Soderbergh Talks Che' Controversy
The cameraphone of it all is what it is… but still, interesting to see SS take on the discussion head on…
May 11, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
He did very well. He remained calm and so long as he continues to do so, all the heckling will remain just that: noise. His best answer, which he took a while to find, was “we’re lucky to live here.” It is an answer that molifies a lot of things and, going into these straitened times, when people will be tempted to rant against capitalism and be foolish enough to think that communism or socialism is the better way, a reminder of the benefits of democracy will always win out.
If he continues to do the Q&As, all he has to do is remind himself that people come to the movie because they are curious and they stay to talk because he is there. In other words, he is the reason why people are there and since he has the microphone, there is no reason for him to ever lose his cool.
He was very cool. Hands down, the most interesting, versatile, experimental filmmaker in America. I can’t limit myself to director because we all know he does so much more than that.
You know, I’ve sung the guy’s praises here a lot, but ultimately I always wish most Soderbergh movies were a little more on the nose and blunt in their acceptance of pulp. There’s always that science-professor reserve, and it usually works… BUT half the time I feel just a little like I’m being jerked around by a showoff genius, instead of being TOTALLY PUMMELED by some auteur maniac whose sweat and blood is on every frame of the movie.
Again, not saying either way is right or wrong, but in that old Schrader argument about the ironic versus the existential, I don’t even know where to place Soderbergh; Sometimes and even in long stretches of even his showoff movies, he’s totally on the up and up; SOLARIS and THE LIMEY seem particularly engaged, revealing, and heartbreaking. But even when he’s really cooking, as in CHE or TRAFFIC, part of me is always kinda thing, gee, a blowhard maniac like Stone or Mann or one of the Scotts or Boyle would really knock this shit outta the park;
It’s the cool tone, the cool colors… even with all the fascinating visual experimentation, he rarely if ever rubs your face in the matters at hand, and for some movies, for some subject matter, at least I kinda want that sort of directorial manipulation.
He still owns though.
The thing is, they wouldn’t. A blowhard maniac like Stone/Mann/Boyle (I exclude the Scotts because they’re both pretty goddamn calculating and cold) wouldn’t go where Soderbergh, in all his intellectualism, wants to go. Stone is too wrapped up in his daddy issues, Mann wants to make stone monuments to masculinity, Boyle is the genre trickster who reveals how much smarter he thinks he is than his audience in half his movies. Soderbergh, at least, is honest in almost all of his movies.
SPIKE LEE SON.
And my point was, as much as I liked CHE (a lot) and TRAFFIC (a lot), I’m usually sitting there wishing Stone or Lee was in command, thrusting a bunch of sweaty, grainy, stock-mixing jacked-up closeups in my face, pummeling every beat and being almost wantonly contemptuous of all humanity. Like, Traffic rules, but Spike or Stone would’ve thrown in some more genuine ownage and owned up to their baser, more moralistic impulses… Soderbergh is so damn smart and enlightened that sometimes it ends up feeling too detached, much like “Out of Sight’s” particular brand of “white boy funk”: it has all the right moves and a charming cast and street-smart source material, but you end up picture the nebbishy white guy in clunky glasses bopping his head to Dave Holmes sax music, and it’s super entertaining and awesome, but me, I’d rather have a more legit street-smart bad-ass like Mann or Stone detailing the gritty cityscape underworld vibe.
But whatever. I’m not really making an argument against Soderbergh, who I like a lot; It’s a very fine line, but there’s a cold, color-coded long-shot remove sometimes where it oughta be sweaty and grisly and hysterical.
Basically I don’t like subtlety.
Basically, Soderbergh addressed nothing.
He didn’t remain cool so much as smug and there’s a world of difference. He may be rightfully proud of his movie and the statements he made.
Man, I’m going to get flack for this: but nothing of what he said really explained anything.
It was NECESSARY? For the REVOLUTION? I HAD to present CHE’s point of view? Che died the way you would have had him die?
Let’s see there:
1. That’s a bold statement there buddy but OK, I’ll give you that if that’s truly your opinion.
2. YOU didn’t have to do anything. You CHOSE to tell that story. Everytime you show someone’s point of view it’s propaganda. Che, I think, I undertood it better than most. Still, if it’s your opinion.
3. Now, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Just because he died without a trial does that mean he is somehow redeemed from what he did? Was it because it was necessary (again and, in that case I’ll draw my own conclusions) but you’ve already said that this response is for those who think of him as a murderer anyway.
In short, that adds up to nothing. And, in short, don’t pretend like you are presenting a “balanced view” or a regular biopic. Either come out and say what you REALLY think and how this movie correlated to your own political views of the situation. Or, I’ll draw my own conclusions like I just did.
“He was very cool. Hands down, the most interesting, versatile, experimental filmmaker in America. I can’t limit myself to director because we all know he does so much more than that.”
Bull. I’ll give you experimental and versatile and even ocassionaly interesting but he is far from being “the most” in either one of those.
“tempted to rant against capitalism and be foolish enough to think that communism or socialism is the better way, a reminder of the benefits of democracy will always win out.”
Because that’s all our choices? In that stark black and white? Do you see what’s happening in our country today with all the big shot “capitalists” thinking of newer ways to rip of the working people? I bet they buffer their crimes with lotsa talk about how wonderful capitalism is — for them.
Roman,
Which one American filmmaker would you suggest is as, if not more interesting, versatile and experimental. There may be some who are more interesting, some who are more versatile, and some who are more experimental… but roll all those three into one filmmaker (who also shoots and edits his own films) and I would still contend that Soderbergh is out on his own
It is not that I am goading you, but I would like to know who you consider to be interesting, versatile and experimental.
Christian,
Thank you for proving my point about ranting against capitalism. Are you trying to tell me that for one second, you would be better off under ANY other economic/political system? You wonder whether communism or socialism are the only other choices. What more do you want? Fascism? Feudalism?
Christian is referring to mixed economic systems, which are what they all are, anyway. We do not live in a purely capitalistic society, and we are currently seeing what happens when there’s a lack of regulation and oversight to allow overly dramatic market swings.
Exactly. We don’t live in John Galt land nor Sweden-ville. And the best of all economic social systems probably lay in between.
And when you listen to the Enron trader tapes, and hear these criminals railing against “socialists like Bill Clinton” while they rape states, well…I think America could use less unfettered rampant capitalism, which only leads to all these scumbag Ivy League Gordon Gekkos fucking over the system.
Jeff,
I agree with you there. What we are seeing is not so much the failure of capitalism as much as one of its major stress and fault lines. And as far as that goes, it is as much a flaw in human nature as it is anything else. Deregulation meant that the big boys could run around and be as greedy as they possibly could. The sad thing is that whatever lessons we learn from this, the next generation are going to have to learn all over again for themselves.
And Christian, I agree with you on your point as well: unfettered rampant capitalism is as debilitating as the other “isms” I listed earlier.
I think Colin Powell did very well when he pulled the Right back in and explained what Obama meant by spreading it around. That is what taxes do. They redistribute the money.
Colin Powell, for all his faults, is at least a grown-up.
To quote Ferris Bueller, “I think “isms” are bad.”
“Roman,
Which one American filmmaker would you suggest is as, if not more interesting, versatile and experimental. There may be some who are more interesting, some who are more versatile, and some who are more experimental… but roll all those three into one filmmaker (who also shoots and edits his own films) and I would still contend that Soderbergh is out on his own”
Pope,
one thing that you have to understand is that to me it’s not enough that someone’s really experemental or versatile – at the end of the movie, the has to be a real payoff there.
Soderbergh who’s talents I respect, is not interesting to me because he is experemental or versatile because he is exprimental or any other combination of thereof. He’s gotta be interesting to me on a movie per movie basis and it just, dare I say it, not true to the extent where I would put him out in the front.
And the whole ‘versatility’ thing doesn’t really work for me, in the sense that you are implying either. Yes, he tried himself in many different genres, but where all of them equally successful? The answer, to me at least, is a no (for starters, I really hated Solaris and didn’t think that Erin Brokovich was really ANYTHING enough to warrant a second directorial nom).
And yes, I respect that he shoots and edits his own stuff, but if the result is something like Good German than I’d rather he didn’t spread himself so thin. He’s a damn fine director too, don’t get me wrong, technically speaking.
So I will give him props on versatility, but coming back to the idea of being the best “package”… nah, not really.
(Not that I would prefer that he comprimize or suggesting he should hire a cinematograher – I’d rather have him do his own thing, warts and all, than become another victim of studio sterilization. That said I reserve a right not to be interested, when I am not interested)
And why limit myself to just one? How about Danny Boyle, Richard Linklater and foremost, yes (get your shotguns ready, gentelmen) Spielberg. I also like Coens – that’s in terms of interestingness and versatility. Again, these are my choices.
P.S. And off the topic – I would take REAL Socialism (not Communism!) over Capitalism any day.
also american, interesting, versatile, and experimental: terry gilliam
Leah, if I can beg to differ– and I like Gilliam usually– but 25 years of whimsical movies shot through distorted fish-eyed lenses with carnies, circus freaks, and society’s trenchcoating outcasts bugging their eyes and acting hysterical… it’s a lot of things, but it isn’t really “versatile.”
‘whimsical movies shot through distorted fish-eyed lenses with carnies, circus freaks, and society’s trenchcoating outcasts bugging their eyes and acting hysterical…’
don’t paint him with that brush, man. (no, really, have you watched more than one of gilliam’s flicks, lex? your generalisation is so broad as to be [insert unbelievably broad thing here – i’m too fried to come up with a blackadderism].
also, director, writer, actor, producer and animator = versitile in my book
I believe I’ve seen every one, except technically Time Bandits, which I only saw pieces of when I was 9 or 10 and thus don’t remember a thing about it.
But I tend to think of him as I do Burton: Yes, inventive and creative… but all of it’s so much of a piece that it doesn’t really seem versatile; Not like Gilliam’s trying his hand at romance or cop movie or gangster drama or experimental existentialism… It’s all kind of the same aggressively quirky and in-your-face grotesquerie, however well done.
“Not like Gilliam’s trying his hand at romance or cop movie or gangster drama or experimental existentialism… ”
This sounds like a perfect description of “Fisher King” to me. Seriously.
And of course, Lex is wrong, Gilliam is quite a bit broader than that.
But this actually made me laugh: Have we actually FINALLY reached the point where Auterism (e.g. the unmistakable person stump is considered a demonstration of non-versatility) š ?
Goodbye Cashiers du Cinema (good riddance, too), hello… err William Wyler?
fucking typepad
well, gilliam is one fantastical bastard, i’ll give you that. but i think his range from lower-key drama through to full-blown fantasmagoria is wider than you’re giving him credit for. when i thought about his versatility, it was more re: his acting, writing, directing, producing, and animation skills (and being bloody hilarious to boot), like i said above. but i take your point, i think your comparison to burton is a valid one.
just to clarify, my post was in reponse to lex, roman hadn’t turned up yet when i started
That was supposed to be “personal stamp”. Unmistakably.
Again, I like Gilliam, so both your points are well-taken; He’s definitely a sweat-and-blood, heart on his sleeve auteurist maniac, and truth told probably more of my “favorite” filmmakers are guys like that, who do basically one thing and do it well.
But (and I know Jeff McDouche will disagree) “Tideland” was really, really fucking toxic, well in the running for most annoying movie of the decade.
I do disagree. While Tideland was kind of rough to sit through and indeed annoying (mostly intentionally) I still absolutely respected it and thought it was, overall, no worse than mediocre. At the very least I liked it more than Brothers Grimm, which had all the trademarks of Weinstein mandhandling.
But it was still better than, say, The Fall.
But, to get back to where this came from – no, Gilliam isn’t versatile. He’s a prickly, obsessive, difficult-to-work-with genius who can only do things in one very particular way. The Fisher King was a work-for-hire, after all, back when he was still given those.
Bull again.
“The Fisher King was a work-for-hire, after all, back when he was still given those.”
And what was “Brothers Grimm” exactly?
Point is versatility and desire to gravitate to different project isn’t the same thing and you seem to be confusing the two. He may not be at the top of his game lately but the fact is, when you look at the man’s body of work as an animator, cartoonist, director, and yes – loony comedian, you really see some great range there. He may not have had the broadest ouvre out there but the give the man some credit – saying he’s not versatile is an insult he doesn’t deserve.
And I really love Fisher King.
I love Gilliam simply for who he is and what he represents: an absolutely unique hellraiser, the Orson Welles of fantastic cinema, and all that implies.
hey, now, jeff, don’t just say ‘no, gilliam isn’t versatile’ as if you’ve worked with the man for the last 20 years, it makes you sound a bit smug.
the discussion hinges on the definition and context of versatility, and that is debatable. being a prickly, obsessive, difficult-to-work- with genius (if indeed he is) doesn’t preclude versatility, nor does having a distinctive style; and like both roman and i have said, there is no denying that in terms of his skills set, gilliam is versatile. also, tackling different genres does not mean a filmmaker is versatile.
christian: absolutely
Leah, I don’t think ‘working with the man for 20 years’ has anything to do with it, I’m basing it on what he’s put on screen. And while I love Gilliam for the same reasons Christian just mentioned, I’d also have to say that he’s basically made the same type of movie over and over again through his career. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing, either. The definition of ‘versatility’ that I’m using has to do with range of work in terms of theme and craft.
he’s made the same type of movie over and over? how do you figure that?
i don’t see how ‘the fisher king’, a touching and heartbreaking little drama about grief, redemption and the human spirit, is the same type of movie as ‘fear and loathing in las vegas’, an outrageous acid-trip comedy; or how ’12 monkeys’, a time-bending action sci-fi love story, is the same movie as ‘monty python and the holy grail’, the epitome of hilariously absurd python-esque english humour…i could go on and on but my drift must be clear: how are any of these movies ‘the same movie’, thematically or otherwise? yes, they are created by gilliam with his unique style and fantastical visual flair, but that in no way makes them all the same, i think that’s an epic generalisation.
(and just you know, i’m not at all angry, just slightly indignant because i’d like someone to give some actual examples of how gilliam’s movies are ‘all the same movie’ instead of these vague assertions to that effect, darn it!) :-/
or ‘all the same TYPE of movie’, which is what i meant to say.
or not