July
3
Moneyball Redux
Speaking of embattled auteurs, David Poland asks more questions about Sony pulling the plug on Moneyball and what it means. So does Jeffrey Wells. I've also heard that Soderbergh wanted to make a responsibly budgeted commercial movie with MLB approval, and that Sony was backing James Brooks' baseball movie over his.
Point is, Soderbergh is being penalized for not always making commercial movies, for being an indie at heart. Execs feel that they can't count on him. They fear that he might go off the reservation. You get so many times at bat with big-budget movies and when you fan too much, the financiers lose confidence. For Soderbergh's sake, I hope The Informant! is a hit.
Prolific to a fault, Soderbergh inspires in me equal admiration for sticking to his guns and having cojones, and anger that he squanders opportunities for all filmmakers trying to make smart movies for adults when he indulges himself and ignores the audience. That's fine when you're making little movies, not so good at the studio level. Solaris, The Good German and the foreign-financed $60 million Che are wiping out the wriggle room earned by Traffic, Erin Brockovich and the Ocean series.
Finally, Michael Mann, who has never been willing to go indie, is far guiltier than Soderbergh of recklessly spending studio money.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
(full disclosure: I'm a total Soderbergh apologist)
The difference between Mann and Soderbergh isn't only one of budget. Yes, even at his most indulgent Soderbergh spends a lot less than Michael Mann, but he also delivers artistically. They're easy to dismiss because critics didn't get them and audiences rejected them, but both Solaris and The Good German had a lot going on and combined cost less than Mann's most recent "art movie" about nothing.
Even both parts of Che cost less than Public Enemies.
Audience friendly? Certainly not, but how much more audience friendly do you need than the Ocean's movies?
Soderbergh may ignore audiences otherwise, but he always does it on a budget, so what's the problem? If studios and audiences expect more because the films in question of Clooney or Pitt, whose fault is that?
Posted by: Craig Kennedy | July 03, 2009 at 02:47 PM
What's your beef against Michael Mann, Anne? Almost every second post this week has been having a snide jab at him in relation to 'Public Enemies', which to be fair, was far from a bad film. Meticulously well-crafted, ambitious, but lacked a compelling narrative thread constantly (which may have been a case of authenticity getting the better of him). Certainly, comparable to Ridley Scott's 'American Gangster', which also was finely directed, but needed something extra to elevate it. Also, it's opening day takings were far from as horrific as predicted in all the 'trades'.
Up until his misfit with the bloated, aimlessly 'Miami Vice' adaptation, he arguably sat alongside Scorsese as the pinnacle American director (a legendary track record with barely a blemish heading north of twenty years). His films have never been overwhelmingly successful at the box-office, and give me a director still going things on his level for the same length of time who hasn't had more than a couple of misfires (either commercially or critically). I've enjoyed several Soderbergh projects (and admire his directing ability), but out of the two, I'd trust Mann with my money anyday of the week.
Posted by: Scott | July 03, 2009 at 08:26 PM
The reason this is an issue is because if a filmmaker irresponsibly takes a large studio budget and consciously makes an uncommercial film, it affects not just his career but others as well. When SS bombed with The Good German, I recall him being quoted as apologetic about how its failure would make it difficult for other directors to get personal films made for a few years.
Posted by: Mr. Milich | July 04, 2009 at 08:43 AM
I don't know, Anne, I think you're being just a tad hard on our friend Mr. Soderbergh. Whatever you think of "Solaris" and "The Good German" (I very much enjoyed the former and was quite a bit less enthusiastic about the latter), I don't think that either was an indulgence—they were good-faith efforts to stretch a bit within mainstream genres and modes, and they just didn't click with audiences. As for "Che," its international sales put it in the black long before the picture got a U.S. distrib, and from what I understand IFC was quite happy with how it did for them. And while he never came out and said it (either in public or in private), I think one reason he did "Girlfriend Experience" was to make a digital film with more obvious commercial appeal than "Bubble" had. He's neither perverse or profligate. But the studio system is just getting less and less interested in making any kinds of movies for actual adults anymore, and that's going to continue to be a problem for him, and even guys like Mann...
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | July 04, 2009 at 11:53 AM
To blame Soderbergh for the financial success or failure of any given film is asking him to not only be responsible for the actions of the marketing and publicity departments of major studios, but to apologize for compelling studio executives to greenlight his movie. How many people can one man be responsible for? And if he is, then let's save the millions in studio overhead, and let a few other personal filmmakers throw away some money for the sake of that horrible thing called "art."
Posted by: Ryan Sartor | July 04, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Guilty: I hold Steven Soderbergh and Michael Mann to high standards. I admire and expect a great deal of them. The Two Bens this weekend on At the Movies revealed the hazards of such high esteem: Lyons castigated Public Enemies for not being an Oscar picture, while Mank recommended that people see the movie. Is it an Oscar contender? Yes, for production design, score, costumes and definitely for Marion Cotillard's extraordinary performance.
I admire both these directors while recognizing that they often demand huge studio budgets to pursue their own muse. Soderbergh is on the side of the angels for risking his studio cred to make indie movies. I predicted that Mann's movie would open this weekend, and I am hugely relieved that it did. But do I believe that he required more than $80 million to make that film? No way. Do I think it will make its money back? Unlikely. Will that make Universal less willing to make that movie next time around? You bet.
I worry about the future. Should directors carry the burden of their colleagues' future employment? No. But right now the ones who get to make movies like Public Enemies are lucky indeed. And their luck is running out.
Posted by: anne Thompson | July 06, 2009 at 11:57 AM