he's learned after working with non-actors - "I realized I shouldn't pay professional actors so much".

Andre Jurieu wrote:The main problem I had with this entire set up is that the Soderbergh seems to convey the idea that the "bubble" is self-imposed more than it is created by outside forces. I'd say that the presence of the "bubble" within small-town America is due to both internal and external forces working simultaneously. Soderbergh does make some mild references to outside forces, such as the constant presence of fast-food. However, by using these non-actors and attempting (and succeeding) to create this sense of realism, he never really broadens the scope of his film. The intimacy he creates in terms of a simple straight-forward plot makes the problems of these lethargic characters seem to be their own fault.

Hmm, I didn't get this at all from my viewing. While it's true that Soderbergh doesn't spend any great deal of time pointing fingers at the larger economic forces at play in shaping the characters' lives, all three to some extent had concrete circumstances to explain why they were in a sense trapped in their setting. Martha has to take care of her father who, as a senior citizen unable to care for himself, is left without a net except for his daughter -

Spoiler

and what will become of him now that she's in prison?

; Rose had a child at an early age and a marriage that broke up soon after, and is left trying to support both herself and a child, unable to pursue any larger aspirations, at least for the time being; Kyle's options, like Rose's, are limited because he dropped out of high school (which, for all we know, could've just as well been because the school was poorly funded and failed to engage him as a student; I think many of us felt this way in high school, even if we followed others' advice to stick it out and go on to college). So yes, in one sense of course all the characters' situations are of their own making, but I didn't feel at all that this was a kind of judgment from Soderbergh. Rose and Kyle are simply kids who fell through society's cracks and are struggling to make ends meet, and Martha is certainly doing the honorable thing by taking care of her father rather than send him to the kind of understaffed, poorly funded nursing home she might actually be able to afford, the type of which Rose speaks in one scene. For me, Soderbergh does not look down on these characters at all, although it's probably true that he does feel sorry for them in a sense, which might qualify as condescension. After all, Martha, Rose, and Kyle are all adults, responsible for their own lives and decisions, so perhaps pity is inappropriate. But the dominant feeling I got from the film was not an indictment of the working class but rather a film showing the hollowness of the American dream, the shortcomings of the work ethic we have hammered into us, a bit like Stroszek. Hard work just doesn't cut it sometimes.

Edit: And, just as an afterthought, I think Martha certainly understands 100% that life and society have, in a sense, passed her by,

Spoiler

which is one reason she finally cracks when Rose tells her to mind her own business - Martha has been ignored for so long but by a kind of faceless mass, nothing she can put a real name or a face to, and Rose has the great misfortune of personifying that. So in a sense I think we can read Martha's murder of Rose as a kind of pitiful lashing back at society which, of course, falls on deaf ears and is never truly understood by anyone, including Martha herself.

Oedipax wrote: While it's true that Soderbergh doesn't spend any great deal of time pointing fingers at the larger economic forces at play in shaping the characters' lives...

Well, I don't really need him to start pointing fingers. I just wanted him to open up his view a little bit more to the larger (perhaps macro-economic) forces at play.

Oedipax wrote: ...all three to some extent had concrete circumstances to explain why they were in a sense trapped in their setting.

I would agree. I'm not saying they don't have concrete reasons for being trapped in their setting/prison. It just feels like they are resigned to remain there. As if it's not really worth the effort to try and improve their lives.

Oedipax wrote:Martha has to take care of her father who, as a senior citizen unable to care for himself, is left without a net except for his daughter -

Spoiler

and what will become of him now that she's in prison?

;

I had the same question (contained in your spoiler), especially after watching his reaction to the news that the police inspector delivers to him.

Oedipax wrote:Kyle's options, like Rose's, are limited because he dropped out of high school (which, for all we know, could've just as well been because the school was poorly funded and failed to engage him as a student; I think many of us felt this way in high school, even if we followed others' advice to stick it out and go on to college).

I guess the problem that I have with this is that the audience is left to make this type of assumption for themselves, based on their own experience and perceptions of the school system. We don't know that the school system has let teenagers such as Kyle down, because we never really pin-point why exactly he has become disillusioned. I don't need Soderbergh to grab my arm and guide me through his film in order to show me exactly what the problem is, but I don't really think he has laid very solid groundwork in order for us to figure out what the problem is in this case. After spending so much time with him, it doesn't appear to me that the school system failed to engage him, but rather that nothing can really engages him (his attraction to Rose is even lethargic). I also don't really get the sense that Kyle is one of those free-thinker types that high school constantly tries to break so that their method of thinking conforms to the "proper" way. I just get the sense that he lacks enthusiasm about anything and everything. I guess my problem with this character is that I don't really think society failed him all that much. He just seems to be one of those people that uses society's failings as his convenient excuse. However, I did feel sorry for him about the whole medical problem with panic attacks (at least that's what I think it was from what I remember).

Oedipax wrote: ... but rather a film showing the hollowness of the American dream, the shortcomings of the work ethic we have hammered into us, a bit like Stroszek. Hard work just doesn't cut it sometimes.

I agree that hard work doesn't always pay off and that the belief that it always will is a bit of an American delusion. However, the problem I have with Soderbergh's efforts in Bubble is that we never really see his characters give all that much effort to overcoming their circumstances. I'm not really seeing that much "hard work" from them, but instead just witnessing them "work". If the point is to see that hard work sometimes doesn't cut it, I would rather see someone actually attempt to engage in some hard work and then find out it didn't pay off. Instead, Bubble just shows people doing what the have to do to sustain their existence. I guess another problem I have is that their is no sense of desperation here, like say The Bicycle Thief, where the central problem almost becomes a question of basic existence, and we witness the struggle, foolishness, and disappointment while starting to understand the flaws of the people and the system. Bubble on the other hand (and I think a comparison is somewhat worthy of considering since Soderbergh has noted his neo-realism inspirations with this project) restricts itself to showing the workforce as content to be plastic zombies manufactured by American society, without very much scrutiny of the process by which they are manufactured. I kind of wondered if these people ever even attempted to find the success promised by the American Dream. I couldn't help thinking of Homer Simpson's sayings, such as "if something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing!" or "you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."

Oedipax wrote:Edit: And, just as an afterthought, I think Martha certainly understands 100% that life and society have, in a sense, passed her by,

Spoiler

which is one reason she finally cracks when Rose tells her to mind her own business - Martha has been ignored for so long but by a kind of faceless mass, nothing she can put a real name or a face to, and Rose has the great misfortune of personifying that. So in a sense I think we can read Martha's murder of Rose as a kind of pitiful lashing back at society which, of course, falls on deaf ears and is never truly understood by anyone, including Martha herself.

Yes, I agree that Martha understands this. IMO, I think Soderbergh was at least able to successfully convey the sense that Martha resented the fact that Rose is still youthful and has the potential to achieve some form of success by cutting corners. In that respect, I think Soderbergh was at least able to show the tension between generations, and the need to squash another's potential when one understands their own potential has been sapped.

I finally saw this over the weekend and really enjoyed it for what it is. Watching the Soderbergh interview, I was reminded that this was supposed to be the first of six films; since Bubble he's made The Good German and Ocean's 13, and is presumably about to start work on the two Che films, so I began to wonder how successful Bubble was (within reasonable expectations) and whether the remaining films would come to fruition. Searching around I found this article.

Pressed on the financial success of the venture, Soderbergh admits the exercise only just covered the movie's $US1.6 million ($2 million) budget. "We broke even, which, considering what an odd movie it is, is great. And we've got five more to go. To my mind, it's all just one giant film being made in six segments."

Next up is a movie about "super high-end call girls" in New York, who make $US2000 an hour. Soderbergh will again use non-actors and plans another simultaneous ("day and date") release.

I saw this a while ago and I really enjoyed it. Encompasses a lot of the unfortunate things about small-town Ohio life in a fairly good way. The fact that it's so short helps; it seems like an episode movie, which sounds strange, like it's a television episode a la Hitchcock Presents and an actual cinematic movie. Soderbergh pulled this off very well, and I look forward to the next five installments.

Yeah this was the best film of last year and really of the last several years.