Boba Fett

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article...idence-they-do

Is it just me or is this the ultimate example of sour grapes? Che and The Informant! didn't set the box office on fire, so now he's ready to point fingers at everyone but himself. The former still portrays the dead pinko as some sort of hero and that fact alone will ensure I never spend a dime on it, despite it being a competently made, well-acted film. The latter was the very definition of a marketing disaster.

However, isn't Steven Soderbergh the same guy who directed the disposable, but enjoyable Ocean films? Seems like the guy is a pretty big hypocrite. When is art projects fail, it's because movies don't matter, but when it's time to cash that paycheck that keeps him working, it's all about kissing the ass of the average moviegoer.

Frankly, the guy could take some pointers from fellow collaborator George Clooney who seems to realize you do the big budget stuff to continue funding the deeply personal stuff.

Drop

I don't really have problem with what he's saying. He's attacking the attitude that because someone doesn't like a film means it isn't worth it. And if you can't even make a film that tries something different or at least reaches for something higher (whether successful or not), then what's the point?

Todd McCarthy specifically calls out Che for it's commercial impossibility, which really should be irrelevant when someone is trying to make art.

I don't think he's being hypocritical either, or at least not anymore than most people are. He did make the Ocean films so he could make his other experiments. But if he can only make those films, then what the hell is the point? He doesn't only want to make those kinds of films.

I don't agree that films don't culturally matter anymore. They obviously still do, but I can understand where he's coming from, I mean why can't he be frustrated? He has every right. And frustrated people say over the top things.

Hokeyboy

I don't really see anything wrong with his comments, even if I don't necessarily agree with them.

This was in direct response to Todd McCarthy's comment: "...the pic in its current form is a commercial impossibility, except on television or DVD" which, essentially, was a pretty spot-on assessment of the film's commercial's performance. Common people, in any endeavor, shit on almost all attempts to produce something new, different, groundbreaking, etc. Which is why most of what Hollywood produces is totally predictable, safe, pedantic shit. I give you "The Squeakquel" as Exhibit A.

Then again, nobody was slamming Soderbergh for making "Che". It takes a certain amount of balls to put up your own cash to finance a four hour, two part biopic about a polarizing and controversial political figure. Just don't act surprised that people don't show up, especially if the word-of-mouth -- what little of it there was -- wasn't very good.

Amen. We get that here on the forum all the time. Either a movie is "ZOMG the best thing ever" or "Totally sucks ass!!!" The concept of noble failure or flawed genius seems to be beyond the grasp of so many.

Movies as iconoclastic artistic expressions have rarely been accepted by the masses. Most of the critical best loved films of the exalted late 60s-early 70s didn't make much money (compared to, say, "Herbie The Love Bug" or "The Poseidon Adventure", silly but endearing pop culture entertainment).

Anyway, I don't see him as elitist or whiny. Disappointed and frustrated, sure. I think he just wants his E for Effort. Don't we all. The frustrating problem with being vindicated by time is the whole 'time' part.

toddly6666

nothing like a 5 hour movie to get people running to the theaters and also nothing like a boring amateurish film starring a porn star to get people running to the theaters.

He knows that the only way to keep on making the films he wants to make is to keep on cranking out those mainstream Ocean's 11 sequels...

What a bitch.

outlander78

Penny Arcade had it right - what you get are people speaking in extreme terms because they are semi-anonymous. I don't see people in the real world grading all movies as "best ever" or "worst ever" - they see shades of gray. Online, however, everything is more extreme - 1-5 stars becomes binary - 1 or 5.

http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/archive...wad_theory.jpg

Groucho

Che just came across as a real-life version of Medellín to a lot of people. The Informant! was great.

Dan

I don't see anything at all wrong with what Soderbergh is saying.

Whiny, elitist, and crybaby are three descriptions that absolutely do not apply to any of his quotes from the article.

pjflyer

Did Grundle help you with this headline? Soderbergh is making some interesting points about art and commerce of films. The world of cinema needs more Soderbergh's and less directors as businessmen/marketers.

islandclaws

Count me as another that sees nothing wrong with his comments. I agree that we've completely lost the seriousness of 60's/70's cinema. Most movies disposable; not being made the withstand the test of time. Most money is spent banking on the "sure thing", so I applaud his notion that we need to get back to that.

Boba Fett

Let me flip it, if Tyler Perry made another Madea movie and it flopped big time and he said the same thing, would anyone defend him? No, you would call him a whiny crybaby who's bitter over his movie flopping.

That's what I'm saying here with Soderbergh. The guy is all sour grapes over Che in particular and falls back on the tired argument of the 60s and 70s being the best two decades for films. It's all rose-colored glasses in my book, because all it takes is one look at the numbers back then and you can see the same type of thing was happening.

And in regards to him being elitist, that solely stems from making the blanket statement "movies don't matter."

Supermallet

to the first question and to the rest.

Hokeyboy

True, but nobody would accuse Tyler Perry -- least of all Tyler Perry -- of being an "auteur", risk taker, envelope pusher, etc. You don't have to like Soderbergh's movies to admit that he's anything BUT predictable. He was a critically lauded indie filmmaker who didn't have a mainstream hit until 2000 with Erin Brockovitch... 11 years after his heralded Cannes breakthrough with "Sex, Lies, and Videotape". Perry wouldn't be able to say the same thing.

Conversely, Soderbergh wouldn't be able to make the claim that self-righteous white guys on the Internet routinely trash his films without seeing them.

I didn't get "sour grapes" from him. Disappointment? Sure. Resentment? A little. Who wouldn't be, especially when you pour your heart and soul into a project that fails to catch on? That's not sour grapes -- sour grapes would be rationalizing the film's failure by saying he wasn't looking for critical accolades or box office success in the first place, that the movie was somehow "too good" for modern audiences. He didn't do that.
Wasn't it more along the lines of "movies don't have the cultural impact that they had in decades past"? Arguable, really, in light of the short-attention span, instant-gratification Internet generation.

Still though: make a good movie that people want to see, and people will pay to see it. Choosing dicey subject matter in a non-traditional format doesn't help your commercial prospects.

Jaymole

And I am tired of hearing people say that the same type of crap that is popular today was popular back then...do some research...although some crap was popular, it wasn't to the extent it is today.

Top Grossing films 1971:

1. Fiddler on the Roof
2. Billy Jack
3. The French Connection
4. Summer of '42
5. Diamonds Are Forever
6. Dirty Harry
7. A Clockwork Orange
8. Carnal Knowledge
9. The Last Picture Show
10. Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Top Grossing films 1972:

1. The Godfather
2. The Poseidon Adventure
3. What's Up, Doc?
4. Deliverance
5. Jeremiah Johnson
6. Cabaret
7. The Getaway
8. Lady Sings the Blues
9. Everything You Always Wanted to Know...
10. Sounder

Top Grossing films 1973:

1. The Exorcist
2. The Sting
3. American Graffiti
4. Papillon
5. The Way We Were
6. Magnum Force
7. Robin Hood
8. Last Tango in Paris
9. Paper Moon
10. Live and Let Die

Not all classics, but I would love to see this many films of quality & intelligence make the top 10 each year nowadays. Heck, some of these films would NEVER be made today in Hollywood, let alone make the top ten.

Boba Fett

Jaymole

I should also say that I agree with Soderburgh, and I don't see him in anyway being an elitist crybaby. I just think he should have been born 20 years earlier.

Supermallet

I think the most important thing he said is that movies aren't allowed to be polarizing anymore. This ties into his point about movies being culturally relevant. A movie like Transformers 2 is only polarizing because some people enjoy big explosions and other people demand story and character, but Michael Bay didn't intend for it to be polarizing. He made a comment about 2001, which Kubrick clearly didn't make for the masses. But it was a movie that got talked about, discussed, a conversation piece. People saw it just to have an opinion about it. I can't think of too many movies like that these days. The last one I can really think of was The Passion of the Christ.

It seemed to me like Soderbergh was trying to do that with Che, but instead of discussion and debate, he got a collective shrug. I didn't get a chance to see the movie when it played, but I've pre-ordered the Blu-ray and can't wait to watch it.

Sean O'Hara

I would. "Auteur" doesn't mean "good" -- Ed Wood was an auteur after all. It merely refers to a person (usually but not always a director) who leaves their own indelible imprint on films they're involved with, such that you can recognize common traits between them. Perry certainly qualifies.

Hokeyboy

Let's be realistic: I meant "auteur" in the whitest sense of the word. And I say that with love, in the truest spirit of self-indulgence. Tyler Perry makes films that relate to the black experience in America, but he's NO auteur. Spike Lee? Auteur. Tyler Perry? Hackminster harmonies...

Philzilla

Soderbergh isn't Kubrick
Somebody had to go see 2001 for it to be discussed
Perhaps Soderbergh just isn't a good enough director to competently create in the audience the desire for discussion and debate
Maybe he failed as a director, wouldn't be the first time IMHO, and all Che deserved was a collective shrug

Supermallet

No, Soderbergh isn't Kubrick, but no one is. Soderbergh is, however, one of the most interesting and varied directors working today, and I've never seen a movie of his that wasn't worth discussing.

CloverClover

why is he complaining, when he is coming out with 1-2 new art movies per year... seems he has pretty much made exactly what he wanted, and even has an oscar. he shouldn't be worried about his legacy, he is one of the few who isn't succumbing to the spider mans of the world and will be remembered for it, especially if sticking to his guns. movies are just as important as ever

Fist of Doom

Ah yes, "auteurs" and "cultural relevance." Very important stuff. Personally, I think the OP buried the lede...

Ash Ketchum

1971: I saw nine of the ten in theaters, four when they came out and five in revival showings.
1972: I saw eight of the ten when they came out. I wish I'd seen the other two (CABARET and JEREMIAH JOHNSON) in theaters because I still haven't seen them.
1973: I saw eight of the ten when they came out. I still haven't seen the other two, THE WAY WE WERE and ROBIN HOOD.

These years straddled my last year in high school and my first two years in college. I ran with a film-savvy group (we saw current movies, but watched lots of old movies and foreign films as well) and a lot of the films on the three lists were part of the conversation back then. Some of these films had quite a cultural impact, e.g. CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, DIRTY HARRY, THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, THE GODFATHER, SOUNDER, THE EXORCIST, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, LAST TANGO IN PARIS. THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE had quite an impact also, in terms of popularizing the disaster genre and spurring the production of TOWERING INFERNO, EARTHQUAKE and the AIRPORT sequels. I remember that we liked THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE.

Of course, lots of stuff we embraced never made the top ten grossing lists, e.g. Altman films. (Although, I'm guessing M*A*S*H made the top ten grossers of 1970.) And, on the other end of the spectrum, the Italian westerns, kung fu and blaxploitation films.

To be honest, my friends and I didn't much care about the following: FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS, THE SUMMER OF '42, THE WAY WE WERE, ROBIN HOOD.

Matthew Ackerly

They're plenty of great filmmakers making what they want with total control and in some cases, with pretty big box office returns. And if not big BO, critical success.

His points are pretty much invalid. He is a niche, experimental filmmaker. Plain and simple.

terrible chong

Best musical ever! I have songs from it committed to memory and I ain't even Jewish!

for a musical, it's actually pretty gritty. It's about poor Russian Jews suffering under the pogroms of the Tsarists. It doesn't even end happily. All the characters are forced out of the little village where they'd lived all their lives. The End