Bubble
Steven Soderbergh has two modes as a filmmaker. He seems to fancy himself an avant-garde intellectual artiste, and indulges in experimental, gimmicky one-offs with highly variable success. Though his wacky meta-farce Schizopolis, in which he stars as a mild-mannered dentist with a bizarre doppelganger, holds up 10 years later, I'm not sure the same can be said for Solaris or the nearly-unwatchable, self-obsessed Full Frontal.
Diametrically opposed to this Steven Soderbergh is Mainstream Crowd-Pleaser Steven Soderbergh, the guy behind the cheeky girl power of Erin Brockovich and the schmoozy celebrity travelogues Oceans 11 and Oceans 12.
Quite frankly, it's bizarre that all these movies are made by the same dude. You have to give him credit for diversity, even if a full 50% (if not more) of his films pretty much suck.
The most interesting Soderbergh films, the ones that amount to more than forgettable star vehicles or little-seen indie mindfucks, are the ones that allow him to combine his twin impulses. Stories that are enhanced by Steve's openness and willing to play around with narrative, but that aren't so directionless that they become navel-gazing or shallow.
That combination has allowed for the time-skipping crime saga Out of Sight, the post-modern nihilism of Sex, Lies and Videotape and the claustrophobic despair of Bubble, Soderbergh's latest problematic, partially successful experimental film.
Oh, yes, Bubble has its odd, Soderbergh-ian touches. First of all, the film has made headlines because the film opens in select theaters tomorrow and comes out on DVD this Tuesday. It's the first American film by a major director to premiere simultaneously in both formats like that.
This has nothing to do with the movie itself. I just thought I'd mention it up front because it's the only thing most people (myself included, before tonight) know about the film.
The major gimmick that is notable about the movie itself is the all-amateur cast. Screenwriter Coleman Hough (who previously wrote the far-sillier Full Frontal for Soderbergh) came up with a rough outline of a story, and had the cast of non-professional actors fill in the details from their own lives. So when Kyle (Dustin Ashley) discusses the anxiety and panic disorder that afflicted him throughout high school, that's not a pre-scripted quirk to give the character depth. He's talking about something he's really been through.
But this is no documentary. The plot is entirely fictional. Martha (Debbie Doebereiner) and Kyle slave away in a West Virginia doll factory (the film was entirely shot in real locations in an Ohio/West Virginia border town). Their uneventful lives of working and sleeping are interrupted when newcomer Rose (Misty Dawn Wilkins) starts at the factory. She and Kyle hit it off, which causes Martha some consternation. Eventually, the conflict will turn violent.
There are no surprises, really, in Hough's screenplay, and the actors aren't really up to big emotional payoffs, so the movie opts for a still monotone. It sounds boring, and it is at times, but Soderbergh and his actors keep finding ways to bring you back into the carefully-observed lives of these three lonely souls.
In one of the documentaries on the DVD, featuring discussions with the cast members about how they worked their actual selves into the film, Doebereiner explains why she thinks the film is called "Bubble." Her explanation is that Martha's life is like a bubble, tightly sealed to keep out anything disturbing or unpleasant. And then Rose comes along and pops the bubble.
I totally disagree. Which is interesting, because Debbie starred in the film, so you think she'd know what it's about, but there you go. I saw the film as a statement about being trapped, not just being trapped in your life, but physically trapped. Soderbergh (who shot the film under his usual pseudonym, Peter Andrews) constantly frames his actors in tight spaces, shoved into corners or behind shelves or lost amidst large, heavy machinery.
And, of course, there's the fact that much of the film occurs in a doll factory. Not only is it a cold, mechanical factory-type setting, but they create little people and neatly stack them, before shoving them into boxes. We get a lot (a lot!) of shots of dolls being made and packaged, just to really solidify the idea of human beings boxed and moved about.
The film really has an obsession about small, cramped locations, from the wood-paneled walls of Kyle's boxy room to the frequent shots of blocky, faceless buildings to the close-ups of Rose's daughter's miniature doll furniture. These people live and work in these pre-determined, small, confined spaces from which there is no escape. As if programmed, they move from one small box to another, driving around between them in a small car. Their entire world is a bubble, and Debbie might think the bubble pops, but from what I can see, her character's bubble just gets smaller and smaller throughout the film.
It's pretty obvious, to me, that the film is kind of, well, judging these people. Not in a "dirty sinful" kind of way...He's not saying they're bad people. Quite the opposite...Soderbergh and Hough definitely demonstrate empathy and understanding towards these people. But the movie they've created has an opinion about their lives, and the prognosis is pretty negative. Whether they meant for it to come across this way or not, it's pretty clear the filmmakers see these characters as trapped, as isolated, as sad, as despondent, as lonely, and as more than a little hopeless. They are used as examples of human beings who have become disconnected from reality, from the joy and pleasure of being alive. Now, granted, the movie tries to universalize these concepts, but it wouldn't be very flattering to hear that a filmmaker found you and your situation the perfect example of a life unfulfilled.
Did his actors know what they were getting into? I mean, considering that they put details from their actual, real lives into this film? I'm not sure...
As far as their performances, they all do pretty well, particularly Doebereiner, who has the hardest role. Actually, I take that back. K. Smith, who plays Rose's ex-boyfriend (and baby daddy) Jake isn't very good. Most of the actors choose to underplay their roles, to retreat inward, making for an entire film full of introverts. That's fine (and pretty accurate, as there are a lot more introverts in the general population anyway), but when everyone's playing their roles small and subtle, and one guy's going over the top and playing it big, there's a problem.
Even more problematic is Soderbergh's direction. Though he's taken on an odd subject and novice collaborators, his choices throughout Bubble are peculiar, muddled, sometimes overblown and surprisingly conventional. There are lots of unnecessarily long musical montages set to Robert Pollard (the man behind the awesome Guided by Voices) noodling around on guitar. As I indicated before, the frequent doll-making shots become excessive and tiresome. And a series of scenes in which Soderbergh isolates Doebereiner in white light while shadowing the surroundings in darkness are amateurish and silly. The first time it happened, about five minutes into the movie, I nearly gave up and turned the damned thing off.
So, once again, a mixed bag from the King of the Indie Mixed Bag. Bubble is an interesting film, a change of pace, and I'm glad I saw the thing, but it hardly represents the significance or artistry of which this guy is theoretically capable. Aren't there any more Elmore Leonard novels that need adapting or something?
1 comment:
Yeah, maybe "theoretically" was the wrong word. I'm a considerable fan of some of the films that you mention (though definitely not "Eleven," "Brockovich," or "Solaris." And I have to say that, though I thought it was great the first time I saw it, "The Limey" doesn't really hold up that well for me.
What I was getting at is that he's a guy whose potential is clear, but who has only made a few really worthwhile films. Is he simply too easily distracted by gimmicry or side-projects as a producer? I'm not sure...
Post a Comment