Soderberg on RED

[jpp]

But, David, you're not out there selling projects or trying to raise money. Besides, you're a lot more tactful, on a bad day, than I am on a good one.

Indulge me just a minute, on the soapbox: thanks to the financial crisis, we know now for a certainty that many of those who have attained extraordinary wealth and power in the U.S. (say, investment bankers or hedge fund managers) rarely have the achievements or intelligence to justify that wealth and power. On the contrary, these guys have destroyed far more wealth than they ever created. And yet they still think they're entitled to it all.

It doesn't seem to be any different in the movie business. Those who achieve power are Masters of the Universe, everyone tells them so, and they have the money to prove it. Criticism is simply intolerable. Any critical comment found on this site -- at least, the kind I'm given to -- could easily scuttle a project or a career, even coming from a mouse.

To go from the sublime to the ridiculous (or the ridiculous to the ridiculous), merely insulting a festival director or an employee of a lesser and minor Master of the Universe with the truth can be damn near fatal, if one has any further expectations from those quarters. This is not a business of self-questioning and humorously self-deprecating individuals....

 

[Jannard]

But, David, you're not out there selling projects or trying to raise money. Besides, you're a lot more tactful, on a bad day, than I am on a good one.

Indulge me just a minute, on the soapbox: thanks to the financial crisis, we know now for a certainty that people who have attained extraordinary wealth and power in our culture (say, investment bankers or hedge fund managers) rarely have the achievements or intelligence to justify that wealth and power. On the contrary, these guys have destroyed far more wealth than they ever created. And yet they still think they're entitled to it all.

It doesn't seem to be any different in the movie business. They're Masters of the Universe, everyone tells them so, and they have the money to prove it. Criticism is simply intolerable. Any critical comment found on this site -- at least, the kind I'm given to -- could easily scuttle a project or a career, even coming from a mouse.

To go from the sublime to the ridiculous (or the ridiculous to the ridiculous), merely insulting a festival director or an employee of a lesser and minor Master of the Universe with the truth can be damn near fatal, if one has any further expectations from those quarters. This is not a business of self-questioning and humorously self-deprecating individuals....

You can be as critical as you want here. Sometimes the critics confuse backlash as something other than ardent disagreement with the critique...

The strength of the criticism often dictates the strength of the response. It also is interesting to me, David being the ultimate exception, how the "up-coming accomplished" are the most critical of the "already accomplished". It just seems like an interesting sociological phenomenon.

There are also several types of criticism, which are opinions not to be confused with facts. The easier to digest is more opinion-observational and allows the reader/listener some room to form his own conclusion. Other types of criticism is stronger/confrontational that seemingly attempts to force a conclusion on the reader/listener. Criticism can be presented respectfully... often is is not.

But the punch-line here is that we need real names. You can say whatever you want if your real name is posted. That tends to push confrontational posts more towards respectful and observational.

I also fully acknowledge that I have no idea what I'm talking about most of the time...

Jim

 

[Danish P.V.]

Don`t know what the case is in the U.S., but here in Germany there were and are lots and lots of cases where people got fired / not hired because of their social community-profiles / forum postings or comments on boards. So it`s really not that far-stretched what JPP stated - and btw, it would be a great lost if he would be banned from reduser, as I enjoy his views and contributions.

 

[Jannard]

Don`t know what the case is in the U.S., but here in Germany there were and are lots and lots of cases where people got fired / not hired because of their social community-profiles / forum postings or comments on boards. So it`s really not that far-stretched what JPP stated - and btw, it would be a great lost if he would be banned from reduser, as I enjoy his views and contributions.

People only get banned here for intentionally being disruptive and wildly disrespectful... but we do have a real name policy that will be more strictly enforced going forward. This is a community to gain info and learn about RED.

If people want to post anonymously, there are plenty of places to do that. Just not here.

Jim

 

[KStephens]

Message sent to have my username changed...

 

[David Doko]

On the topic of "natural" lighting, versus lit and unlit, if you haven't done so already, check out Chris Doyle's Last Life in the Universe. Not a natural look at all, but it was meant to look "unlit" if I remember his commentary correctly, not in the least sourcy.

Jim, it's plain Darwinian that the "up and coming accomplished" are often more aggressive and heel biting than those who are "established accomplished" (I refer to nobody in particular of course .

 

[jpp]

It also is interesting to me, David being the ultimate exception, how the "up-coming accomplished" are the most critical of the "already accomplished". It just seems like an interesting sociological phenomenon.

I don't know how "up and coming" or "accomplished" I really am, but I'll plead guilty to that: it's very hard not to hate the guy's guts (speaking humorously of course -- no ill-will).

And why hate his guts (again, humorously)? Here we have someone coming from big-budget Hollywood, to make what (to this viewer) is a kind of simulated art film. It observes the conventions of art films, it sort of looks like an art film, it's marketed like an art film. But it's not an art film. It's a film which may not prove to be commercial, but it remains a product of commercial moviemaking.

Nonetheless, it gets tremendous publicity as an art-house project, unlike any actual art house film. And it gets into arthouse theaters and runs on cable, because the financier owns movie theaters and a cable network.

Meanwhile, there hasn't been a world-class art house film produced in this country for years, with the possible exception (oddly enough) of a few films made by Hollywood. At any other budget level, they're impossible to finance, difficult to market, the wrong people making the wrong decisions. No way for talent to develop, not in directing and not in writing.

Again, in fairness, Steven Soderbergh is one of the few (and maybe the only?) Hollywood directors to help lesser known filmmakers get their projects realized. None of these projects has been ground-breaking to date, but at least he tries. The others don't.

However, when Soderbergh's lesser projects absorb so much attention for what they're not, it does get kind of aggravating. At least, for those of us less than happy with current conditions.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know if I'd make that generalization... I come across just as many examples of beginners being far more critical of big Hollywood movies and moviemakers than mid-level professionals (like myself) who know just how hard making movies is.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" comes to my mind an awful lot these days when it comes to seeing mistakes in movies! Not that I won't point them out sometimes, but it's not like I believe that some sort of sin has been committed.

I don't know, but as I get older, I actually get less critical, not more so -- reality has a way of beating down one's ego over time. When I was in college, I thought I could shoot a movie like "The Empire Strikes Back" and it's only now that I realize how ignorant I was.

Anyway, jpp's question as to whether the public and press judge an established and successful filmmaker's forays into low-budget moviemaking differently than they would an unknown, and whether they are being played by marketing forces, is a legitimate topic of discussion and it doesn't necessarily even have to be offensive should Mr. Soderbergh himself read the discussion -- he's a smart guy and I'm sure the same thoughts have occurred to him.

There's a way of framing this debate in a manner that would not be career-threatening. However, I think jpp needs to separate more clearly his criticisms of Soderbergh and his movie from the marketing and critical reaction surrounding it. I don't think he's saying that big movie directors should not do the occasional small movie, but there is a bit of that impression, as if Soderbergh should bear some blame or something for the lack of a healthy independent and art film market. The frustration seems a bit misdirected.

 

[Richard Goodwin]

Listening to the clip it seems to me SS is not talking about "realistic" vs. "highly stylized" cinematography at all. What he is focusing is how using the available light sources affect his choices as a cinematographer and storyteller. To quote "Letting the light be where it is and not necessarily where I want it". To me that says he is trying to work with the tension of how a place is really lit vs. how to interpret that via a Cinema camera. And, how that interpretation via the camera affects the telling of the story.

The whole film is constructed on this tension between the "real events" and the telling of the events. It has a very non-linear editing style where events are grouped by mood and theme rather than by when they happened in time. This is clearly something SS likes to work with and this non-linear bunching appears even in earlier films such as "Out of Sight". He references that on the clip when he mentions how he has been working toward this more natural/real lighting since he began being his own DP.

As for the comments about the 1.6 million dollar budget, big names, celebrity, etc... SS is an A-List director working with a professional paid crew and actors. That costs a certain amount of money and there is no way around it. Instead he should get some credit for going out on a limb and taking the time to make something that experiments with narrative and plot. Many directors of his success and stature would not take the time to do that and produce a completed movie that most likely will not make a ton of money. But, it will add to the craft of Cinema.

As for the preaching. Where is he saying anyone else must do this. He is just saying that he is taking this path for himself and his work. That is what is cool about SS is that he works incredibly hard in a really broad range of material and is constantly working to experiment with and add to Cinema. He loves movies. He is succeeding and experimenting all the time. Why diss that?

 

[jpp]

However, I think jpp needs to separate more clearly his criticisms of Soderbergh and his movie from the marketing and critical reaction surrounding it. I don't think he's saying that big movie directors should not do the occasional small movie, but there is a bit of that impression, as if Soderbergh should bear some blame or something for the lack of a healthy independent and art film market. The frustration seems a bit misdirected.

This will always be as subjective as it can get, but if he were turning out Bressonian masterpieces with Mark Cuban, you wouldn't hear a word from me. I'd worship silently at the shrine with everyone else.

It's hard, maybe impossible, to separate the marketing, from the film itself. Maybe that's the trouble: the two are indistinguishable, it's one phenomenon today, deriving from the fundamentally commercial nature of the film. Again, the ravages of celebrity culture.

 

[Jannard]

I would respectfully request that all here add your real name to the bottom of your post until the moderators can update your screen name.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Jim

 

[Shawn Nelson]

I deeply respect Soderberg for his willingness to do both the large and entertaining movies and to bravely experiment, even if it doesn't work out so well. When I heard him talk about Che he mentioned "the only thing worse than fucking it up would have been to not do it at all", he has a very forward-moving and aggressively experimental mentality, which is awesome. It's curious to me that he doesn't do short films as a means of further experimentation. I'd love to see what he would do in the 5-10 min range.

 

[jpp]

I can 't comply with Jim Jannard's request, so this will be my last post on reduser. Even better, it will be somebody else's words.

These comments come from the most "independent" of American independents -- Stan Brakhage -- who remains a figure of some fascination outside the U.S., if of little interest here these days. Though dated, these comments are (I think) of interest in the present discussion. He was a guest at the Telluride Film Festival, where he presented Tarkovsky with an award, and he describes his experiences:

I was shocked, when I arrived, to see that the Tenth Telluride Film Festival was dedicated to the New American Independent Cinema. I felt the irony of this and I really didn't understand the distinction between this "independent" cinema and Hollywood.... I was shocked when I saw the program and heard everyone talking about these new independent filmmakers when in fact — because George Cuchar broke his ankle and they cancelled his program as he wouldn't be there — from my viewpoint we were down to one minute of truly independent American filmmaking, that is, my film, Hell Split Flexion.

The terrible irony for me was that, not content with having ripped off artistic and poetic and experimental and avant-garde and every other term they thought might earn them another ten cents at the box office, they usurped "independent" which is about the last term we had.
......

The next day, I was asked to be on a panel in the park. I've stopped going to these panels in the last few years because they always end up talking about money and they continue to talk about money for the next hour and a half. Two years ago I got up and blew my gasket at Robert Wise for calling himself an "Independent" film maker. Here was the maker of Sound of Music and all these huge, mainstream extravaganzas calling himself an Independent film maker.

The only other thing you get, which makes me equally mad, is Hollywood movie makers comparing themselves to giants of literature and music. The most extreme example of that was the maker of Bugs Bunny one year. I said to him: "If you're a great artist, then what in the world is van Gogh?"

Anyway, sayonara, best wishes all.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

I wonder if JPP is someone we would all recognize.

 

[Jason Wingrove]

So hear him.! very hard to 'get out of your own way' and not let the machine of a crew overtake you as before you know it you've got a lit shot that well.. looks lit.

As he says you really have to work hard to undo the will to light things and see the beauty in what's right in front of you.!

Cant wait to see it.
jas

 

[Kim Frank]

SODERBERG ON RED...
To me it seems like someone got freed.
Finally he can shoot movies like he feels them.
THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE
He can put the Focus to the back whenever he wants to do it.
Or hide the star beheind a piece of furniture in an important Dialog.
I think RED freed him.
This camera gave him the chance to tell the storys he wants to tell,
and tell them the way they need to be told,
without thinking in any terms of marketing.
Not saying his new movie is the best hes ever done,
but it gives hope.
Hope for individuality,
uniqueness and originality.

 

[christopher witzke]

SODERBERG ON RED...
To me it seems like someone got freed.
Finally he can shoot movies like he feels them.
THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE
He can put the Focus to the back whenever he wants to do it.
Or hide the star beheind a piece of furniture in an important Dialog.
I think RED freed him.
This camera gave him the chance to tell the storys he wants to tell,
and tell them the way they need to be told,
without thinking in any terms of marketing.
Not saying his new movie is the best hes ever done,
but it gives hope.
Hope for individuality,
uniqueness and originality.

This is exactly how I felt watching it....

I've been a commercial still shooter for 20 years and started out shooting 8X10 with "sets" that were "lit" to the bejesus... I was trying to prove something I think.... now I still drag a truck load of gear around but rarely use most of it. And... having the instant viewfinder feedback as to how things will (somewhat) look in post, I can live with what is natural much easier.

Thanks RED for such a s fantastic tool!

 

[M Most]

Finally he can shoot movies like he feels them...

He already did that a number of years ago ("Sex Lies and Videotape," "Full Frontal").

This camera gave him the chance to tell the storys he wants to tell,
and tell them the way they need to be told,
without thinking in any terms of marketing.

I would say that Mark Cuban had a hell of a lot more to do with that than the Red camera did. As a matter of fact, his first project under his deal with Cuban was shot on F900's ("Bubble"), before the Red even existed. And as I recall, he professed to be very happy with the results of that one, too.

Not saying his new movie is the best hes ever done,
but it gives hope.
Hope for individuality,
uniqueness and originality.

Anyone with a DV camera has had that for at least 15 years. I really think you're making way too much out of this. While Red has allowed a better image quality to be had on smaller budgeted projects than was available with HD cameras and DV before that, it's not the second coming. And a talented filmmaker like Steven Soderbergh is going to be given the opportunity to make whatever he wants by various financiers, provided he can continue to demonstrate an ability to recoup their investments.

Honestly, Red makes an excellent product. And people are going to use it to make stories big and small. But try to have a little perspective on this.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

In my mind, independent filmmaking means going out and making a film because you have a passion for telling stories through motion pictures. Whether that's the kid from Austin who picks up a Hi-8 camera and makes a great film independent of any studio financing/marketing or the Hollywood filmmaker who discovers a new digital cinema camera that allows him to experiment, try things outside the "norm" of big budget pictures. And I would even say that there are filmmakers at the very top who are masters of storytelling, although they work with huge budgets, and lots of infrastructure around them have managed to bring the best of both worlds together. There are a lot of films and filmmakers that would not fit into most people's definition of "independent" but I like to look at things a little different and not get too hung up on terms like independent, or "Hollywood film". I'd rather get caught up in whether the film tells an effective story or moves me in some way.

I have always been surprised at the level of overanalyzing that can take place on issues like this. One of my favorite films of all-time is Stand By Me. Not because it was a Hollywood film or an independent film. It's a movie to this day that takes me instantly back to being a 12-13 year old kid. When the film came out in 1986 I was about the same age as the kids in the story and I could relate to the kids. We never found a dead body but we had similar adventures.

Does it really matter how a film comes to fruition if it has an impact on you? If Steven Spielberg releases a film tomorrow that turns out to be the greatest film I have ever seen, does it matter if it had a huge marketing campaign behind it? Does it matter if he's a Hollywood guy or an independent? To me it doesn't. I just want to be immersed in a good story, preferably watching it in a movie theater and walk away feeling like I'm glad I spent the time to watch it.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I come across just as many examples of beginners being far more critical of big Hollywood movies and moviemakers than mid-level professionals (like myself) who know just how hard making movies is.

Well, and particularly in the age of the Internet. There are millions of people out there who've got access to a lot of information and begin to think of themselves as "experts" on things they've never touched with their own hands.

It's that "secondary experience" thing. More and more people accept the experiences of others as a substitute for "primary experience" gained in-person and it just never amounts to the same thing.

But yeah, I think when we were kids we all thought we knew more than the guys who were doing the work. I know I said things to some people when I was in my early 20's that I wish I could go back and prevent myself from saying.

-Rob Jackson