“On another note, since New Yorker is gone, I wonder who’s taking over their film inventories?”
No one, yet. I would love to be able to get The Chronicle of Anna Magdelena Bach for less than 80 bucks.
Don’t believe the hype. Gus Van Sant and Jim Jamursch were far more important and influential than S.S. Does S.S even have a style? can he even be called an ‘auteur’ in the proper sense? and by that i don’t simply mean a craftsman either.
I agree with the original poster. I think Steven Soderberg is fantastic and has proven he can make films within the Hollywood system AND outside of it, which garners even more of my respect. I believe doing both takes much more skill and finesse then simply staying on the outskirts all of your life (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Plus the fact that he moves from one movie to the next with great speed is amazing to me…I was able to catch “Che”, “The Girlfriend Experience” and “The Informant!” all in this year alone. That might not mean much to most of you but it means a lot to me simply because when I like a director/musician/band/etc. I like them more when they put out more material. That’s one of the reasons why the Arctic Monkeys is one of my favorite bands, they’ve put out 3 albums, an ep and more than an albums worth of bsides in just a few years. It reminds me of the 1960’s with Jean Luc-Godard putting out more than a dozen films in the decade, alongside the Beatles doing something like 13 albums in 7 years. That takes a LOT of skill to be able to put out that much material and to still maintain a great level of quality.
Would I say he’s the director of the decade? Yeah…I think I would. He hops from genre to genre, makes great films inside and outside of Hollywood and made a ton of them. Now that I think of it, I haven’t seen a film of his that I haven’t liked. So yes, kudos for making this thread.
“I believe doing both takes much more skill and finesse then simply staying on the outskirts all of your life (not that there’s anything wrong with that).”
You’re buying into the idea that the artists you haven’t heard of lack the skill to make mainstream films and don’t want what they do make to be seen. The first part may or may not be true, I think such skill is meaningless, the second part isn’t true. Those making films “on the outskirts” would like their films to be seen by the widest audience imaginable, they just aren’t willing to change what they have to say to do it. No one is arguing that Soderbergh isn’t a master of the game, any rancor is based on people not thinking what he’s done is any good. If we were talking salesmanship then Donald Trump or Bill Gates would be my pick for filmmaker of the decade.
@ JOKS
One look at the series Che, The Girlfriend Experience, and The Informant! will tell you the man has a consistent approach to his material which indicates he is an auteur. You would say Jarmusch in the 00s was more important/influential? Van Sant maybe, but in a strange way, “popularizing” one of the most important/influential filmmakers of the 1990s, Bela Tarr.
I’d say the Coen’s hold more of a claim on the 00’s than Soderbergh.
@Mike Spence: I understand where you’re coming from. I agree, pretty much every filmmaker wants their films to be seen by the widest audience possible. I just think it’s very very difficult to get inside the Hollywood system, make the films you want from inside AND outside the system simultaneously. And yeah, a lot of people don’t want to get inside the system and I completely understand, I really do. But for those that do get inside and somehow make what they want while still making independent films, I think that takes a great amount of skill. And I’m not talking about making bullshit like “Transformers” but something great at the very least. This is coming from someone who really dug the Ocean’s films btw.
Ok
“One look at the series Che, The Girlfriend Experience, and The Informant! will tell you the man has a consistent approach to his material which indicates he is an auteur. "
Maybe i haven’t seen enough of his films, but i don’t pick up a consistent shooting style, or series of styles, or even themes. An auteur is not just a craftsman. that is the common misconception nowadays. And often an auteur phase can be short too, and the director just goes back to making ‘ordinary’ films.
By the classic definition, there are very few auteurs left in cinema today.
an auteur was never a craftsman. an auteur was always the opposite, traditionally speaking.
theres no such thing as an “auteur phase”. you either are or you arent. you cant be almost or half pregnant.
“theres no such thing as an “auteur phase”. you either are or you arent. you cant be almost or half pregnant.”
i disagree. You are right that once an auteur gets a label, it sticks, but directors often make films that do not fit into their any kind of specific place within filmography. What i mean is, their films no longer reflect their obsessions, or at least not obviously.
Cronenberg and Scorsese haven’t really been auteurs in a while IMO. Anybody could have made Gangs Of New York and Aviator IMO.
It was effortless for me to recognize distinct stylistic flourishes, tone, mood,
and structures common to Solaris, The Limey, and Traffic,
and my mind is cluttered with memories of way too many films by other directors.
In that respect, I can imagine younger viewers easily seeing Soderbergh as an auteur,
because the similarities I noticed are likely more obvious to viewers who have less references to work from.
Just a theory.
Another thing. Once one discovers that the hologram is the central metaphor in Ocean’s 12
(an illusion of a Faberge egg, so to speak), it’s possible to see
the entire picture as a deliberately weightless contrivance.
That useless thing that Oscar Wilde was always on about.
I think that’s a good reason to go to the movies (see: Michael Powell, Busby Berkeley, Jean Cocteau, Walt Disney, et al.)
Side note:
There are few things at this forum more off-putting than the business of dismissing
someone’s comments by bluntly claiming that they haven’t seen enough (insert director here) or otherwise
haven’t done sufficient homework.
(Or homework that matches one’s own preferences.)
Folks who make such an insulting suggestion seem not to grasp
that it’s possible to observe the same data they have observed, yet reach a different conclusion.
Also, the wholesale dismissal of a director of Soderbergh’s abilities makes
me think I’ve wandered over to the kid’s table at Thanksgiving.
Kids are notoriously reactionary about mere preferences.
Then there’s the matter of dismissing a post by categorizing the individual who made it.
For example: “This kind of statement can only be made by someone whose thought process is grounded in US-centric paradigm.”
If marginalizing others here is a proper discourse, may I gently suggest that we find a category
for someone who, at this late date, begins a comment with the tired intro “Umm” ?
I mean a category other than “Facile,” or “Haughty.”
Cheers.
“There are few things at this forum more off-putting than the business of dismissing
someone’s comments by bluntly claiming that they haven’t seen enough (insert director here) or otherwise
haven’t done sufficient homework.
(Or homework that matches one’s own preferences.)’
That may be the case though. There are possibly more subtle ways to go about pointing this out though without insulting the person on the other end.
“For example: “This kind of statement can only be made by someone whose thought process is grounded in US-centric paradigm.”
I’d say that considering the grand statement made by the instigator of this thread, that was a fair comment. just as i’m sure that a lot of people here don’t really know what an auteur is yet use the word as a convenient shorthand to defer artistry or greatness onto individuals they like through received opinion. Yet i’m sure most people on here are NOT like that at all.
Having said that, it’s impossible for us to escape our own preferences. we just need to be tolerant. tolerance is hard :-)
“Cronenberg and Scorsese haven’t really been auteurs in a while”
you yourself dont really have a solid grasp on what the concept of an auteur is. and youre using it specifically as convenient shorthand!
“you yourself dont really have a solid grasp on what the concept of an auteur is. and youre using it specifically as convenient shorthand!”
No, i’m recognsing that there are phases in director’s careers. that is not a shorthand. It’s acknowledging that a director’s career is more complex than a simple label. The auteur is an inherently reductive concept. Even a lot of the original supporters of the idea eventually turned against it, or at least questioned it, including Bazin. It’s a workable idea, but too often fans try to squeeze as many films as possible into a simple theory and understanding of the director’s work.
Have you read any theories on auteurs btw? Because if you have, you would realise that what i’m saying is not wrong or off the mark at all. I’m talking academic theories. not consulting a book written by Biskin or Ebert or anybody like that.
I did my honours thesis on the role of the auteur in cinema.
im sure you did. congratulations. but please keep in mind that there are plenty of people on this site who supervise honors theses. and yes, ive read academic theories. maybe once or twice before.
but by all means, give us your abstract on the role of the auteur in cinema.
RHP
One more to add (so that I’m not off-topic:)): I do think Soderbergh is one of the most over-rated director’s of this generation. :-)