View Full Version : Sodebergh's "natural light " Red feature opening soon
Soderbergh's "natural light" Red film, "The Girlfriend Experience" is opening commercially in late May. SS claims only a few shots were augmented with [artificial] lighting. So it ought to give at least some indication of what Red + no light looks like in interiors, particularly when the DP (SS himself) isn't protecting his reputation and is willing to let things go a bit raw.
And, according to me, there's another fascinating lesson here. While it's impossible to know how many people would be able to pull off (as Soderbergh did) Oceans Eleven, Erin Brockovitch or Out of Sight, a $1.6 million film by SS isn't necessarily any better, and could actually be a good deal worse, than a $1.6 million film (or a $200K film, for that matter) made by any other reasonably intelligent filmmaker, including first-timers. If anyone doubts that claim, have a look at "Bubble".
If ever there was proof of the primacy of money in the movie business, it's in the low budget, less than wonderful films of the highly esteemed.
Brandon Fraley
03-19-2009, 01:26 PM
Maybe I drank too much last night, but I'm having a hard time interpreting your last 2 paragraphs.
Maybe I drank too much last night, but I'm having a hard time interpreting your last 2 paragraphs.
Sorry. Let me try again: with $1.6 million today, Steven Soderbergh isn't any more likely to make a good or commercially viable movie, than you, me or any number of other people. In a word, without money, there are few "great" filmmakers.
If this observation isn't as insightful as I seemed to suggest or think, well -- maybe I got carried away.
Julio Quintana
03-19-2009, 02:38 PM
I think most of the time, when a prominent filmmaker decides to make an extremely low budget film, it's precisely because he knows that he wants to experiment, so he wisely chooses not to risk a lot of money on the project. Just my guess.
Brandon Fraley
03-19-2009, 02:49 PM
Sorry. Let me try again: with $1.6 million today, Steven Soderbergh isn't any more likely to make a good or commercially viable movie, than you, me or any number of other people. In a word, without money, there are few "great" filmmakers.
If this observation isn't as insightful as I seemed to suggest or think, well -- maybe I got carried away.
I suppose that point might be valid, not sure. Although I would point out that a lot of people make movies with a lot more money than soderbergh, and more often then not they're not as good. :) I guess all art is subjective though.
Regardless I'm looking forward to this flick.
I think most of the time, when a prominent filmmaker decides to make an extremely low budget film, it's precisely because he knows that he wants to experiment, so he wisely chooses not to risk a lot of money on the project. Just my guess.
That's probably true, but in this case it appears to be a marketing strategy as well. Mark Cuban agreed to finance 6 low-budget digital video Soderbergh features, effectively buying the franchise cheap. The same formula -- hiring stars of one kind of another -- has bankrupted indie producers from time immemorial, but Cuban apparently doesn't have to worry. It's probably worth $1.6 million in free publicity, every time Soderbergh makes one of these films.
I guess what's galling here -- to those of us who aren't succeeding -- is that some highly successful filmmakers simply can't leave it alone. They want to be loved for everything -- from big budget nonsense like Ocean's Eleven to "cutting edge" experimental stuff. But of course Soderbergh's "cutting edge" stuff isn't at all cutting edge or experimental.
He's hardly alone here. Every other month, George Lucas announces that he's going to make personal indie films. And you get a similar line from Spielberg and Coppola, from time to time. Kind of infuriating, when you think about it.
But at least Soderbergh does serve as executive producer for the work of lesser known semi-non-commercial filmmakers. The same can't be said of Lucas, Spielberg or Coppola, unless we're talking about those underprivileged Coppola kids.
Gee, another cheery, unresentful post.
Brandon Fraley
03-19-2009, 03:51 PM
i think you're definitely over analyzing it. It's much more likely that these directors are interested in making more than one kind of movie, and some movies are more commercially viable than others, leading to different budgets.
It sounds as if you're implying that when a big name director days a low budget movie, that they're taking away opportunities from small directors. I don't see how that's the case. And what happens when Soderbergh wants to do a movie that calls for a $1.6 million budget? Would you rather he be forced to spend 10 times that whether it's warranted or not? :)
It sounds as if you're implying that when a big name director days a low budget movie, that they're taking away opportunities from small directors. I don't see how that's the case. And what happens when Soderbergh wants to do a movie that calls for a $1.6 million budget? Would you rather he be forced to spend 10 times that whether it's warranted or not? :)
No, I don't believe Steven Soderbergh is taking away anyone else's (or my!) opportunities. Mark Cuban simply wouldn't invest $1.6 million in an unknown. That money exists only for someone who's already famous. In effect, Cuban is marketing, or trying to market, fame, not movies. This is invariably what happens when producers find out they don't have the luck, insight or the wisdom to identify either quality or market value in the indie world.
But to return to the original claim, FWIW. All I'm saying is, nobody, but nobody, knows how to reliably make a profitable $1.6 million movie and Soderbergh isn't any better at it than anyone else, including first-time filmmakers who turn up in large numbers on the festival circuit beyond Sundance, and have much less money to play with. I'd also contend that Soderbergh doesn't know how to make a good film for $1.6 million, at least on the basis of "Bubble" and earlier low-budget efforts -- that he is (and easily can be) surpassed for much less than $1.6 million. This new one doesn't sound any more hopeful, but we shall see. Again, the power of money to buy resources and save unremarkable ideas from failure really can't be overstated in the movie business.
Charles Angus
03-19-2009, 10:49 PM
Lucas did make personal indie films - wasn't that Star Wars Episode V?
Brandon Fraley
03-19-2009, 11:08 PM
No, I don't believe Steven Soderbergh is taking away anyone else's (or my!) opportunities. Mark Cuban simply wouldn't invest $1.6 million in an unknown. That money exists only for someone who's already famous. In effect, Cuban is marketing, or trying to market, fame, not movies. This is invariably what happens when producers find out they don't have the luck, insight or the wisdom to identify either quality or market value in the indie world.
Agreed, and I think that's perfectly reasonable. Cuban is trying to make a return on an investment, not promote art. And marketing a movie from the director of Ocean's 11 is a much safer bet than you or I. I admire executives that really get behind quality stories, but that's a different person that someone who's trying to get their money back. If my job was to make my company money, I'd greenlight Fantastic Four 3 and dump Punch Drunk Love, even though Punch Drunk Love is my favorite movie, that's not what it's about. And also this would be a slight against Cuban, not Soderbergh.
But to return to the original claim, FWIW. All I'm saying is, nobody, but nobody, knows how to reliably make a profitable $1.6 million movie and Soderbergh isn't any better at it than anyone else, including first-time filmmakers who turn up in large numbers on the festival circuit beyond Sundance, and have much less money to play with. I'd also contend that Soderbergh doesn't know how to make a good film for $1.6 million, at least on the basis of "Bubble" and earlier low-budget efforts -- that he is (and easily can be) surpassed for much less than $1.6 million. This new one doesn't sound any more hopeful, but we shall see. Again, the power of money to buy resources and save unremarkable ideas from failure really can't be overstated in the movie business.
I'd be surprised if Bubble hasn't made it's $1.6m back after On Demand and DVD rental/sales. Meaning that Cuban probably does know how to make a profitable 1.6m flick: Hire an Oscar winning director.
It sounds as if the real issue is you really really didn't like Bubble :) I haven't seen it so I can't say, however I intend to see it, which is to say, Cuban has my money eventually regardless of whether or not I felt it was any good after I watch it. I've heard mixed reviews about it, like most of my favorite films :)
Jaime Vallés
03-20-2009, 07:18 AM
I kind of liked Bubble...
I'd be surprised if Bubble hasn't made it's $1.6m back after On Demand and DVD rental/sales. Meaning that Cuban probably does know how to make a profitable 1.6m flick: Hire an Oscar winning director.
It sounds as if the real issue is you really really didn't like Bubble :) I haven't seen it so I can't say, however I intend to see it, which is to say, Cuban has my money eventually regardless of whether or not I felt it was any good after I watch it. I've heard mixed reviews about it, like most of my favorite films :)
Despite a theatrical gross of around $150,000, Bubble probably did make it's money back on DVDs, based solely on the marquee name. And Cuban has an incalculable advantage, in owning a distributor, movie theaters and a cable network: if he had to go into the open market and sell Bubble, he almost certainly would have lost money, thanks to low sale prices and the usual thievery which goes on with distribution.
It's not a matter of hating "Bubble" -- it's just that , in my view, it's an inconsequential and unoriginal movie, making claims it can't fulfill, another exhibit in the gradual brain death of American cinema, thanks to economies of scale, the nature of funding today and the celebration of celebrity. Far better films, including films about the America work place, have come and gone, but they went unnoticed because they didn't have Soderbergh's name attached. That ain't his fault, but still.... It's pretty hard not to gag.
Nick Gardner
03-20-2009, 08:30 AM
with $1.6 million today, Steven Soderbergh isn't any more likely to make a good or commercially viable movie, than you, me or any number of other people. In a word, without money, there are few "great" filmmakers.
Dude, you are so right!
Dude, back before Micheal Bay changed my life (5th grade when I saw "Armageddon")
I thought that only old dudes with like, foreign names and shit could make cool movies. But then, like my new dad, Steve, and my mom took me to see that Bay movie, and I was just like, dude, that's what I want to do. Liv Tyler is like, so hot. So my mom totally bought me an XL-1 cause it's got interchangeable lenses, and I've been a total DP ever since. Mostly bum fights and wrestling films in my moms back yard.
I think it's retarded that the big corporations like Japan, and Panavison make people think you need all kinds of lights and stuff, like Maxi Tweenies, and fill lights and shit just to make a badd ass movie.
My next film is going to be all available light, and all available actors. I'm still working it out, but I think I'm going to go to the mall and yell shit and then film what happens.
Film is Dead!
Joel Kaye
03-20-2009, 08:51 AM
nobody, but nobody, knows how to reliably make a profitable $1.6 million movie
Lots of people make profitable $250k and under movies. I know a guy who makes 3 or 4 a year profitably. Family and genre flicks do just fine.
No one knows how to make a straight drama for any price that people will watch. Stars and lights or no stars and no lights. Doesn't matter... people want to see an interesting idea for a movie and until people come up with more interesting ideas than the Watchmen that's what we'll get.
Dude, you are so right! .... Film is Dead!
Dude, you lost me there, your irony is a little too complex and far-ranging for my simple mind.
In the end, what's really galling about "Bubble" and other similar Soderbergh ventures is his use of the unavoidable cliches of no-budget movie-making -- non-professional actors, no "performances" in the usual sense, "real" locations, rudimentary lighting, mild levels of narrative abstraction substituting for genuinely achieved dramatic illusion etc. -- and then claiming it's all terribly original, at $1.6 million.
Lots of people make profitable $250k and under movies. I know a guy who makes 3 or 4 a year profitably. Family and genre flicks do just fine.
I don't know those ancillary markets well enough to comment. However, it goes without saying that making back $250K is not the same as making back $1.6 million. There's a huge gulf there. And I doubt the people making these films have any pretensions about enriching Western Civilization.
No one knows how to make a straight drama for any price that people will watch. Stars and lights or no stars and no lights. Doesn't matter... people want to see an interesting idea for a movie and until people come up with more interesting ideas than the Watchmen that's what we'll get.
Well, you sort of hit the nail on the head, but in the end we come full circle. Nobody knows anything, or what we do know is of no help.
Tom Lowe
03-20-2009, 09:20 AM
I don't know those ancillary markets well enough to comment. However, it goes without saying that making back $250K is not the same as making back $1.6 million. There's a huge gulf there. And I doubt the people making these films have any pretensions about enriching Western Civilization.
haha. i think you're right about that. the people who makes films in the 150k - 250k range are in it to actually make money. they probably enjoy what they are doing to be sure, but still, as you say, they know they are not making masterpieces of art. at least that's what i have gathered from my limited experience with such productions.
i will say this though... they are a lot fun to work on! i mean, one minute they might put you in the movie, the next you're operating the camera, then you're doing driving stunts... it's sort of the purist form of filmmaking, as close as you can get to making movies with 8mm or video with your friends when you were a kid.
haha. i think you're right about that. the people who makes films in the 150k - 250k range are in it to actually make money.
I remember that guy you linked to a few months ago (the Russian -- what was his name again?). It's very hard not to be in awe of the fellow -- amazingly self-disciplined, hard-working and focused, even if he isn't trying to make the masterworks of our time.
While the rest of us talk, talk, talk....
Tom Lowe
03-20-2009, 09:30 AM
Serge Rodnunsky! The guy is a legend. :wink:
Bob Gruen
03-20-2009, 10:23 AM
Story. It all starts with story. If you can write a 5 person stage play confined to one to three locations that is compelling, then you're money. With current tools you can do it for tens of thousands of dollars, not hundreds. The question is can you write the next Sex, Lies, and Videotape...
Peter Hodgins
03-20-2009, 10:33 AM
Sorry. Let me try again: with $1.6 million today, Steven Soderbergh isn't any more likely to make a good or commercially viable movie, than you, me or any number of other people. In a word, without money, there are few "great" filmmakers.
If this observation isn't as insightful as I seemed to suggest or think, well -- maybe I got carried away.It's kinda like, lets say we have an auto race and everyone drives an identical car. Then maybe some here to for unheralded driver might be consistently better than thought to be.
Story. It all starts with story. If you can write a 5 person stage play confined to one to three locations that is compelling, then you're money. With current tools you can do it for tens of thousands of dollars, not hundreds. The question is can you write the next Sex, Lies, and Videotape...
This claim has been thrashed out here many times before, but if only it were as simple as you contend. Whatever you think of the script of sex, lies and videotape, S.S. had some other indispensable assets: the star glamor of Andie Macdowell, the performance of James Spader, fine supporting players, professional production values, credible locations with production design (all of the above costing money--far more than "tens of thousands"), the luck of stumbling on what's probably the most profitable film title in film history, and the marketing acumen of the Weinstein brothers.
Other than all that -- sure, all you need is $10K and a good script. Just be sure you don't require much in the way of glamor, accomplished theatrical performances, credible locations, good production values and convincing dramatic illusion.
Then again, good and even astounding films have been made for little or no money, and they can offer a gravity and sense of the real that no big-budget film could ever equal. But the project needs to suit the available resources. If there *are* no resources, sex, lies and videotape would be a poor choice, in my view, though the answer to this question is notoriously elusive. Lots of people look, nobody finds. Whether you end up "in the money" is a whole other question.
Cüneyt Kaya
03-20-2009, 11:15 AM
get a LOI of the right actor and suddenly you get money to make movies
rod bradley
03-20-2009, 03:34 PM
jpp, I agree with you that SS (among others) enjoys the luxury of playing in the expensive sandbox and in my opinion the results are often overrated and perhaps would be totally overlooked or dismissed by someone without his celebrity cache. This is not his fault and I think he has marketed himself well from the beginning into an "outsider" celebrity filmmaker.
I believe he is actually a good "Hollywood" filmmaker with some socially relevant content (slightly prone to the gimmick) -- but perhaps as a filmmaker/writer, well, I think he's not the most substantive in that department -- more a clever stylist with a populist instinct.
When you get to play by your own personal rules without worrying about your "readers" -- and you do things quickly, or you improvise a lot (write on the fly) usually things get a bit slack. (Except if you're Mike Leigh at his best, but he spends months and months "writing" the details of characters -- and he works with working actors, not stars.)
A lot of people in this culture get the nod based on celebrity regardless of merit. We've moved away from merit in many ways in this country during the last 40 years -- it is part of the general political motion since Reagan toward aristocracy -- and celebrity of course feeds right into that.
I think it's natural that some of us might envy the opportunities SS has and which he has, I think, earned -- and some would say has also squandered. If he "squanders" them, well, it's his due, I suppose.
I think a far more interesting and original filmmaker who has made films of substance on the studio level and independent level is John Sayles -- although he never cultivated the "indie fame" (SS and the whole Canon ad thing was brilliant) celebrity status that SS did so well. And I guess was too "quiet" (ie introspective) for most American filmgoers tastes.
But this is all of this is part of the general all-or-nothing ball game we're in. The "pulp" movies (150-250K) have no pretenses and are like the drive-in B movies of yore, I suppose. And although serious and interesting films can now be done for that budget, it's almost impossible to get financing for anything but the B movie staples, mostly horror, slasher stuff. And even if something interesting does get made, it's almost impossible to market in any meaningful way -- unless you are connected or do have some kind of celebrity attached.
Witness the demise of Indigent -- who attempted and actually succeeded in producing interesting movies with some real intent for a few years for tiny budgets (150K) -- and actually got some distribution. But still couldn't survive.
As we know -- the rich always get richer, celebrity begets celebrity (and the subsequent opportunities) -- and loud is better than good in most cases. It's the nature of the beast -- it's always been that way to some extent, just even more extreme now. So when there is a miracle -- ie, a serious film made for very little money, it's to be celebrated.
And we should all be forever grateful to SS for using his clout to helping spearhead Charles Burnett's little lyrical masterpiece KILLER OF SHEEP, into the library of film literature by clearing the music rights which cost more than 10 times as much as the film. And Frances Ford Coppola has also gone out of his way to discover and aid "underground" filmmakers, bringing them to light and getting them shown. It's nice to see this kind of generosity in our strange competitive and tortured and limited opportunity craft and sometimes art.
Joel Kaye
03-20-2009, 04:06 PM
And I doubt the people making these films have any pretensions about enriching Western Civilization.
I don't know about that. I worked on one last year that the writers believed were doing exactly that. In fact, I've probably read 5 scripts in the last year that the filmmakers believed were very meaningful little dramas offering great insight into the human condition and were headed for festival stardom.
I thought they were either pretentious or boring. At this point I would rather read the next new take on vampires 'cause it's probably a better story.
Liam Hall
03-20-2009, 04:26 PM
Soderbergh's "natural light" Red film, "The Girlfriend Experience" is opening commercially in late May. SS claims only a few shots were augmented with [artificial] lighting. So it ought to give at least some indication of what Red + no light looks like in interiors, particularly when the DP (SS himself) isn't protecting his reputation and is willing to let things go a bit raw.
And, according to me, there's another fascinating lesson here. While it's impossible to know how many people would be able to pull off (as Soderbergh did) Oceans Eleven, Erin Brockovitch or Out of Sight, a $1.6 million film by SS isn't necessarily any better, and could actually be a good deal worse, than a $1.6 million film (or a $200K film, for that matter) made by any other reasonably intelligent filmmaker, including first-timers. If anyone doubts that claim, have a look at "Bubble".
If ever there was proof of the primacy of money in the movie business, it's in the low budget, less than wonderful films of the highly esteemed.
I had to read that three times and the whole thread twice to get what you're talking about. But I have to agree, I've always argued Soderbergh has watched far too many Jean-Luc Goddard movies than is good for a person!
Tom Lowe
03-20-2009, 07:27 PM
I don't know about that. I worked on one last year that the writers believed were doing exactly that. In fact, I've probably read 5 scripts in the last year that the filmmakers believed were very meaningful little dramas offering great insight into the human condition and were headed for festival stardom.
I thought they were either pretentious or boring. At this point I would rather read the next new take on vampires 'cause it's probably a better story.
I think jpp was talking very specifically about a small number of producer-directors who crank out these 150K or whatever genre flicks with washed up Hollywood stars in order to turn a profit.