I’m not sure why I was a little surprised by the recent news that Steven Soderbergh was set to begin production on Knockout, an action film in the vein of La Femme Nikita starring mixed martial artist Gina Carano. Every announcement from Soderbergh is almost willfully unpredictable. The guy clearly likes to mix it up and challenge himself and if he can squeeze a credible performance out of a porn star (The Girlfriend Experience) or complete amateurs (Bubble) or Andie MacDowell (Sex Lies and Videotape), surely he can do the same for the relatively inexperienced Ms. Carano.
Empire sneaks in a few interesting questions in an upcoming interview with Soderbergh, the entirety of which will be on newstands tomorrow.
Soderbergh describes Knockout as “a combination of a Bond movie and Point Blank…more on the scale of From Russia With Love than, you know, Quantum Of Solace… Something where the characters and the story are as prominent as the action stuff.”
He also addresses working once again with screenwriter Lem Dobbs and whether there would be a replay of the sparks that flew between the contentious pair on the DVD commentary track for The Limey:
“Oh, you can fuckin’ bet the farm on that!” says Soderbergh, laughing. “He’s absolutely gonna give me a hard time. I’ve already thought about that, like, Oh boy, you know, this is going to be round two. There’s no question. This is absolutely the rematch that people have been waiting for.”
Filed under: Outside Interview
Tags: Gina Carano, Knockout, Lem Dobbs, Steven Soderbergh
i think he’s been doing well lately, though sometimes annoying, i think he’s hit a kind of stride.
I’m kind of a huge sucker for Soderbergh so I give him every benefit of a doubt, but I’ve been really happy with everything he’s done post Full Frontal which I wasn’t a fan of.
I can definitely see why films like The Good German and Solaris and Bubble pissed people off, but even if I agreed, I have to admire the chance taking and the single minded artistry. For better or for worse, the guy simply refuses to pander to audience expectations and whether or not I like the end product, I admire that.
It would be different if he came across as an ego-driven asshole in interviews, but he’s always so self-effacing and willing to not take himself seriously.
Well, as you know I am one who does love his early-career work, but am stupified by his recent streak of audience-yawners. Three films in a row- CHE, THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE and THE INFORMANT were excrutiating bores, almost defying the audience to stay awake. There are a number of eclectic directors out there today who warrant serious attention both here and abroad, without having to rely on someone who is clearly sitting on past laurels.
Be asy on me, I have some friends who know the Corleones.
How can you say he’s resting on past laurels when every thing he does is divergent with everything he’s done before?
I think it’s his unwillingness to be painted into an artistic corner that has people confused. I’ll agree not every film was a homerun and the grounds for people not liking them are large, but you make it sound like he’s lazily spinning his wheels.
I absolutely loved Che and The Girlfriend Experience.
Also I’m kind of a fan of Gina. She isn’t really the greatest fighter but the best of the good looking ones :)
So I have every reason to look forward to this film although I’m not really a Bond fan…(don’t kill me)
Anyway, I hope that it would be something different from a typical action film and I have every reason to believe so considering the director.
Give me a break, Sam. If Soderbergh is resting on his laurels, he sure has a hell of a way of hiding it. Show me another director who works in the mainstream and takes as many risks as Soderbergh does film after film and doesn’t apologize because the typical movie-goer doesn’t have the patience to be challenged, yet still manages to squeeze out the audience pleasing blockbuster every few years to stay relevant to the suits that run the show.
Good luck.
Can’t. Wait. For. This.
And not to name drop, but my personal encounters and interview with Soderbergh shows he’s a real mensch. He keeps it real.
Joel, I stated an opinion here, and was in no way rude or disrespectful to Craig, you or anyone else at LIC. You stated an opinion earlier today at the HEAVEN’S GATE thread at WitD and didn’t mince words, and I even complimented you for it. Not liking the past three Soderbergh films is hardly some kind of a cinematic sacrilege, especially since both CHE and GIRLFRIEND received very mixed reviews (Piro Hunter’s above sentiments notwithstanding) There have been MANY art house-styled directors who have gone mainsteam at one point or another, with the Coens the obvious example. But did I ever say anything about the risks he is taking? I reacted solely to the three films in question, all of which were emotionally distant and uninvolving. I am hardly alone on this.
When I said the director was “resting on his laurels” I didn’t mean that he was literally (consciously) doing so, what I said was with regret, that his recent work can’t touch his past. It’s a fair enough judgement. i was an “expression.” It was not some kind of an assertion that this energetic director was sitting back and waiting for things to happen. For me he’s hit a bad streak.
I love the Soderbergh of old. KING OF THE HILL, THE LIMEY and KAFKA was particularly outstanding, and I had positive feelings for his debut film, SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE, and was at least entertained by TRAFFIC, OUT OF SIGHT and ERIN BROCKOVICH.
But I also saw during this time his capability of crafting misfires with the OCEANS films, which were disposable. I like an admire him, so that’s why I’ve suffered an acute sense of disapointment.
This sounds like the Soderbergh film I’ve personally been waiting for.
Poor Carano lost to The Cyborg, Cristiane Santos from Brazil in a technical knockout at the HP Pavilion in San Jose about six weeks ago. I wasn’t there but I heard there was nearly a riot with 13,000 Carano fans quite unhappy.
You made quite a statement there, Sam, so I called you out. I don’t feel I was rude to you but I appreciate your response. However, you said “There are a number of eclectic directors out there today who warrant serious attention both here and abroad, without having to rely on someone who is clearly sitting on past laurels.” I responded to that by asking you to name some that have accomplished the tight-rope act Soderbergh has been working for the last 15 years.
I think it was a very fair question. I’m sorry if you were offended. You have every right not to like his films or appreciate what he’s doing, but I think it’s fair to disagree with you.
Joel, I was not seriously offended at all. Heck with the abuse I have endure at the hands of my erstwhile (and still dear) friend at Wonders in the Dark, Allan Fish, even for an ‘infraction’ of saying how great some of his writing is, I think I can handle this gentle ribbing.
However, an alarm went off in my head after I read “Give me a break Sam” as this is not normally your style. I am the one who says anything and everything that I’m thinking. You are almost always reserved and analytical. Strong reactions in response to another poster are quite rare for you, and I generally read everything you post, which in view of your honored status as LIC’s most prolific contributor (and I say this is the best sense imaginable) is quite a bit. You were not “rude” but I surmised you were a bit miffed at what I said. prior to that both Craig and Piro Hunter opposed my position, so I know what I said did not sit well here on this thread.
I actually will admit I used poor terminology, which understandably was taken differently than what I meant to say. This is my fault. I was basically lamenting the latest string of Soderbergh misfires (again for me) by asserting that there are a number of other directors out there who as of late deserve far more attention that Mr. S., who seems to have lost sight of his audience, even while continuing to offer uncompromising and personalized cinema, the latter of which I fully support in theory. I was neither criticizing his work ethnic, nor amazing output, but rather was bemoaning the final result (at least in the past three instances.)
Nonetheless, i fully comprehend why you needed to call m eout, and there is not the slightest lingering grudge on my part. All is well here, my good friend.
I started the misrepresentation of Sam’s words. I take the blame, though in my defense the way it was worded sounded like Sam was saying something other than what he really meant.
I still disagree with Sam’s position, but he has some excellent company among people who haven’t been keen on Soderbergh’s recent output and even if he didn’t, it’s beyond argument. Ya’ll crazy, but that’s another matter :)
Piro, I’ll trade your not being a Bond fan for me not being an MMA fan. I’ll give you that Ms. Carano is lovely to look at though.
I like the Bond/Point Blank combo…this sense of slick action adventure wedded to something a bit more european and cerebral.
I wasn’t sure what to make of this at all, but hearing him talk about it just so gives me a great deal of hope.
Also Christian. When did you speak to Mr. Soderbergh? Of anyone working in film right now, I think he’s the one I’d most like to interview. I like the Coens more, but they’re a notoriously hard interview and I’d just look like a dick. Soderbergh manages to make everyone interesting…even routinely dry DVD commentary tracks.
Soderbergh is a truly great guy. Of this there can be no question. I am confident he has some great stuff left in him too.
It can’t be denied that he’s largely been in an experimental mode with seemingly zero regard for audience desires. Definitely not to everyone’s taste.
Actually I have to admit that his latest films are not really audience orientated and it’s no surprise that people react differently to these films. For me personaly Che felt like a great biopic. I liked the fact that the film(s) took a distant point of view. Most biopics nowdays are trying too hard to turn the people into saints and this just was not the case. On the other hand I understand how this could turn some people off.
As for The Girlfriend Experience… It was different. Had a vibe to it which is really hard for me to describe (probably a combination of English as a foreign language and the fact that when I watch films for the first time I just get a feeling and rarely try to rate the elements separately). I saw the film with a couple of friends. Both of them avid filmgoers but I was the only one who liked it.
What I like about Soderbergh is exactly what Sam critisizes in his latest works. The fact that he is not trying to play to the audience’s desires and just makes the films he wants to.
Craig I can’t honestly say that I am a big MMA fan but I try to follow from time to time and Gina is very popular. Just like Coleman said above she lost her last fight and it seemed like there wasn’t even one happy fan in attendance. She looks good on TV and I believe that this could be an advantage on the screen as well.
Plus, me being the macho that I am, I love strong female characters (yup, Kill Bill as well) in the leads of action flicks. My only worry is that it could turn out something like Ocean 13 and that would be a huge personal tragedy for me.
I met him at the Austin Film fest 99 for the premiere of THE LIMEY, then interviewed him about TRAFFIC for CREATIVE SCREENWRITING. Here’s the whole story:
http://christiandivine.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/favorite-scene-theater-the-limey-1999/
BTW, wordpress has “concern over the content” of my blog and therefore I can’t post anything until I find out what sin I’ve committed. Unbelievable.
Piro: My life history of moviegoing has always favored the eclectic, and what the director does in injecting his personal ensisbilities into the work, over what the audience expects or is comfortable with. I am strictly art house and anti-commercial in my tastes. But that does NOT mean that I am willing blindly to accept or validate every personal idea.
I am NOT against GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE because of its experimental nature or boldness, (I applaud that artistic slant!)I am against it because (for me) it failed. I have always supported eclectic filmmaking…ir…Aronofsky, Harmony Korrine, Coens, David Gordon Green, Jarmusch, Lynch, et al.
The most prominent of all “experimental” filmmakers working today is Stan Brakhage, who doesn’t always even use a camera, so to speak. I am a HUGE fan of his work. The great Maya Deren, avante garde, experimentalist is also one of my more adored filmmakers, as MESHES IN THE AFTERNOON is one of the supreme masterpieces. Even Mr. Soderbergh’s debut film, SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE can be classified as experimental, and I’m a fan of that film.
So in conclusion, I am all for experimental cinema, and bold artistic decision-making. I am against films that fail within that jurisdiction, just as I am against films that fail with commercial parameters.
I know, I know, I probably re-kindled some testiness here, but look at it this way. It’s a continuation of the discourse. And is no one responds, well that’s fine too.
Sam, you have doubtless stated your case most emphatically and with great discernment.
Christian, that is a tragedy. Be sure to tell us what happened.
I’m back on. Perhaps the NRA lodged a complaint.
I would say that Craig Baldwin, one of my mentors, is the best experimental filmmaker in America at least. He fuses found footage from industrial films, Japanese sci-fi and real facts to form lurid yet factual conspiracy narratives. His new film MOCK-UP ON MU is possibly his best. Check him out.
LOL Alexander! I’ll admit I do have my “soap box” moments.
“I liked the fact that the film(s) took a distant point of view. Most biopics nowdays are trying too hard to turn the people into saints and this just was not the case.” Piro that’s one of the things I liked about Che too, but at the same time I felt it made it hard to warm up to. Don’t get me wrong, I really admired Che, but even after 2 viewings of both parts in the theater I went away wanting more. Somehow it just wasn’t quite the movie I wanted it to be.
Sam, don’t mistake my disagreement with you for criticism. I can absolutely see where TGE wouldn’t work for everyone. I don’t think it was a failure at all, I feel it accomplished exactly what it set out to do, but i see where I’m in the minority on that opinion.
Christian….did you get to the bottom of WHY you were blocked? that’s crazy.
There was no reason given. I assume it was from an NRA crank or Van Morrison’s lawyers, who apparently scour the web to remove any possible copyright violation.
Interesting choices, Sam, but neither of them works within the mainstream studio system. I admit I’m not familiar with either, so I’m not sure how pertinent their work is in comparison to Soderbergh, who works on a wide variety of genres and a wide variety of productions, indie and studio-funded.
I might suggest Michael Mann as possible comparison, since he is clearly tagged as doing mainstream art films, but Mann tends to be making the same film over and over again, just exploring the themes and characters at different angles.
I might also suggest Francis Ford Coppola, who makes art films now primarily for himself and ignores the contrivances of playing to a mainstream audience in much of his work, but Coppola is primarily self-funded now and outside the traditional studio system.
I’m curious to hear whom else might be suggested as comparison. The Coens? Sort of, but they also make their own films the primarily focus on their own interests, rather than working from scripted material.
Joel, my response to Piro addressed this:
“What I like about Soderbergh is exactly what Sam critisizes in his latest works. The fact that he is not trying to play to the audience’s desires and just makes the films he wants to.”
I have no issue with the bold and audacious decisions that Soderbergh has been making as of late, nor do I dare take him to task on his exciting cinematic world view. As I stated earlier, he has not succeeded as of late, a position that the majority of critics have concluded. In this instance I happen to agree with them.
My broaching of Brakage and Deren, Joel, was to make a point that I didn’t dislike experimental cinema.
Michael Mann and Francis Ford Coppola are fine choices there. But the best one in my view to parallel Soderbergh is David Cronenberg, who has worked in and out of the studio system, with much the same versatility as his similar-name-sounding colleague.
Beyond him, of course we had Nick Cassevetes, and presently have Stephen Frears, John Sayles, Wes Anderson, and Camerone Crowe, all of whom have played on both sides of the fence.
Above all of course is none other than Woody Allen, who for a while has had free reigns to do whatever he wants, but it’s admittedly been a while since any of his films had a big studio sponsorship.
I misunderstood the point of your comment then, Sam, so I apologize but let me respond. I think Stephen Frears and Cameron Crowe are good choices. Both have had big and small hits, both kind of work in various styles and genres although both stay close to their personal comfort zones and neither is anywhere near as prolific as Soderbergh or taking as many risks.
Woody Allen is very prolific and essentially a risk taker because he’s making movies for himself, but I’ve never thought of Allen as someone who works in the mainstream or works in a wide variety of genres, although I admit he’s stretched himself with a thriller and a musical or two in the last 15 years and casts big name actors so his movies have potential mainstream appeal.
Wes Anderson to me is a talented director I like but who is pretty much making the same film over and over again. Hopefully Fantastic Mr Fox finally represents something new from him, but I don’t think he’s comparable to what I was enthusing about in Soderbergh at all. Anderson has a niche which is Wes Anderson and he stays within that and appeals to his specific audience. I can’t imagine Anderson trying to do the last three films Soderbergh made.
“As I stated earlier, he has not succeeded as of late, a position that the majority of critics have concluded. In this instance I happen to agree with them.”
Really Sam?
Che (combined score at Metacritic): 64
Che pt 1 (RT): 72
Che pt 2 (RT): 76
Girlfriend Experience (Metacritic): 67
Girlfriend Experience (RT): 61
Informant! (Metacritic): 66
Informant! (RT): 77
I usually think anything over 70 at RT is pretty positive and anything over 60 at Metacritic is pretty positive, but I don’t hold critical consensus in the same esteem you do. The results are mixed, but not overly negative.
Joel:
If it appears that I hold the “critical esteem” more than you or anyone else for that matter, it’s that I do not nor have I ever held my own opinion as the end all. Of course I don’t mean to imply that you do in any way, shape or form either. But what does it really mean to “hold critical concensus in high esteem” when said adherent (me) disagrees with that concensus as often as I disagree. i.e. (2009)
Public Enemies
Gommorah
Beeswax
Inglourious Basterds
Liverpool
Thirst
Humpday
The Headless Woman
The Informant
Bliss
Bruno
This group of films all received excellent reviews, but I cared for not a single one of them. Some of these received cumulative grades in the 90′s. The point is, while I always celebrate other’s opinion and critical concensus, that does not remotely mean that I’ll agree. But I will still respect the contrarian view while still arguing my own case. There are several instances also where I like films that the concensus does not.
As far as your pointing out those cumulative numbers on those Soderbergh films, yes I would agree that basically they received “mixed” results, with THE INFORMANT somewhat higher than that.
You didn’t mention anything about Cronenberg. Do you like his work?
I like Cronenberg a lot. I think he’s got a specific style and genres within which he likes to play, but he works both sides of the system and makes fairly big mainstream films as well as off-the-wall stuff. However, I can’t see him ever making something fluffy like Ocean’s 11 or zany like The Informant!.
Thanks for playing along Sam. I think we’ve nearly exhausted this topic, unless someone else is curious to continue it.
Chuck has some interesting thoughts about Soderbergh specifically in his Informant! review:
http://www.bowens-cinematic.com/?p=1240
As I said in my comment to him, he does a great job of pointing out the flaws in Soderbergh’s approach, but I stop short of having that be a problem for me.