The LA Times' 24 Frames blog quotes Matt Damon on Steven Soderbergh's plan to retire from directing after three more films:
"He wants to paint and he says he's still young enough to have another career," Damon said. "He's kind of exhausted with everything that interested him in terms of form. He's not interested in telling stories. Cinema interested him in terms of form and that's it. He says, 'If I see another over-the-shoulder shot, I'm going to blow my brains out.' "¹ [...]
"After I worked with Clint [Eastwood] I went back and said, 'Look, Clint is having a blast and he's going to be 80 years old.' And Steven says back, 'Yeah, but he's a storyteller and I'm not,'" Damon recounted. "If you're an actor or a writer or someone working in film, it's such a waste. For me, I'm going to spend the next 40 years trying to become a great director and I will never reach what he's reached. And he's walking away from it."
- - - -
¹ I know the feeling.
25 Comments
This makes me sad, and it also somewhat confuses me. I just watched Bubble last night, and while I didn't love it, I found it to be quite good and interesting and, most of all, the sign of a unique voice. In the commentary you can tell he's really excited about that kind of filmmaking and he wants to apply what he's learned to bigger budget films (you also get to hear Romanek gush about the film).
The Informant was one of my favorites of last year, and if he's really bored, it sure didn't show.
I didn't know Damon wanted to become a director. I look forward to seeing what he does.
I understand where he's coming from, but if he's really had the opportunity to explore EVERYTHING that interested him in terms of form, then he's probably the first director in the history of the medium who has reached that level of self-actualization. If he's saying that he just can't explore the form the way he'd like to because of the constraints of Hollywood, then it's a total cop-out because he could explore so much more on his own dime and it would probably still be a less expensive hobby than, for instance, sailing.
A lot of directors probably reach a plateau of self-actualization without realizing it, or due to bad luck. Still, I'm glad they kept it on.
Anyway, that's too bad. Soderbergh can be one of the best Hollywood directors around...the first Ocean's movie was one of the best slick, glossy, mechanical, star-driven movies of last decade.
Here's hoping it's all talk! And while we're at it, if Tarantino really does quit when he's 60, I'll blow my brains out.
Eyes rolling.
It's like when some rock star insists that he doesn't really want to be a rock star, that what he really wants to do is paint, paint, paint, and that he's always felt this way.
Yeah. 'Kay.
But as far as wasting talent goes, hey, I'd rather see somebody throw his talent away on mediocrity than on pulling the ol' Kurt Cobain or something.
"It's like when some rock star insists that he doesn't really want to be a rock star, that what he really wants to do is paint, paint, paint, and that he's always felt this way."
Some actually do it. Captain Beefheart is one example. :D
Good for him.
Soderbergh has always been a hit or miss figure for me, but I'll miss his willingness to tinker.
But in many ways I'm glad to see a director quit while he's ahead. Looking at the work of most good directors, there's a general decline after a certain point; probably because, like Soderbergh, they've run out of things that they're interested in exploring. Think how much Woody Allen has tarnished his reputation by releasing ten years worth of mediocre films.* If Soderbergh is bored while making his movies, then I'll probably be bored while watching them. I sincerely hope that he finds creative fulfillment in new areas.
*Allen's reputation is only tarnished for the time being. When his body of work closes, we'll give it some time, and then ignore most everything post-"Sweet and Lowdown", choosing instead to remember an original American filmmaker.
I think Soderbergh is serious, too. The evidence is right there in his films. "Che" is, above all, a fascinating formal experiment in two enormous complementary chunks. And even a "commercial" film like "The Informant!" takes bold stylistic risks. I mean, who else is going to take a serious work of nonfiction and turn it into an inside-out sitcom, with supporting parts played by comedians? Whether you think his films work or not (I'd say his batting average is pretty good -- perhaps because he learned things from early failures/flops like "Kafka"), he's not predictable.
Care to comment on the "over the shoulder shots" Jim? Please share your feelings
They're a standard device, used to death (especially by bad or unimaginative directors) -- though the use of them isn't, in itself, a sign of a lousy director. However, when revisiting Eric Rohmer's movies earlier this year, I remember writing about how fresh they seemed -- in part because he hardly ever uses over-the-shoulder shots, even though most of his scenes are one-on-one conversations. He prefers to get both of his actors in the same frame, so that we can see both sides of the conversation at once, the listening as well as the speaking.
Yes, I went through a big Rohmer re-watching and discovering period last year and I couldn't place why they felt so thrilling visually (besides Nestor Almendros' use of light), even though most scenes are just people talking, and it comes down to doing away with the whole shot/reverse shot thing. Most scenes in his films are in one shot, and the ones that aren't cut sparingly. We're allowed to absorb the (plentiful) dialogue and not be distracted by the jumping back and forth.
It's also something I've found so thrilling about Soderbergh's work in the past 5 years. When he's employed over the shoulder shots, they're there for a reason. Sometimes it's unavoidable, and serves the scene, but for the most part he's preferred a more abstract, expressionistic style that has made films like The Girlfriend Experience so interesting.
This is also a reason I can't get behind year-end favorite Winter's Bone. It's filled with southern cliche, and it's shot indifferently. It's singles, back and forth, coverage, coverage, coverage. It's boring and so limited in what it's able to do for the form and the film.
there's a much deeper problem out there, which is use-pride, a central facet of homo faber, the sentient biped human craftsperson. for many of these directors, in not most, there is lacking a sense of relevance that must be circular: would they pay 12-21 dollars and take valuable time out of their lives to watch what they make. you know this answer isn't easy. listen to kosinski talk and watch his film: he'd NEVER see tron as a casual user of film. soderbergh too, sure he'd sit through che, but moneyball? not even close, he'd rather sit down baseball players and document their cadences instead of schematically fictionalize it in a riveting, mysterious manner through technique. he's dead to the studio system and his casual experiments like 'girlfriend experience' even reveal this. would randall wallace see secretariat ("I'd take my kids") alone on a cold rainy day? with the clear sterility of product these days, american studio filmmaking has never before been less about discovery and more about delivery. these are a majority of figureheads that no longer have a filmgoers pride for their own work. sure nolan digs watching inception (he can cackle everytime that few spotted his transition from dream-to-reality), and bay surely still gets cranked up for every slowed-down centerpiece, but does fincher really drop into the arc-light late one tuesday just to bask in his pale colors of social network, anonymously soak up the crowd's response. no way. the mechanics don't drive their own cars, they can afford maseratis, and so they stay home and watch kubrick and fellini wondering how they're going to get their next picture made
Wait, what?
I find this very well-written, almost poetic. "but does fincher really drop into the arc-light late one tuesday just to bask in his pale colors of social network, anonymously soak up the crowd's response. no way." Love it.
I think the argument's wrong...although directors like Tarantino maintain a strong interest in film as they go on, I think many and probably most don't stay up to date, and, as you say, focus on making their own (Hitchcock admitted to this in his interview with Truffaut). Asking whether a director would see his own film is asking whether they could view it objectively, which obviously they couldn't.
But you should write short stories or something. I'm serious.
I'm puzzled that he considers himself a formalist -- having made a fair number of pretty straightforward chatty dialogue pictures -- and, compared to Eastwood at least, a non-story-teller, having made so many of his best and most formally interesting works (like the OCEANS films and THE INFORMANT) in the service of complex narratives. And yet I'm not particularly sad to seem him go. Maybe its because the films themselves never felt necessary to me. Maybe that's what he means when he says he doesn't care about stories. He's not yet found a story that he'd die to tell. In contrast, it would be hard to find someone more formalist than David Lynch, yet even his least accessible films never lack for urgent stories.
Oh no! We're losing a mediocre director! With one or two good movies under his belt ... at best! It's nice to see though that he's smart enough to realize he can't tell a story.
I don't think he's mediocre. I think he's quite good actually. However I wish he hadn't made the two Ocean sequels (although the first one was superb), and I don't have much patience for his experimental films. If retiring means he won't make another experimental film, then that's great with me. But if it means, he won't make another Out of Sight, then I'm disappointed. Even The Informant was IMO a pretty good film. I think it showed that one can experiment with form, but not depart the 'mainstream'.
Jim,
Another great catch with this article. Reading this post really helped me understand what you mean about the differences of story and form. I know you are definitely a student of the latter. I guess my question is how you distinguish between the two. You often talk about form and function being the same thing but are they? In one of the comments above you talk about Soderbergh's creative choices with "The Informant". The element of casting I can agrformal formal stroke but what about his decision to make the film more of a comedy? I usually consider elements of style and tone to have more to do with the story then with cinematic technique. So when you talk about form, are you talking about narrative, film aesthetic, or both?
i think i'm in a small minority of people who consider him a true cinematic genius, i'm consistently blown away by his films, i really don't understand why they inspire such a casual indifference from so many movie-goers, i think he's the greatest director of his generation
he's done so many different styles and genres seamlessly, whether its mainstream or experimental, and he seems so utterly original and unpredictable, each film is completely different from the last, i can't think of any other director who could make a popcorn film like ocean's 11, then something like bubble or the girlfriend experience, he's not trying to self-consciously stick in all these "auteurist" touches, like tarantino does,
he's a chameleon with an incredible level of technical skill, he writes, directs, lights and sometimes edits his own films, his career is just packed full of non-stop cinematic invention, i hope in years to come people will really appreciate just how good he is, i think if he takes a break from cinema for a few years it might re-inspire him, i'm sure he won't quit directing forever
jim, could you give us a summary of what you make of each of his projects?
Soderbergh has grown tired of "form" -- not to be confused with "the form." He's speaking from a deeply existential space here, hinting at a need to explore formless, narrative-less stuff. Abstract expressionism is a nice home for artists with these types of feelings.
Similar reflections regarding form are expressed during the commentary to The Girlfriend Experience. Godard is mentioned, which is interesting. Jean-Bernard Pouy, during his commentary for Godard's 'Pierrot le Fou' (Studio Canal), constantly picks up on the anti-film gestures - that Pierrot's scream at the end is a scream against people who continue to make films in a way that is no longer possible. Essentially Pouy says the film should be considered in light of the politics of the Sixties and the French reception of the American commercialisation of film. Mike Figgis talks at length in an interview, as part of the extras on the DVD for Godard's 'Weekend', about his admiration for the 'theatrical' in Godard's work, and Godard's lack of interest in naturalism in film, saying that he always feels cheated after seeing a film that successfully captured his attention by its emphasis on naturalism. (Adorno wondered whether the representation of reality in films alienated people from their experience of the world or the other way around.) 'The end of cinema', or something similar, is tagged to the end of 'Weekend'. Unsurprisingly it should be then, that Figgis is directing his first opera in London soon. Film reduced to the consumption of a temporary - narrative - distraction is bound to be a disappointing 'form' (the narrative form), especially to anyone who is interested in art's autonomy and freedom from its commodity status as part of a larger cultural industry. Especially if art is to have some connection to larger issues about how things might otherwise be (utopia/politics). 'Che' was of course an investigation of that, within the narrative form - from the point of view of an individual who is driven by the desire to realise the possibility of how life might be otherwise lived.
Still not sure I understand the comment on OTS shots. There are so many individual components that can dictate whether an OTS is "bad" or "good". It's just another piece of film grammar. To deem a type of shot unimaginative is kind of odd to me. There are cases in which an OTS pattern can be more effective than a wider take with the faces of both actors in frame. Sometimes it works the other way around.
As a petty-minded, generally unsuccessful, completely anonymous person of modest means, I am so damn envious. To be able to retire rich, famous, and endowed with Oscars at a relatively young age is an amazingly fortunate outcome. If only I could be so lucky and abundantly talented!
From what I know of Hollywood -- its sleaze and stupidity and desire for 3D superhero sequels -- I'd walk away from it, too, if I were him. Good for Steve.
I can relate. Just because you are good at something doesn't mean that you want to do it for the rest of your life. If he has the financial means to walk away and not look back, why not? Haters gonna hate.
come on man not without another oceans movie.
Sad, at least for viewers. He's got a range unlike any other director, ever. I can't think of anyone else who could have directed Sex, Lies, and Videotape/The Girlfriend Experience, Ocean's 11, Ché, and The Informant!. Individually, yes, but together? An impressive resume. Still, I think his range hurts him in the eyes of critics, who can't find the sort of theme that runs through Bergman.
I think he's gone a long way towards making art and business work together without losing credibility, incorporating the lessons of Andy Warhol without letting camp turn the experience unpleasant. Here's to hoping he gets reinspired, for our sake.
Leave a comment