Page 1 of 2
Bubble (Steven Soderbergh, 2005)
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:36 pm
by Zumpano
One of the first reviews have come out. From:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117928 ... id=31&cs=1
I get excited for anything Soderbergh does, but his smaller projects like "Schizopolis", "Full Frontal", and "K Street" reveal that he retains a playful sense of experimentation that keeps him from being (what some critics have called) the "Sydney Pollack of our generation".
Here's a bit from that review:
"Ocean's Eleven" and "Twelve" must have lit a fire under Steven Soderbergh to direct a film that is, in spirit, far from Hollywood. "Bubble" is the result. In financially depressed Ohio, a drama overturns the lives of three doll factory workers. Soderbergh uses a non-pro cast to deftly sketch the dullness of a mid-American burg, whose sheer normality could set the scene for a Stephen King horror extravaganza. Here, an unmotivated murder, instead of stirring emotions, unveils a frightening moral vacuum. The stuff of limited release and TV sales, this likeable if unexciting little tale could swing Euro arthouse audiences with its sly humor and commentary on the U.S....The three principals, all non-professionals from the Ohio location where film was shot, are skilfully cast and directed...he dialogue has a pleasing low-key realism that complements Soderbergh's understated direction, though one can sense a firm hand always guiding the straightforward story. Lenser Peter Andrews goes for even lighting and simple framing that underline the ironic charm of the ultra-familiar. Editor Mary Ann Bernard delivers a smoothly cut film with no dead time.
Awfully short, 75 minutes. And this is to be one of the first movies released to all mediums simultaneously? Is that still happening?
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:06 pm
by Oedipax
I happen to get HDNet here, so I hope they're still doing the simultaneous release thing... I have a feeling if any of these HD-features has the potential to really take off, though, that they might forget about the three-way distribution (theatrical, HDNet, and DVD) route.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:57 pm
by Cinesimilitude
soderbergh has an assload of producing going on.
# Untitled Neil Jordan Thriller (2005) (in production) (producer)
# Garland Bunting Project (2005) (announced) (producer)
# The Good German (2006) (announced) (producer)
# Michael Clayton (2006) (announced) (producer)
# PU-239 (2006) (pre-production) (executive producer)
# Che (2005) (pre-production) (producer)
# Niagara (2005) (pre-production) (producer)
# Tishomingo Blues (2005) (pre-production) (executive producer)
# A Scanner Darkly (2006) (post-production) (executive producer)
# Syriana (2005) (completed) (producer)
# Rumor Has It (2005) (completed) (executive producer)
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:47 am
by Martha
From the Hollywood Reporter:
An embarrassment to all concerned, the film was written, directed and produced by Soderbergh for reasons that are not readily apparent. Arrogance is the first thought, as if the highly talented filmmaker wished to demonstrate that he could conjure a film out of thin air.
Screened Out of Competition at the Venice International Film Festival, "Bubble" tells of three ordinary people who work at a toy factory in an Ohio tank town, and one of them gets murdered. One of the others did it, we think.
The film is flat and uninteresting with the characters mouthing words that don't even add up to conversation. The sense is of a filmmaker looking down his nose at a kind of life of which he has not the slightest understanding.
You feel your underwear ride up watching the unfortunate amateurs shy from the camera as they try to remember their lines and speak in the nervous way that participants do on so-called reality shows, aside from the exhibitionists that is.
Is it wrong to laugh? Especially in light of him ripping reality tv, and boasting about how much more "real"
Bubble is than those show?
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:11 pm
by Zumpano
Eh, to be entirely fair; reviews have been mixed out of Venice and Toronto. Both positive and negative. Actually, that extremely negative review (Did Soderbergh sleep with the writer's wife or something?) makes me want to see the film even more. The Soderbergh films that threw the mainstream film critics for a loop are usually the ones I find most interesting (Schizopolis, Full Frontal, Solaris, K Street).
I can take or leave his reality show comments; as I find not much difference between his film and something as directed, edited, and prompted as "The Real World 6 & 8/19ths" or Hulk Hogan's follow-me-around-so-i-can-have-money show. I don't find many of these shows to be any "real" at all, nor worth watching more than any credited scripted show/film.
I do admit I find myself watching "Cops" sometimes though.
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:00 pm
by TedW
Does someone have a link to his comments?
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:15 pm
by Martha
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:18 pm
by TedW
Thanks.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:18 pm
by Zumpano
Nice Soderbergh/Bubble profile/preview from NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/movies/22bubb.html
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:21 pm
by Doctor Sunshine
I liked and didn't like this movie. (Because I'm complicated)
No, but Soderbergh's nailed naturalism here. The performances are some of the most realistic performances I've seen on film. The characters drone out their dialogue in the monotone, unenthusiastic, often disinterested and/or distracted manner that permeates life. And these are factory workers making it all the more appropriate. I've met plenty of people exactly like this. In films, good or bad, everyone's trying to act and in documentaries and reality TV everyone's trying to be interesting. There's none of that here. However, the film's still fascinating, funny and looks great.
Where the it falls apart is that this is a murder mystery with only 3 suspects and a pretty obvious conclusion. Way too obvious. The mystery seems like it was phoned which kind of ruined it for me but otherwise it's a worthwhile flick.
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:20 pm
by Zumpano
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:59 pm
by Zumpano
Soderbergh interview with Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.1 ... bergh.html
Interestingly, I saw a mash-up of Hitch's and Van Sant's "Psycho" shower scenes as a short film at the Tulsa Overground Film Festival. I will try and seek out the name of it if I still have a program laying around somewhere.
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:19 pm
by yoshimori
Doctor Sunshine wrote:The performances are some of the most realistic performances I've seen on film. The characters drone out their dialogue in the monotone, unenthusiastic, often disinterested and/or distracted manner that permeates life. And these are factory workers making it all the more appropriate. I've met plenty of people exactly like this.
Not sure I'd agree about 'monotone' or 'disinterested' - having grown up around similar people, my mom, e.g., I'd say that's just how they speak. And I don't think Soderbergh's going for any critique of industrial life. That said, the women who play Martha and Rose (and the factory foreman) give some of the, if not THE, greatest performances on film.
Doctor Sunshine wrote:Where the it falls apart is that this is a murder mystery with only 3 suspects and a pretty obvious conclusion. Way too obvious. The mystery seems like it was phoned which kind of ruined it for me but otherwise it's a worthwhile flick.
If you're looking for the 'mystery' part of the 'murder mystery', then, yah, it's a bit of a foregone conclusion. But if, like me, you were mesmerized by the virtuosity of Martha's self-denial, then moments of the ending, like the detective's no-bs interrogation of her, were spot on. [I, personally, could've done without the 'film school' poeticism of the 'shining light' moments, however.]
The film is still on for a late January release on DVD and HDNet. I doubt it'll play in many theaters. Though this is one of my favorite films this year, I'm sure it would've never been released if it hadn't been made by the guy who did
Ocean's 11!
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:56 am
by Travis
This movie has the greatest trailer ever.
It can only be described as..."What? What was that?"
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:44 am
by Anonymous
for the whore who mentioned going for all of soderbergh's most bizarre efforts, i can only point out that Full Frontal sucked
i scarcely recall Kafka, though i remember not loving it too much when i initially saw it
of course, it was about 11 years ago and i was 16 or so
i also wasn't too crazy about Ocean's Twelve
aside from those, i'm a huge supported of SS
i sincerely hope Bubble, The Good German, and Che kick butt, though i'm not placing any bets
i wish he'd knock off all the outside production work and just focus on one project at a time
i'd love to see another film on the level of SLT, KotH, OoS, Limey, or Traffic
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:46 am
by Anonymous
and the guy who climaxxxed over the trailer is moronic as well
great, weird shots do not sell a film to an audience
while i found the trailer interesting and perplexing, it didn't tell me shit about the plot. considering that they want people to possibly buy this film the day it's released, they should be more forthcoming about its plot
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:55 am
by The Fanciful Norwegian
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:16 am
by Travis
Moniker Jones wrote:and the guy who climaxxxed over the trailer is moronic as well
great, weird shots do not sell a film to an audience
They did for me.
Problem?
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:48 pm
by Barmy
You don't WANT to know the plot in advance, trust me. Even the little 2 sentence blurbs coming out give it away. If you are interested in the film, avoid ALL reviews!
Edited to add: looking at other posts in this thread I guess the plot has been revealed here too. Oh well.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:08 pm
by Ted Todorov
Martha wrote:From the Hollywood Reporter:
....
You feel your underwear ride up watching the unfortunate amateurs shy from the camera as they try to remember their lines and speak in the nervous way that participants do on so-called reality shows, aside from the exhibitionists that is.
Is it wrong to laugh? Especially in light of him ripping reality tv, and boasting about how much more "real"
Bubble is than those show?
The person who wrote that Hollywood Reporter review saw some other film (or more likely hates Soderbergh and decided to make some shit up). The "try to remember their lines" bit is especially ludicrous because all dialog is 100% improvised.
Bubble has its problems -- I found large chunks of it banal and boring -- but bad acting or lack of realism are not among them --
Bubble is scarily realistic, as are the performances.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:47 pm
by headacheboy
(Did Soderbergh sleep with the writer's wife or something?)
The writer, Coleman Hough, is a woman. Although she could have a wife, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:01 pm
by Oedipax
I figured I'd put in a positive word for the movie here since it seems like it's getting a mild response at best. It's not the best thing Soderbergh has done but I think the film succeeds at what it sets out to do quite admirably. The performances felt fine to me, extremely naturalistic and not actorly at all, which in this case is an asset. The plot is somewhat slight, but Soderbergh gets a real sense of the place, of the kinds of lives people live there, what their daily routines are like, what their modest hopes and aspirations are: mostly, to get out. I do not agree at all with those who are saying this movie feels in any way insincere, ironic, or bizarre; it would be worthless without its genuine engagement with and sympathy for its characters. This is not a case of a filmmaker condescendingly examining the otherness of small town life as if under a microscope, but a genuine endeavor. After all, Soderbergh grew up in Louisiana and it seems obvious to me that he knows these places firsthand. I'll definitely be picking up the DVD.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:18 pm
by Zumpano
headacheboy wrote:(Did Soderbergh sleep with the writer's wife or something?)
The writer, Coleman Hough, is a woman. Although she could have a wife, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Since it was confusing; I was referring to the writer of the Hollywood Reporter review.
Picked this up on DVD today, looking forward to the flick and the Soderbergh/Romanek tag-team commentary. Soderbergh's commentary on the recent "The Yards" dvd is a very interesting class in filmmaking, dealing with actors, etc.
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:08 am
by filmfan
Irregardless of whatever talent this man has, I find it a bit unseemly when artists get too clever for themselves and do things like this by using "non-actors" and releasing things simultaneously on different media.
To me, all of this stuff has nothing to do with what they do...what they do is make Films.
It gives me the feeling they are bored with what they are doing at the moment and indulging in their "dark side". It smacks that they are just toying with their fanbase.
I would rather they just do NOTHING, than experiment and do anything.
They are not expanding or adding to their ouvre when they do this. To me this man has just reached a turning point in his career...whatever he does next when he gets over whatever he is indulging in here, will be revealing and interesting...but for now, well, it's just a little silly and we should just ignore it and let him get over it.
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:25 am
by marty
Roger Ebert gave it a glowing review calling it a masterpiece which is the only positive reviews I have read on this film:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... S/60117006
