Any person, and I am talking to our active members, who is even remotely interested in cinema/movies should watch this address. Excellent! Thanks, Chris.
Printable View
Any person, and I am talking to our active members, who is even remotely interested in cinema/movies should watch this address. Excellent! Thanks, Chris.
It's an important part of the film festival, so natural to include it here. The crowd loved the talk, you loved the talk, it was fluent and clear. I agree that we should watch it. Or read it, either way.
I personally am very ambivalent about this speech and about Soderbergh's work. As I said in my review of his latest movie I have gotten excited about his work in the past but feel that overall he has let me down. I also tend to think he has served me better with his entertainments than with his efforts at "cinema."
I think it's good to read or watch the address with the comments at the end on the VIMEO as context. I share some of the range of views expressed there. Some important points got made. For example, the citing of TRAFFIC and SOLARIS as examples of Soderbergh as "artist" -- they are remakes. And this was not said, but CHE, also cited as an example of Soderbergh's "out there" experimentation, is that, but it is also simply a vanity project, and it is basically a flop. Some misinterpreted MAGIC MIKE as a deliberate money-maker. They failed to notice he said the tests were bad and the studio didn't expect it to succeed; its big success was a fluke. (I didn't like it, and it seems to me pointless; but I wouldn't call it pandering or commercialism; tastelessness maybe.) One commenter says every filmmaker at some point makes a moneymaking commercial film, even Kurosawa. That is not even true: what has Michael Haneke done to make money? But the real problem of Soiderbeerg's filmography is that it's all over the place.
I find it somewhat odd that "State of Cinema" should be interpreted as "State of Hollywood" and "State of the Movie Business," but that is what he knows about. He spoke largely as a producer, and I was impressed that he mentioned a trio of talented and edgy new young directors, one of whom I am very impressed by, and he is NOT commercial at all. That endorsement is a good thing, and adds to Soderbergh's cred. But this is an address given at an international film festival. People go to film festivals because they want to see what Hollywood will not offer them. Why not get Harvey Weinstein to give this address if they're going to have Soderbergh? Weinstein knows more about the business. Next year though, they need to get somebody who will talk about "Cinema" purely in the "art" sense and not talk about promotion, exports, and financing. Soderbergh mentioned hardly any films, other than some of his own.
He is also, as Americans so often are, speaking with blinders about the international scene. All his figures are about American films. And yet most of the films the audience of the SFIFF comes to see were made elsewhere.
He is taking an industry and big business stand when he cites Steve Jobs as a moral standard (noted with keen irony by a commenter) and when he misquotes Orson Welles about an artist and his tools. The tools should serve the artist and not the artist serve the tools is not in itself a justification of jettisoning "old" formats like film vs. digital. Sure, don't get "weepy" about film: this is typical of the cold, macho tone Sonderbergh habitually adopts. BUt it is not a question about getting "weepy," it is a matter of passion about craft. As a longtime artist and printmaker, I know that the artist does not throw out old media and does not simply bend media to his will. The media are stern taskmasters. In its way digital is just as tough to work with as celluloid.
The most important point Soderbergh makes, however well known it may be, is that more and more the decision makers in Hollywood know nothing about movies, and do not even watch them for pleasure. And that the unwillingness to take a chance on a smaller cost film is sad, even if ultimately it makes economic sense.
Your arguments are sound and go to the heart of what you and I believe is at the core to the art of cinema (and I'm certain Johann, Oscar and Tab probably believe as well). That movie making is more than a financial choice or the manipulation of bankers (although they certainly play an important part of commercial films). If Soderbergh were more concerned with art, he should drop the pretense and make movies on any budget. (Instead, I believe you are correct to point out his choices revolve around financial gain). However, in studying the art of filmmaking in college and then making "student" films of my own, I quickly discovered that as a director, the process was less about what I shot than about the choices I made after I had complied several thousand feet of film. How to edit a movie is far more complex and more involving in the process than most people can possibly imagine.
Like written stories, most films are made in the editing room. While we might be forced to use certain shots (lacking others) the choices we make as editors has everything to do with the final composition. So it must be true with graphic art as well (as you would know more than any writer on this site as you live in the world of the graphic artist). When we chose this shot or that one, we can make a statement about who we are as artists and what we think of the world through art of storytelling via this projected medium.
I would argue that perhaps the future of cinema is more about the Youtube type offerings (small films made with digital cameras) than it is about massive films made on massive budgets with massive special effects (escalating costs being the greatest limiting factor). The true heart of story telling through film is made by those who have lived life and have something to say. The same could be said of writing as well. Instead of our world expanding, the world is shrinking thanks to internet choices. We no longer depend on any one source for news, weather, or information. We can narrow our choices to the miniscule and find our own niche. This adaptation to contentment must surly be evolutionary in terms of media and perhaps a portent of a world to come.
I agree with you and I have been influenced by you in what I say. You have more of a practical knowledge of film and film school, and you know what you're talking about when you say editing is the key element in making any film. I know that in theory but I've never edited a film, and even with digital editing, it's still a very ticklish process just to edit something a few minutes long. I'd love to be a cinematographer but I'd hate to be an editor, even though it's the key role. I know that you can take a lot of footage and make a good film or a bad film out of it, or just two different films. "Montage" (which just means editing in French) as described by Eisenstein I believe, refers to the different emotional effect sequence of shots can have.
It would help if Hollywood got some editors who just cut things down, and many's the time any film, internationally, including festival films (especially!) would be better if they lost ten or twenty minutes from their run-time.
YouTube type offerings indeed are sure to play a larger role in future, and represent a "career open to talents," to use Napoleon's phrase, which is really neither good nor bad. Are we so lucky that we have Justin Bieber? No but I'm sure some good artists musical or filmmaking have honed their skills and maybe gotten connected that way. At the moment Hollywood is making long movies. I just saw PAIN & GAIN (which I may review-- but I put it off to see IRON MAN 3 and report on Cannes), and though it's hard to see how this mess could have been a good film, it certainly could have been a better one if it was cut down to 90 minutes instead of 129.
As for Soderbergh, we are perhaps better for having him, but he flirts with "cinema" rather than immersing himself in it, being perhaps as you suggest seduced by the high life that moving in the company of George Cloony and Matt Damon and rolling in the dough with the star-studded OCEANS series permits. I wonder who he is. Is he an auteur, or an opportunist? He comes form an academic background! His virtue may be that he's uncllassifiable. But I admire filmmakers who just make their own unique films, every time.
The big budget and special effects machine is crushing. One even feels assaulted when sitting in the cineplex. But the industry is crushing individuality and, as you say, storytelling "by those who have lived life and have something to say."
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/426/1ltu.jpg
Computer Chess (Andrew Bujalski) - theatrical release
Since Bujalski's calculatedly clunky leap into nerdy 1980 A.I.-dom began its US theatrical release at Film Forum in NYC Wednesday, July 17, 2013, I've expanded my SFIFF post on the movie to a full-length review, though strictly speaking its, for me, local (Bay Area, Opera Plaza and Shattuck Berkeley) release (since I just flew back from NYC to SFO) is not till next Fri. Jul. 26. I have now slightly expanded my original "held" April review, but being about to rewatch the film, and may adjust my comments again accordingly. In memory despite my reserved initial reaction COMPUTER CHESS emerges as the most original American indie film of the year, as others are saying -- that is, along with Shane Carruth's UPSTREAM COLOR.
On Wed. COMPUTER CHESS received an excellent critical response (Metacritic: 79, based on 10 reviews so far*), though less so than the (to me) over-adored VIOLA (Metacritic: 85, based on 7 reviews). If you're interested and outside major metropolitan areas, watch for DVD or VOD releases of COMPUTER CHESS by Kino next year.
Click here or on the title above for the expanded SFIFF review. Also not in General Forum.
*The Metacritic rating has dropped to 74 with 26 reviews as of Dec. 10, 2013, but that's still good for such an experimental film.
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7905/avuo.jpg
I don't think I'll alter my review for now, just say that this film stands as unique in its ability to creep into your consciousness, as other ultra-low-fi sci-fi films in the past have done. It is surely to me more creepy and surreal than comic, though if people persist in calling it a comedy, I can't say they're wrong. I'd prefer to call it absurdist surrealism. I definitely think Bujalski has successfully moved beyond mere mumblecore here through his effort at period authenticity and the ensemble nature of his action. Still stands as destined to be one of the truly memorable American films of the year, not just Amerindie.
TribecaFilm intereview with Bujalski July 18, 2013 with Trailer.
Fernando Trueba's THE ARTIST AND THE MODEL, with Jean Rochefort and Claudia Cardinale, opened in NYC Aug. 2, 2013. Metacritic rating 49. I kind of warned you. However, it's nice to look at, and some will enjoy it. No monsters or explosions. Nude modeling. Mediterranean summer setting. Lovely light.
Matisse and Renoir, both known for their famous nude paintings, would have made dull subjects had a reality cam watched them in their studios. It's easy to imagine how difficult putting a human form into proper perspective must be to a layman like myself. As the subject of a film, you must have sympathized somewhat being both film critic and painter.
Sympathize? Not really. He took on the subect. It was up to him to make something interesting of it. And there is a precident for this subject being handled interestingly that I acknowledged in my review when I wrote, "Compare this little film with Jacques Rivette's almost four-hour La belle noiseuse (1991) starring Michel Piccoli, and you will see how much more complex a treatment of the artist-model relationship can be." Mike D'Angelo, whose reviews I tend to follow, grabs this bull by the horns and brings the issue up right away in the first paragraph of his ARTIST AND THE MODEL review, for AV Cllub, which publishes his excellent day-by-day Cannes Festival reviews:D'Angelo knows Trueba better than I do and mentions his work has been "placid and unchallenging" for two decades. All I know is this one is placid and unchallenging. The Renoir one, as he mentions, at least has a historical biopic angle. Matisse would be more interesting than either Trueba's purely fictional sculptor or the French film's Renoir, because he's a more interesting artist and his relationship with his models is more intense and transformative if you look at, say, his big Reclining Nude at the Baltimore Museum of Art, whose many stages were recorded in photographs.Quote:
I Saw This
By Mike D'Angelo August 1, 2013
Director: Fernando Trueba
Cast: Jean Rochefort, Aida Folch, Claudia Cardinale (In French, Catalan, and Spanish w/subtitles)
Rated: R
Running time: 105 minutes
Sometimes a film tackles a particular subject so exhaustively that there scarcely seems to be any point in subsequent movies about it. Jacques Rivette’s 1991 drama La Belle Noiseuse devotes four hours to the thorny relationship between a male artist and his nude female model, dissecting the power structure with minute attention to every emotional detail. Its existence towers over any effort to explore similar material, yet there have been two such attempts already this year alone. Renoir, though mediocre, at least had a biopic angle to exploit, and also split focus between painter Pierre-Auguste and his son Jean, the soon-to-be-famous filmmaker. Fernando Trueba’s The Artist And The Model, however, is a wholly fictional tale, and while it has a few lovely, tender moments, there’s a definite feeling of “been there, drawn that.”
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7477/0eg4.jpg
MATISSE'S 'RECLINING NUDE' IN THE CONE COLLECTION, BALTIMORE
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6052/6lgz.jpg
Atiq Rahimi: The Patience Stone (2012)--SFIFF April '13
This came out in NYC [Film Forum] and LA Wed, Aug. 14, 2013, but by the rules of releasing protocol I am not allowed to post my full review till it comes out in the San Francisco Bay Area August 30. Despite its good reviews in France and Oscar entry, it has not done well critically here (Metacritic 58). Mike D'Angelo dares to say what I worked my way around: it's just one long monologue and it's boring. He gives in a C- on AV Club.
I just found this on Mike D'Angelo's twiter feed. Were those not better days?
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/4148/z9yr.png
"Advise and Consent" was on TCM - the Essentials over the weekend (with its all-star cast); the crime at the heart of the drama is that a senator had a gay liaison with his Army buddy during the Korean War - portrayed as the ultimate social faux pas. The senator is blackmailed for his vote or capitulation. I love the film and watched it with my wife on Sunday right after golf ended.
Preminger loved to shock audiences with his frank talk about sexual taboos (such as rape in "Anatomy of a Murder"). "Advise and Consent" tried to shine a light on the political process that few people knew at the time had existed in Washington for decades. The novel by Allen Drury was a big best seller and won the Pulitzer in 1960. Unfortunately for Preminger, his abrasive personality cost him many accolades that should have come his way had he been more of a Hollywood insider. While he had many friends in Hollywood (Billy Wilder among them), he was considered too opinionated by many and never won the coveted recognition that so many directors with his level of involvement crave. Nominated for his work - Laura and Anatomy of a Murder - "Advise and Consent" while a box office success didn't garner one nomination that year for anything - perhaps a commentary of how taboo the subject of homosexuality was at the time.
That Sallitt should list it as the number one film of the year is rather telling. Don't you think?
Adding my 2 cents:
I totally understand the ambivalence towards Steven Soderbergh and his films. To me he's a craftsman who has made movies that excited me and he also made a bunch that I will never watch (Oceans 11 series as one example).
Kubrick can be heard on the audio CD that came with the original Taschen Stanley Kubrick Archives book that studios (and their bosses) need to respect the directors who KNOW how to make a film.
George Lucas also lamented once upon a time that a directors job is to make the film, and the studios job is to MARKET the film. And all too often the studio has no clue how to market a movie. (which is why 20th Century Fox gave him all rights to the toys from Star Wars).
What we see today is largely cookie-cutter marketing, with the trailer usually doing the selling. Sometimes a poster can do more work than the trailer (at least for me, anyway).
I wish studio executives knew how to make a movie. Then maybe you'd see more "hits" and "sleepers".
I'm always looking for excuses to post my lists...
1962-Oscar Jubis
LA JETEE (Marker)
THE HOUSE IS BLACK (Farrokhzad)
MAMA ROMA (Pasolini)
THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (Ford)
L'ECLISSE (Antonioni)
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (Schlesinger)
THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (Bunuel)
MY LIFE TO LIVE (Godard)
CLEO FROM 5 TO 7 (Varda)
IVAN’S CHILDHOOD (Tarkovsky)
RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY (Peckinpah)
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (Lean)
THE ELUSIVE CORPORAL (Renoir)
LOLITA (Kubrick)
HATARI! (Hawks)
THE TRIAL (Welles)
AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON (Ozu)
PITFALL (Teshigahara)
SANJURO (Kurosawa)
SALVATORE GIULIANO (Rosi)
DEVI (Ray)
KNIFE IN THE WATER (Polanski)
LE DOULOS (Melville)
CAPE FEAR (Thompson)
BOCCACCIO ’70 (Monicelli/Fellini/Visconti/de Sica)
ADVISE AND CONSENT (Preminger)
LONG DAY’S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT (Lumet)
SEVENTY TIMES SEVEN (Lope-Nilsson)
HARAKIRI (Kobayashi)
DIVORCE ITALIAN STYLE (Germi)
Another proof that those were better -- way better -- times for movies.
I love LA JETÉE, L'ECLISSE, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, LOLITA, SANAJURO, LE DOULOS, DIVORCE ITALIAN STYLE. It goes on and one. And 1961 was great too.