Danny Boyle on the Continuing Death of Cinema

Soderbergh and others have chimed in over the last week or so about the dumbing-down of movies, now Danny Boyle adds his two cents.






















.

Steven Soderbergh on Cinema vs Movies and the Future of Film

Worth a couple minutes. From the 56th San Francisco Film Festival.

Is it me or is Steven doing Michael Douglas? I'm getting a lot of Michael Douglas throughout the whole presentation. It's subtle, but there. He did just direct 'Behind the Candelabra'...






















.

I Need To Wear More Rings

Michael Douglas and Matt Damon in Steven Soderbergh's 'Behind the Candelabra'.

.

Pop The New Trailer for 'Side Effects'

Watching this it occurs to me everything Steven Soderbergh does has made-for-TV zip. I don't mean that in a bad way. I couldn't really support that notion (obviously). His movies certainly aren't superficial, but that TV energy, that edge -- the moment to moment pop needed to keep people from changing the channel -- is present in Soderbergh's work.

I can't think of another director that delivers that. It's something about the way dialogue cuts, loaded scenes, and the intensity and closeness of blocking especially in tight places like offices (but it's also there in outdoor scenes). It's a density we see in TV shows all the time. I believe that's the case for all his work. I can't think of an exception.

Movies with subtext and layers, yes, we get them from many directors and 'Side Effects' I'm sure will deliver on those levels. But, we don't get many movies with the kind of sizzle Soderbergh brings. The guy can make anything good. Not many directors would tackle the stories Soderbergh produces, not without adding plot devices meant to add spice which, in turn, would cheapen it up and dumb it down.

Soderbergh keeps it real but makes it entertaining.

As for these trailers, they keep getting better. For some reason I had my doubts about this at first. Now, it's a total must-see.





















.

'Side Effects' Clips

Little snippets of Soderbergh goodness. The guy can direct.

























.

'Side Effects' International Trailer

It's like Soderbergh can make anything into a compelling story. Great trailer, better than the first one.

This will be huge as a rental and on TV.



















.

'Side Effects' Poster

Excellent. Nice. Wow. Love the PSA font. (Sorry for going on and on).

.

Starts Okay, Gets Better, Ends Great

So. The trailer for 'Side Effects'. I'm watching this thinking it's so 80s, almost made-for-TV. That title... Come on, that's like a paperback you buy at the airport. You know -- with garish cover art that includes a syringe with a drop hanging off its tip and figures in silhouette running away in the background. That kind of novel. A 'pharmaceutical thriller'? Not so much any more. Been there, done that.

What the hell. I click start anyway and, as the trailer rolls it's looking pretty bad. But, it gets better. Something is there among all that soap-opera build up.

And, yeah, I didn't know it was a Soderbergh property until the end (I'm a little embarrassed to admit), when I saw his name, along with writer Scott Burns, and it came as a relief. Suddenly, the pieces fall into place. Oooh, it's a Soooderbeerrgh movie. It's a throw-back genre, sure, but it's Soderbergh, and he's surely delivered a finely wrought rendition (though you don't get much sense of camera/editing style/technique) of Burns' screenplay and the result will probably be very good. Why else shoot dice on this? It has to be, good that is.

And, really, these guys could do anything, any genre, any type of plot, and make it work, make it entertaining and intellectually invigorating. They've proven it before.

And, as far as performances go, Jude Law gives notice. Bit after bit this guy nails it to the wall. He's so good. He's gone from being a supporting actor -- delivering solid craft and all that, but always in the shadow of a 'star', always second fiddle -- to, these days, a leading man whose involvement means the story will get under your skin and, moment to moment, scenes will ring true, characters will seem like people you might know or, at least, have heard about in real life, maybe in a story you read in the paper or overheard at a party or bar.

It's like the transformation of Matthew McConaughey's career, sort of. The two actors aren't alike, yes, don't play the same kind of roles, I know, but both went from being on the sideline in one respect or another to being pure money, go-to. Just having one of them in your movie gives it weight, makes average people want to see it and movie buffs need to see it, whereas a few years ago it meant the average person might give it a pass and movie buffs might give it a spin as a rental, maybe, sometime.

And, that's what I was thinking, watching this trailer, at the beginning. I was thinking I might rent this for Law's performance (some time down the road). I was thinking he was a cut above and I had to see him despite the movie being what it was, or what I thought it was. No hurry, though.

Then, there's hints of quality. Crumbs, tidbits, of a story you can savor, a plot with a spine, more performances that sizzle and, by the midpoint, I'm wondering how this can look so good, how it can seem so interesting when I'm sure I've seen this stuff, this same movie, over and over in years past, mostly late night on television. Then, at the end, I see Soderbergh's and Burns' names and I can't wait to see the movie. At the theater, thank you very much. By the end, I'm not wondering how a B plot could get made these days, I'm wondering what kind of characters actors like Law, Rooney Mara, and Catherine Zeta-Jones signed on to create, what kind of story Burns wrote, and how well actors like Vinessa Shaw and Channing Tatum hold their own in this environment.

So, yeah, I thought it was boilerplate but I changed my mind. The trailer changed my mind.





















.

Yes. That's Right. It's Actually Good.

Okay. Let's get it out of the way. I know it's not cool to like a trailer for a Jason Statham movie. I know that. It's a given that most movie bloggers will dismiss this as mere product and do so with as much snark as they can muster. And, yes, that's what they're doing. No surprise there.

And, to be sure, they might be right, but not from the look of this trailer. There's craft here. I'm watching this wondering 'Wait. Why does this look so good?'

Well, sure, I figured it would be 'just another Statham shoot-em-up, but by the end of the trailer I changed my mind. 'Parker' is directed by Taylor Hackford, who delivers, at the very least on the visual level and often on the story level though he sometimes misses by a tad or, perhaps, goes for something unattainable -- (Ray, Against All Odds, Proof of Life, Dolores Claiborne, etc.).

So, the camera is nice. But, then I'm thinking the dialogue has a flow and story/character arc(s) have that certain something...that elusive complexity that engages the mind and makes a movie worth mentioning down the road. Well, no surprise as John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan) wrote the script.

And, who's that? Whose face is that carefully hidden under all that hair? Jennifer Lopez? Well, wait, she was good, very good, in 'Out of Sight'. And that was directed by another capable guy, Steven Soderbergh. She comes through when she works with the right people. And, here she looks good again, she comes through again.

The whole trailer snaps. The whole thing clicks. So, yes. That's right. I'm betting this will be worth the time. Probably won't score big at the box office, at least in the US, but it'll be a good rental and get good numbers on TV/cable and could be considered must-see for movie buffs, if not necessarily for the average joe.

Usually, a Statham flick can be dismissed as pure popcorn but 'Parker' looks to have a spine. It may be popcorn but it's not pure. 






























.

Steven Soderbergh Talks 'Haywire'

I haven't seen this one. Good stuff.

.

Red Band Trailer for 'Magic Mike' -- Not Quite The Full Monty but Close, Very Close

.

New Trailer for Steven Soderbergh's 'Magic Mike'

How in the hell did Soderbergh make a flick about male strippers look so damn good? And, when did Matthew McConaughey become so money?





















.

Trailer for Steven Soderbergh's 'Magic Mike'

For movie lovers this is must-see simply because it's about male strippers and is directed by Steven Soderbergh. 

.

'Contagion' Character Posters

All with a 'you are there' feel. In the moment. Second to second. Soderbergh does real-time pretty well.

This one, by far, my favorite. I'm thinking Gwyneth Paltrow plays a central role as Patient Zero and may even be the protagonist even though Matt Damon drives much of the story. The encounters through which she picks up then transmits the virus, played out in flashback, will be the core of the plot.

Looking like a very contemporary and apt horror movie. Comingsoon has more

.

'Haywire' Trailer

Steven Soderbergh looks to be on a roll. How good is it to see Michael Douglas again?

.

Stunning Fantastic Trailer for Steven Soderbergh's 'Contagion'

Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow look great. With a knock-out cast: Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Lawrence Fishburne.

Visuals border on stupefying. Just plain wow.

.

'The Girlfriend Experience'

A very Steven Soderbergh experience. Very very cool. Great kicker at the end. Nice style.

Poster

Red One Camera Ushers In A New Era

Remember the last time you bought a roll of film? It's a pain, huh. I've been a photographer since I was a kid and film has always been the single most restricting limiting factor I've had to deal with. Cameras and lenses cost a lot but keeping film in my camera would leave me broke. Sometimes, I couldn't afford to buy a roll and would have to forget about my hobby for a while. Those days are over thanks to digital photography. Yes, the cameras cost more than ever but the savings in film more than make up for it. I've shot about 40,000 images (in about 10 months) on the digital camera I'm currently using. Using very conservative estimates (36 exposures per roll x 1000 rolls = 36,000 exposures at a cost of $10 to buy each roll and $10 to process it. That's $20 per roll x 1000), it would have cost me at least $20,000 to buy and process the film needed to shoot that many exposures. That means, back in the day, a pro photog could shoot $20-100k worth of film in a year. Today, the only thing you need to process that many images digitally is a storage card, a computer, and back-up archive storage.

To shoot a movie you need thousands of feet of film, miles of it. Figure in all the costs involved and you spend a pretty penny on film alone. Production of dailies, transfer of negative film to positive film, etc -- costs gobs.

Enter the Red One digital video camera. This is the first digital video camera capable of producing 'film quality' movies. The Red camera is being used by Steven Soderbergh to shoot 'The Informant' with Matt Damon, and other films have already been shot on Red prototypes. Certain parts of 'Jumper' were shot on one.

This is a still from 'Crossing the Line' which is being shot (at least in part) on Red cameras by Peter Jackson. This shot doesn't have that pasty blocked-up look common to other digital video cameras. The high values in the clouds are particularly clean and there is no noise in the shadows. Skin tones are natural. (There's a bit of subject blur in this still that shouldn't be blamed on the camera).

Here's another still from 'Crossing the Line' which shows off the technical quality of the camera.

Click here or the image to see a full-sized file (4096x1743 pixels). The sharpness and resolution rivals what a professional digital still camera can produce, although the tonality is a bit flat. That was never the case for stills from movies shot on film -- they always looked lousy, gritty, horribly grainy, with bad sharpness, and color from another planet.

Here's a section of 'Crossing the Line' that was shot entirely with the Red camera:

Here's the trailer for 'Crossing the Line':

I think it looks great. The image sharpness and tone is better than film. The action doesn't have that jittery look common to digital video -- it's very smooth and 'filmic'. I can't pin down whether 'Crossing the Line' is shot entirely on the Red or not. Red.com implies it is, but other sources refer to the movie as being shot in part on the digi-cam.

I've never aspired to be a director but I might make a movie if I could afford a digital camera that produced 'film' quality imagery. (I just can't stomach the thought of shooting a movie on film [thank you, no] and the current crop of consumer digi-cams, although better than ever, do nothing for me.) Right now the cheapest Red costs more than a new Hummer, but the price is coming down quickly. Hopefully, there will be a pro-sumer version within a few years. Alternatively, makers like Canon may be forced to sell higher quality digi-cams at lower prices once the Red hits the consumer market. Until then I'll be saving my pennies.

Edelstein On Ocean's

David Edelstein gives 'Ocean's Thirteen' a glowing review. On the same page are links to two very nice looking clips. In 'I'm here to give you a chance' there's some top-drawer acting from Al Pacino, who (at this stage of his career) has technique to burn. 'I'll keep working on it' shows off Soderbergh's cool cool camera and editing, which (in this scene at least) is better than the material the actors are working with.

The Good German

So. That's what a fedora looks like.

Anne Thompson screened "The Good German" in her class at UCLA. Here are some of her impressions:

As Attanasio labored over the script for five years, Soderbergh threw things at him: like, make the female lead a prostitute, and, try telling the movie from multiple points-of-view. Tobey Maguire, who had turned down everything in sight until he read this script, was eager to play a foul-mouthed lout of a soldier who slaps around his hooker girlfriend. Early on, The Good German shocks us with a sex scene between Maguire and Blanchett that signals: hold on, this is not your ordinary movie.

And Clooney, while he's as handsome as ever, continues to resist playing a conventionally active hero. His lovelorn journalist keeps getting beat up and doesn't know what's going on. The actors had to figure out how to perform in a 40s pre-Method declarative style while fighting their instincts on how to be natural and believable, Attanasio said. Soderbergh is challenging audiences to question their expectations. Will they get a white knight hero who saves the day? A fallen woman who finds redemption? A little romance? Check it out.

Complete story