Author Topic: Next in line for Soderbergh  (Read 19110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2008, 12:30:36 AM »
0
Soderbergh: Fourth ‘Ocean’s’ Movie Unlikely Due To Bernie Mac’s Passing
Source: MTV

During MTV’s recent conversation with “Che” director Steven Soderbergh, discussion turned to the “Ocean’s” trilogy, all three films of which Soderbergh directed.

So what does the future hold for the venerable franchise? Not much, according to Soderbergh, who said that the loss of one among its ranks might leave another film feeling incomplete. “With Bernie Mac being gone, I don’t think any of us would want to return to that,” he said, referring to the comedian’s untimely passing earlier this year.

Soderbergh is one of the most versatile directors in Hollywood , having worked steadily (and interchangeably) as both a crowd-pleaser and art-house auteur since making his directorial debut in 1989 with “Sex, Lies and Videotape.”

Though he has since moved on to bigger and more personal projects, specifically his new, four-hour chronicle of the life of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, he admits that he misses the days when he could pal around with the likes of Clooney, Pitt and Don Cheadle. “It’s sad because that was a fun group of people to hang out with,” Soderbergh says.

Still, the director insists that he explored everything he wanted to in the three existing films. “I was done [anyway],” Soderbergh confesses, adding that he enjoyed the chance to experiment in a way he hasn’t even been able to do in his more eccentric or off-the-radar projects. “I got to play on those movies visually in a way that I don’t normally.” (We can only assume he’s referring to the rare challenge of making Matt Damon look unattractive.)
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2009, 09:12:09 PM »
0
Soderbergh scripts 'Tot Mom'
Source: AP

Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh has written a play about the case of slain Florida toddler Caylee Anthony, whose mother Casey is charged with killing her.

Australia's Sydney Theatre Company plans to stage "Tot Mom" in December. Oscar winner Cate Blanchett and her husband are artistic directors of the prestigious group.

Soderbergh based the play on court documents and excerpts from the HLN show "Nancy Grace," which highlighted the investigation.

Casey Anthony has pleaded not guilty. The toddler's remains were found in December 2008.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Respect: +53
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2009, 01:32:59 PM »
0
Ha!

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +190
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2009, 04:23:03 PM »
0
Seriously, Soderbergh is pretty much just real life trolling now. It's fucking awesome.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2011, 05:30:45 PM »
0
Steven Soderbergh Is Doing Second Unit Shooting On ‘Hunger Games’
Source: Playlist

While retirement is still in the cards for Steven Soderbergh, the director moves to his own interests and impulses and if anything, his always full calendar proves he likes to occupied and on the move. But even with that said, we never could have guessed Soderbergh would take on something like this.

Over the past day or so, Twitter has revealed that Steven Soderbergh has been spotted on the set of “Hunger Games,” the upcoming young adult book adaptation by Gary Ross. “Soderbergh in the house this weekend!!! very exciting!” tweeted production designer Eddie Mills, while electrician on the film Chrys Blackstone posted, “Holy shit! Just found out that Steven Soderbergh is coming to the #hungergames to direct 2nd Unit. I am so excited this is getting good!” Sources have confirmed with The Playlist, that yes, Soderbergh is second unit directing on “Hunger Games” but it not quite be so random and odd as you might think.

Ross and Soderbergh have actually been friends for years. Soderbergh produced “Pleasantville,” while Ross has often taken a look at Soderbergh’s scripts. Another connection comes in the shape of Phil Messina, a production designer on “Hunger Games” who has also worked on Soderbergh’s “Erin Brockovich,” “Traffic,” “Solaris,” “The Good German,” “Che: Part Two” and ‘Ocean’s’ trilogy of films.

As for Soderbergh’s participation on “Hunger Games” it was required no more than Ross asking for him to come aboard. Considering how ridiculously tight the timeline is on the film—it’s due in theaters in just over seven months—getting Soderbergh to help out is a smart choice. The director is already known to work very, very quickly. How fast? Earlier this year, Matt Damon recounted that during the “Contagion” shoot, Soderbergh would be editing the day’s work into a final cut shape, after filming had wrapped each day. “Steven would have his headphones on, sitting at his laptop. And in about 20 minutes he’d cut together the day’s work. ‘OK,’ he’d say, pull his headphones off and turn the computer around and show us, right there, what we’d shot that day and how it would look on the big screen when the movie comes out. THAT FAST. He’s a FREAK,” Damon said.

For Ross who is moving very fast at is, having someone on the ground who is a friend, who works fast and who Ross knows will deliver what he needs will be a huge asset. We have to say, we pretty much didn’t care at all about “Hunger Games” until now. And yeah, we realize second unit work is not the kind of stuff that bears an auteur signature but at least gives us something to pay attention to other than Peeta/Gale/Katniss trifecta of swoony teen heartache or whatever. “Hunger Games” opens on March 23, 2012. Meanwhile, Soderbergh will head to Venice later this month for the world premiere of “Contagion” before shooting the Channing Tatum-led male stripper pic “Magic Mike” this fall.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
  • Respect: +1588
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2013, 01:23:33 PM »
+4
Steven Soderbergh on Quitting Hollywood, Getting the Best Out of J-Lo, and His Love of Girls
via Vulture
By Mary Kaye Schilling
1/27/13



Steven Soderbergh has directed 26 films since his 1989 debut, sex, lies, and videotape — the behind-closed-doors portrait of yuppie Louisiana often credited with kick-starting the indie-film revolution of the nineties, released when he was only 26. In the 24 years since, he’s been a remarkably prolific chameleon, managing arguably more than any other director of his generation to successfully bounce between the low- and high-budget, not only directing but often editing and shooting his own films, each, in its way, an audacious experiment. In one extraordinary three-year streak — 1998 to 2001 — he directed two noirish classics (Out of Sight, The Limey), pulled an Oscar performance out of Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich), earned an Oscar of his own (Traffic, the same year he was also nominated for Brockovich), and launched a lucrative franchise (Ocean’s Eleven, followed by Twelve and Thirteen). Then in 2011, the seemingly abrupt ­announcement: He wanted to be done making movies by the time he was 50, to focus on painting, among many other things.

A few days before that big birthday, with his mission accomplished (his last theatrical release, Side Effects, comes out next week), Mary Kaye Schilling met with Soderbergh in his office and painting studio near the Flatiron Building, where he talked about cribbing from Lucian Freud, his love of Girls, and why movies don’t matter so much anymore.

So, retirement.
Just to be clear, I won’t be directing “cinema,” for lack of a better word. But I still plan to direct — theater stuff, and I’d do a TV series if something great were to come along.

You said something once about playing baseball when you were growing up. You were obsessive about it, an excellent pitcher, but one day you woke up — I think you were 12 — and you knew you had lost “whatever it is that makes you know you’re better than the other guy.” The next day you played badly, and you never recovered. Is that similar to what’s happening with film?
No. It was a combination of things. I had talked about it in the aftermath of Che.

Was that the nail in the coffin? You’ve said that the two-part, four-hour-plus biopic was not only a bitch to make but that you wish you hadn’t made it.
Well, the first part of that is true. But it wasn’t just that. These things — I can feel them coming on. I can feel it when I need to slough off one skin and grow another. So that’s when I started thinking, All right, when I turn 50, I’d like to be done. I knew that in order to stop, I couldn’t keep it a secret — so many things are coming at you when you’re making films that you need to have a reason to be saying no all the time.

And what was that reason?
It’s a combination of wanting a change personally and of feeling like I’ve hit a wall in my development that I don’t know how to break through. The tyranny of narrative is beginning to frustrate me, or at least narrative as we’re currently defining it. I’m convinced there’s a new grammar out there somewhere. But that could just be my form of theism.

Is it similar to how you were feeling in 1997 when you made the satire Schizopolis — an attempt to “blow up the house,” as you put it?
Yeah. If I’m going to solve this issue, it means annihilating everything that came before and starting from scratch. That means I have to go away, and I don’t know how long it’s going to take. And I also know you can’t force it. I love and respect filmmaking too much to continue to do it while feeling I’m running in place. That’s not a good feeling. And if it turns out I don’t make another one, I’m really happy with this last group of movies. I don’t want to be one of those people about whom people say, “Wow, he kind of fell off there at the end.” That would be depressing.

You’ve made eight remarkably different films since 2009: the super-low-budget drama The Girlfriend Experience, with porn star Sasha Grey; the documentary And Everything Is Going to Be Fine, about the late monologuist Spalding Gray; the corporate farce The Informant!; the disaster flick Contagion; the action picture Haywire; the stripper dramedy Magic Mike; and now the medical thriller Side Effects. You’ve also got the upcoming Liberace biopic, Behind the Candelabra, for HBO. Do they add up to some kind of statement as you head out the door?
Not at all. A couple of them were just happenstance. Haywire started because I got fired off Moneyball and I needed to go to work; I just happened to see Gina Carano on TV and wanted to build a film around her. Magic Mike came out of the blue, and we jammed it in. Side Effects happened because another film, The Man From U.N.C.L.E., blew up. Half were planned, and half were not.

There’s this theory out there that your strategy is “one for you, one for them.” In other words, you do a big film, a studio film, like Erin Brockovich, so you can then make smaller, more experimental films, like ­Bubble, which had no script and was improvised by nonprofessional actors. Would you agree with that?
No. There may be some directors who do that, but anyone who works with me can tell you that I don’t operate that way. I can’t spend two years on a project without being totally excited about it. Any movie I’ve made has been because of the challenge it offered me as a director, because it provides a new canvas. Even the big-budget stuff like the Ocean’s films.

So the studios didn’t pressure you to do Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen after the first one became a massive hit?
No. They didn’t care. We kind of had to talk them into it. Those movies provided a really unique set of opportunities visually. They’re not easy for me to make. The first Ocean’s was, directorially, a lot harder than Traffic. Not even close. But they allowed me to play in a way the other movies don’t. It’s the closest to a comic book as I’ll ever get — I viewed them as like ­Roy Lichtenstein panels, which was really fun. And I’m very happy with them visually. When you look at what passes for a tent pole now, the Ocean’s movies are pretty gentle in terms of their spirit, and I like that about them.

What do you think people mean when they call a film Soderberghian?
I have no idea. But never use that word to describe your movie in a pitch meeting because it won’t get made.

Really? You just made a $7 million film about strippers — Magic Mike — that has earned something like $167 million worldwide.
So pitch the movie as Magic Mike. Otherwise, if you’re using my name, you could mean The Good German.

But you’ve shown an incredible ability for getting films made, particularly the mid-level, character-driven, superhero-and-vampire-free films that conventional wisdom says don’t get made anymore — from the esoteric sci-fi film Solaris to, yes, even a somber, black-and-white movie about post–World War II Germany. How do you account for that?
On the few occasions where I’ve talked to film students, one of the things I stress, in addition to learning your craft, is how you behave as a person. For the most part, our lives are about telling stories. So I ask them, “What are the stories you want people to tell about you?” Because at a certain point, your ability to get a job could turn on the stories people tell about you. The reason [then–Universal Pictures chief] Casey Silver put me up for [1998’s] Out of Sight after I’d had five flops in a row was because he liked me personally. He also knew I was a responsible filmmaker, and if I got that job, the next time he’d see me was when we screened the movie. If I’m an asshole, then I don’t get that job. Character counts. That’s a long way of saying, “If you can be known as someone who can attract talent, that’s a big plus.”

You’ve talked at length about giving actors as much freedom as possible. That’s resulted in a number of performances that have launched, revived, and revitalized careers. In the case of Jennifer Lopez in Out of Sight, you’re responsible for her only good film performance.
It’s not that I never say no; I’m just not trying to control them. I’m looking to amplify and showcase whatever it is about them that I find compelling. You know, my attitude is that all of us have to submit to what the film wants and needs to be. So the best version of the thing is sitting up here, and you have to submit to that.

How do you accomplish that?
I keep the environment pretty relaxed — relaxed but focused. I work with the same people all the time. There’s a form of band humor that develops: inside jokes and references that only a core group of people understand. It’s fun. Some people believe tension is a good creative tool, that you get more out of people if you make them feel insecure. I’m not one of those people, and I don’t want to be around that when I go to work.

Before shooting began on Magic Mike, Matthew McConaughey says he sent you two e-mails full of painstaking details about his character. The first e-mail was nine pages, the second was ten. Your responses were “Sure” and “Go for it.” Is that true?
Matthew understood the part so well and had such good ideas that I had no desire to box him in. So I just said yes to everything, which turned out to be the right way to go. I think the only note I gave him, when I first pitched him the part on the phone, was that his character believed in UFOs.

UFOs?
It wasn’t a way of diminishing the character. It was actually the opposite. My mom was a parapsychologist, so I grew up around that stuff.

You’ve talked in the past about obsessively viewing films for inspiration — like The Battle of Algiers and Z for Traffic. What did you watch for Magic Mike?
Saturday Night Fever was our model. It’s one of those movies people remember differently than what was actually true. Going back, we were startled by how dark it gets. This girl is being raped in the back seat of the car, and Travolta doesn’t really do anything, he just drives around. He does things that you probably wouldn’t want your protagonist doing today.

And what were you watching for your new film, Side Effects, which is set in the psychopharmaceutical world?
Fatal Attraction. I watched that a lot. That’s a very well-directed movie. Adrian Lyne knew exactly what he was doing. The eighties was a terrible decade for American films, with a few exceptions in the independent world. It’s basically when the corporations took over. And one of the few, to my mind, interesting aspects of the decade were these psychological thrillers that popped up. I don’t know why they stopped being made. Maybe they priced themselves out of existence.

The movie is an old-school nail-biter, not a diatribe on anti­depressants, drug companies, and psychotherapy. Still, it takes a pretty dim view of all of those things.
I think if you were to talk to Dr. Sasha Bardey, an adviser on the film, he would tell you that there’s a place for ­SSRIs, but there’s no question that a lot of people are looking for the shortcut. He would also say a combination of prescription meds and therapy can help people who are in a really bad way, but that there’s a difference between those people and the garden-variety feelings of anxiety or depression that most of us go through occasionally because of a set of circumstances.

[Spoiler Alert] In Side Effects, Catherine Zeta-Jones has a sex scene with Rooney Mara, and  your HBO film Behind the Candelabra stars Michael Douglas as Liberace and Matt Damon as his lover. Are you trying to spice up or break up the Douglas-Zeta-Jones marriage?
[Laughs] That was just coincidence. I got the idea of doing a Liberace film when we were making Traffic—so thirteen years ago. Out of the blue, I asked Michael if he would be interested in playing Liberace, and he said yes. He told me later that he thought I was just fucking around with him. I don’t think he understood where this was coming from, and I didn’t either.

Candelabra brings you back to more lighthearted territory. At least it looks like a lot of fun—Michael and Matt making out, for instance.
It was really fun. The world of it was just bananas. It was great to see Michael and Matt jump off the cliff together. Nobody can accuse them of being shy. They just went for it. It’s pretty gay.

Can Douglas sing?
He can sing as well as Liberace, who sort of talked-sang like Rex Harrison.

How did Matt get involved?
He came to do a day of work on Che. I gave him the book Behind the Cabdelabra, by Scott Thorson, and said, See if you’re interested in playing Scott. Matt said yes, but when Michael had a little gathering at his house for a brunch—it was literally the day before shooting started—I could sense Matt was anxious. He said, I’m not sure where we’re going with this guy. I told him to just show up to work the next day, get into his outfit, and put the hair on. It was one of those things where there wasn’t anything to say—I didn’t know what string of words to put together to explain it to him.  It was about the physicality of just being there. From that point it would be obvious what had to be done. And it was. By the second day he said he felt good, and by the end of the first week he was totally dialed in.

Are you disappointed that it’s not being released in theaters?
Not at all. After Warner Bros. put it in turnaround, we showed it to every studio in town. No one wanted it, even though we only needed $5 million.

That seems inconceivable—no, stupid.
It was crazy. But HBO was immediately into it, and the experience was great from beginning to end.

John Huston, one of your influences, said that the ideal film “would be as though the reel were behind one’s eyes and you were projecting it yourself, seeing what you wish to see.” It reminded me of watching your movies. I can almost feel your impatience, like you can’t get close enough to what you’re shooting. It’s almost as if you want to be the film.
Right. I wish it all happened faster. When I get stuck, I slow everything down, I send everyone away. I know, from experience, that you can’t rush it. The opposite is that when you’ve figured it out, you can’t move fast enough.

People tell stories about Hitchcock, that for him the shooting part was not fun. I don’t believe he was as bored by shooting as he and others claim; for me, there’s nothing more fun than watching a performer do something you don’t expect. But I understand what he means: The exciting part is the idea, and then the execution of it sometimes is just laborious.

What do you consider the most important thing about the execution?
That we’ve made sure to take advantage of all the opportunities that the story provides. I want to feel we came out the other end of it considering all the options. The worst feeling in the world would be if we weren’t rigorous enough. Contagion was a tricky one. We overhauled the movie in postproduction, cutting 45 minutes of material. And it was because we were trying to do two things. Take advantage of what that subject had to offer while avoiding disaster-movie clichés—we had a list we refused to do: Can’t show the president. No helicopter shots. You can’t go somewhere and show people suffering where our characters haven’t been. Those restrictions made us think laterally, which was good.

The DVD for your 1999 crime film The Limey includes an exceedingly entertaining director commentary with screenwriter Lem Dobbs, who berates you for screwing up his script through cutting or rewriting.
I’m glad I got to work with Lem again on Haywire, because that’s a fairly typical exchange for us. It’s not anger—he’s more incredulous than he is angry. I enjoy those conversations, because he’s very bright, he’s seen everything, and he has a strong point of view.

His chief criticism is that you favor style over substance, that you’d rather show a detail than an emotion. He’s not the only person to say that about your films.
That’s a reflection of my personality, probably, and I would argue that some of the things I’ve done that frustrated people upon a first viewing, ten or fifteen years later you’re happy that they’re that way. I remember describing making movies as a form of seduction and that people should look at it as though they’re being approached at a bar. My whole thing is, when somebody comes up to you at a bar, what behavior is appealing to you? And there are certain things that I’m not willing to do to get a reaction.

Like what? Pander?
It’s not pandering so much as being obvious. Do you want to hang out with someone who has the most obvious reaction to everything that happens? That’s boring! And when I see a movie that’s doing the obvious thing all the time, it’s frustrating.

Your 1999 book, Getting Away With It, is a combination of your own diaries from that time and interviews with director Richard Lester, whose films—like A Hard Day’s Night and The Knack … And How to Get It—were major influences on you. At one point you complained to him: “I feel like a codger saying ‘It’s never been this bad,’ but I really think it’s never been this bad … People who make dumb movies that make a lot of money are now treated with the kind of respect that used to be reserved for people who made good movies.” You must be apoplectic now.
It’s true that when I was growing up, there was a sort of division: Respect was accorded to people who made great movies and to people who made movies that made a lot of money. And that division just doesn’t exist anymore: Now it’s just the people who make a lot of money. I think there are many reasons for that. Some of them are cultural. I’ve said before, I think that the audience for the kinds of movies I grew up liking has migrated to television. The format really allows for the narrow and deep approach that I like, and a lot of people … Well, the point is, three and a half million people watching a show on cable is a success. That many people seeing a movie is not a success. I just don’t think movies matter as much anymore, culturally.

Around the same time you also said, “If you go much over two hours, I think you really better have a very good reason.” I was thinking about that as I sat through the big December releases, which seemed to average two hours and 40 minutes.
The thing I also see a lot of is multiple endings—I feel like movies end like five times now! I remember being very conscious of the Lord of the Rings movies having a lot of endings. But I wonder if the audience has come to expect them.

Music has become another of the most abused aspects of filmmaking. I’m mystified by the direction scores have taken in the last ten years. It’s wall-to-wall—it’s the movie equivalent of the vuvuzelas from the last World Cup! I don’t understand it at all. For me, it’s ideal when you can get the music to do something that everything else isn’t doing.

I’ve always appreciated how you don’t use the soundtrack to telegraph emotions; your scores are remarkably subtle. The Informant! was one of the few times you used music conspicuously, but it really worked for that film.
A lot of people had mixed feelings about that score.  Look, it was a very specific choice in the sense that—what I said to [composer] Marvin Hamlisch was, this music is not for the audience. This music is for him [Matt Damon’s character], it’s his soundtrack. For the movie, it worked. But that’s not typically what you’re doing with a score. I think that’s why people reacted ambivalently.

Have you noticed how loud trailers have gotten?
They’re punishing! I’ve cut trailers that don’t do that, and they test badly.  I will point out to the studio that sitting some people in a room and showing them this one trailer is not how they will be seen in a theater, where you get six in a row. I don’t want my trailer to feel like the other five. Their response is always, Look at the numbers. That’s one good thing—well, there have been many good things about working with HBO—but there are no numbers, no focus groups.

What else has gotten worse?
The worst development in filmmaking—particularly in the last five years—is how badly directors are treated. It’s become absolutely horrible the way the people with the money decide they can fart in the kitchen, to put it bluntly. It’s not just studios—it’s anyone who is ­financing a film. I guess I don’t understand the assumption that the director is presumptively wrong about what
the audience wants or needs when they are the first audience, in a way. And probably got into making movies ­because of being in that audience.

But an alarming thing I learned during Contagion is that the people who pay to make the movies and the audiences who see them are actually very much in sync. I remember during previews how upset the audience was by the Jude Law character. The fact that he created a sort of mixed reaction was viewed as a flaw in the filmmaking. Not, “Oh, that’s interesting, I’m not sure if this guy is an asshole or a hero.” People were really annoyed by that. And I thought, Wow, so ambiguity is not on the table anymore. They were angry.

Critics used to have the role of standing up for ambiguity. But you’ve never been a fan of film critics.
It’s what Dave Hickey said: It’s air guitar, ultimately. Was it helpful to read Pauline Kael’s work when I was growing up? Absolutely. For a teenager who was beginning to look at movies as something other than just entertainment, her reviews were really interesting. But at a certain point, it’s not useful anymore. I stopped reading reviews of my own films after Traffic, and I find it hard to read any critics now because they are just so easily fooled. From a directorial standpoint, you can’t throw one by me. I know if you know what you’re doing, and, “Wow, critics”—their reading of filmmaking is very superficial. Look, nothing excites me more than a good film. It makes me want to make something good. But I have certain standards, and I don’t grade on a curve. If you want to be a director, I’m going to treat you like I treat everybody. So it’s frustrating when critics praise things that I feel are not up to snuff.

Do you think it’s deteriorated since Kael?
No. I think her reading of that stuff was pretty superficial as well. She had a great gift for setting movies in cultural context, but what set her apart from most critics—and especially a lot of critics today—was that she was at her absolute best when she loved something. And that was exciting to read. Nowadays, I find critics to be very facile when they don’t like a film, but when they do like something they get tongue-tied.

Do you still see films in theaters, with audiences?
Sure. It’s strange because you’d think there would be a lot of good theaters in Manhattan, but there aren’t. There are a couple, but in general it’s not fun to go out to movies here.

Somehow I don’t think you’re someone who worries about a legacy. But what do you think yours will be?
I have no idea. As Orson Welles said, I’m the bird, you’re the ornithologist.

sex, lies, and videotape sparked the indie-film explosion of the nineties. Could something like that happen again?
It would be hard because movies cost so much to market. I’m encouraged by Video on Demand, which is a very promising distribution method. But it’s much harder for filmmakers now. You’re sort of expected to emerge full-blown. That’s rare. Some people do, but I didn’t. Like I said, you can’t make five films in a row that nobody sees. You’d be in movie jail. I feel really lucky that I got to make the mistakes I made and still get to do Out of Sight.

Are there young filmmakers you’re excited about?
Shane Carruth. He did the film Primer, and he’s got a terrific new movie at Sundance. And I’m acting as a presenter on the new Godfrey Reggio film [Visitors], which is exciting. I mean, this is a guy who doesn’t build a film based on other things he’s seen, like I do. It’s his own thing.

For a filmmaker as prolific as you are, what do you make of Terrence Malick’s 30-years-in-the-making Tree of Life?
Everyone works in their own way. And as is often the case with people who are unique, the problem isn’t Terrence Malick or Quentin Tarantino, the problem is all the people who came after them and want to be Terrence Malick and Quentin Tarantino. But that’s the way it’s always been.

I once asked Tarantino if he would change anything in any of his films. He said, “No. It wouldn’t be in the film if I didn’t want it there.” That doesn’t sound like something you would say.
Well, I’m remaking—it’s been a long process—but I’m overhauling Kafka completely. It’s funny—wrapping a movie 22 years later! But the rights had reverted back to me and Paul Rassam, an executive producer, and he said, “I know you were never really happy with it. Do you want to go back in and play around?” We shot some inserts while we were doing Side Effects. I’m also dubbing the whole thing into German so the accent issue goes away. And Lem and I have been working on recalibrating some of the dialogue and the storytelling. So it’s a completely different movie. The idea is to put them both out on disc. But for the most part, I’m a believer in your first impulse being the right one. And I certainly think that most of the seventies directors who have gone back in and tinkered with their movies have made them worse.

Are you entirely satisfied with any of your films?
Out of Sight. It’s less flawed than the others. Or The Informant! As I look at those two, I feel like I don’t know what else I would do.

Are there many films you wanted to make that didn’t happen?
Less than a handful. There are tons of excuses you can make for something not happening. It’s a very imperfect process, getting a movie made. And I’m one of those people who just ignores that stuff. The film doesn’t have to be perfect. The deal doesn’t have to be perfect. I’ll reverse engineer into whatever box we have so that we can do it and do do it—less money, less time, whatever. I’m looking for reasons to say yes. But, sometimes, nothing works.

Like Confederacy of Dunces. Whatever happened to that?
I ended up walking away. We had this lawsuit over the rights [against Scott Rudin and Paramount pictures in 1998], and we got the project back, and at that point—it was a good lesson to learn, actually, because I realized once we got it back that my enthusiasm had been beaten out of me. Now it was an obligation, as opposed to something that I wanted to do. I don’t know what’s happening with it. I think it’s cursed. I’m not prone to superstition, but that project has got bad mojo on it.

We should talk about your painting, since, well, we’re surrounded by your paintings! A portrait of Samuel Beckett, a panel of vivid stripes in the Color Field style. Looking at your work, I can see you’re not a beginner—your fluency with different styles is impressive. You’ve been drawing since you were a child, right?
Yes, and both my parents did, too. But it wasn’t until I was older that I started looking at visual art closely. What’s exciting is to feel at the very beginning of something. It’s also terrifying starting from scratch, but panic has always energized me. It’s the same process as anything: identifying who your heroes are, figuring out what they did, and then just going and doing it. I can stare at my Lucian Freud book for hours and hours, but at a certain point you have to go to the wall and imitate. So it’s very basic right now: Can I make things look the way I want them to look? That’s where I’m at right now.

I get the sense that, as with film, motivation is not an issue.
I was watching one of those iconoclast shows on the Sundance Channel. Jamie Oliver said Paul Smith had told him something he hadn’t understood until very recently: “I’d rather be No. 2 forever than No. 1 for a while.” Just make stuff and don’t agonize over it. Stop worrying about being No. 1. I see a lot of people getting paralyzed by the response to their work, the imagined result. It’s like playing a Jedi mind trick on yourself, and Smith is right. That’s the way I’ve always approached films, the way I approach everything. Just make ’em.

What are you gravitating toward as a painter?
I go back and forth between portraits and abstracts. I’m not really interested in landscapes or still life. I’m more attracted to faces. In fact, whenever I think of a film I’m about to make, I see a face with a certain expression on it. For my photography, I’ve been studying the work of Duane Michals. He’s famous for these photo ­sequences, which tell stories in a cinematic way. I bought a few of his books, and I’ve begun to think about sequences of my own that suggest a narrative.

I’m always curious to hear how something was made—though I have no interest in why an artist did something, or what his work means. Like with Jackson Pollock: I’m always interested in what kind of paint and canvas he used, I just don’t want to know what he meant. You’re supposed to expand your mind to fit the art, you’re not supposed to chop the art down to fit your mind.

Given how often you layer and deconstruct scenes in your films, I’m curious if you’ve ever worked in collage. Maybe I’m being too literal.
Actually, I’ve got a big collage in L.A. I was sitting in an airport reading Us Weekly one day, and I realized all the hours of my life I’d spent reading tabloid magazines. I thought: I can’t have wasted all that time! So I spent six months building this six-foot-by-nine-foot collage of people on the red carpet. It was really fun.

You’ve spent hours of your life reading Us?
That shit is made to be read in an airport!

Do you have a fantasy of what your typical post-cinema day will be?
A little bit of everything. I’m really looking forward to reading a book, finishing it, and picking up another one.

Based on a list you put together two years ago—of everything you read and watched between April 2010 and March 2011—you had no problem reading while you were making films. What are you reading now?
I tend to alternate between fiction and nonfiction. I just finished a wonderful novel by Paul Murray called Skippy Dies. Right before that, I finished Tony Fletcher’s book about the Smiths. They generated a lot of good music in a short time, then kind of burned out and crashed. I recently reread three Raymond Chandler novels, which were amazing all over again. I literally don’t think he uses more than 200 different words. Of all the arts, I think the novel comes closest to being inside another person’s head. Probably because none of it is being literalized; you’re creating the images based on what you’re reading, so you’re never “wrong.”

So painting, reading. Given your work ethic, that probably adds up to half a day.
I’m importing this liquor from Bolivia: Singani. Technically it’s a brandy. I was turned onto it while I was doing Che and everybody on the crew got hooked.  You don’t get that burn in your throat like you do with most hard liquor, so it’s dangerous. You can drink it like water and then you’re invisible.

You’ll be the U.S. distributor?
Yeah. That took five years. There’s also at least one non-fiction book that I’m working on. Another filmmaking book. And I’m working on a play with Scott.

Is the Cleopatra musical with Catherine Zeta-Jones still happening?
Yeah.  And I’m working on a play with Scott [Burns, who wrote Side Effects].

Mike Nichols has been a mentor pretty much since you started…
He’s a good problem solver. I try not to make it a burden. I try to pick the right time to get his reaction.

I imagine he’ll be particularly helpful as you move from film to theater.
We’ve talked about what skill set is transferable from one to the other. But whatever I do in the theater, the pieces have to be original pieces. In order for me to take advantage of what I can do, it would be pointless for me to do straight plays or revivals. The projects have to be something that I’ve been involved in creating from scratch, so I can use the sensibility I’ve developed as a filmmaker. I don’t have the background in pure stage craft.
I just saw this great production at the Irish Rep—“A Celebration of Harold Pinter,” starring Julian Sands.  I like Pinter a lot, maybe because his work reminds me of my own home growing up. There was all this unspoken heaviness going on, but everything happened off camera. We knew my parents weren’t getting along, but they kept it to themselves, which was in fact a very generous thing for them to have done. And good for my career!

Was it classic WASP behavior?
No. My father was Swedish and Irish and my mother was Italian with a little Irish in there as well. They were just very different people. I’m a blend of both of them. My mom does not think in a linear way. She’d be very comfortable in this room [he gestures to the organized chaos of his studio, crowded with canvases, painting supplies and cardboard boxes]. This is not what my dad’s office looked like. My father was a teacher and an intellectual—linear, rational, organized, hard-working. I got something from both of them, but I was closer to my father growing up so it took awhile to realize I was like my mother too. That dichotomy is featured in everything I’ve done.

What TV do you watch?
Pretty much what you’d expect: Breaking Bad. Can’t wait for that next season. Mad Men. Boss. I feel very lucky because David Fincher sent me advance episodes of House of Cards. I’ve got three to go, and I’m totally hooked. What I like about all those shows is that there’s an aesthetic that’s adhered to no matter who is directing it. They have rules, there’s a tool kit. I don’t like seeing stuff where there’s no coherence to the choices that are being made. And all those shows are shot like movies. That train-robbery episode in the last season of Breaking Bad? They had like eight days to shoot that episode. That’s good shit! And House of Cards is the most beautiful thing you’ve seen on a screen. Oh, and I watch Girls.

You fit right into the Girls demo, which includes a large percentage of men in their forties and fifties.
Really?

Must be the butt-fucking. Many of your films—beginning with sex, lies—have been about communication and miscommunication and the noisiness of the world and the destruction of language, which has only been exacerbated by Twitter. So I’m wondering: Do you tweet?
I created a sort of shadow name that I’ve posted a few things on. Like anything, it’s a tool. What is it going to be used for? Is there some aspect of it that can be positive? I guess the answer is maybe. I look at the young woman from Pakistan, Malala Yousafzai, who was shot by the Taliban for advocating that girls go to school. It’s hard to believe something like that can still happen, but I look at that and think, Is this technology a way to generate enough outrage that some change will occur? I don’t know.

One thing I do know from making art is that ideology is the enemy of problem-solving. Nobody sits on a film set and says, “No, you can’t use green-screen VFX to solve that because I’m Catholic.” There’s no place for that, and that’s why I’ve stopped being embarrassed about being in the entertainment industry, because I’m surrounded by intelligent people who solve problems quickly and efficiently, primarily because issues of ideology don’t enter into the conversation.

That’s a 180-degree turn from fifteen years ago, when you called the film business the silliest in the world.
After making a lot more films, I realized that the movie and TV business is, for all its inefficiencies, one of the best-run big businesses we have. It’s very transparent, financially, and the only business I know of that successfully employs trickle-down economics: When movies and shows make money, the profits go right back into making more movies and shows, because the stock price is all about market share. And these people excel at problem-solving—that’s 99 percent of the job. I look at Hurricane Katrina, and I think if four days before landfall you gave a movie studio autonomy and a 100th of the billions the government spent on that disaster, and told them, “Lock this place down and get everyone taken care of,” we wouldn’t be using that disaster as an example of what not to do. A big movie involves clothing, feeding, and moving thousands of people around the world on a tight schedule. Problems are solved creatively and efficiently within a budget, or your ass is out of work. So when I look at what’s going on in the government, the gridlock, I think, Wow, that’s a really inefficient way to run a railroad. The government can’t solve problems because the two parties are so wedded to their opposing ideas that they can’t move. The very idea that someone from Congress can’t take something from the other side because they’ll be punished by their own party? That’s stupid. If I were running for office, I would be poaching ideas from everywhere. That’s how art works. You steal from everything. I must remember to tweet that I’m in fact not running for office.

Okay, so here’s your chance: What is the efficient way to run a railroad or a government, as the case may be?
I’m of the minority opinion that presidents should be given more power for less time. Let him—no “her” yet!—put the ideas he campaigned on into play, like a new tax code, and let’s see if it works or fails, quickly. If it doesn’t, then two years later the people who said it would never work get their chance. A watered-down version of an idea isn’t a good indicator of whether it’s a good idea. I read this great book by Daniel Lazare—The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy. The Founders very clearly indicated that they had no idea what the country would be like in 100 years, and if the laws they’d written didn’t work, they should toss them out and write new ones. The problem, of course, is that building or fixing things takes time. Tearing shit down is easy. The analogy I use is that if you throw a party with 40 people, it takes only one asshole to ruin the whole thing. And that’s kind of where we’re at. I wonder what would happen if I started a virtual country. Are there laws that would forbid that? What if I had my own virtual country with 1 million people?

Well, isn’t a film set kind of like your own country for a limited time? You have to be a leader. What did you find to be the hardest part of that?
Being good and clear. Because if you’re being clear, you may not be good because you’re too obviously trying to be clear. If you can find interesting ways to be clear, you’re really onto something.

Have you met any naturally great leaders?
George Clooney. He inspires people. He listens. He’s generous. He’s loyal. He’s funny, which is crucial. He solves problems better than anyone I know. That’s why people keep telling him to run for office, but he’s too smart for that. If there were 500 of him, you could take over an entire country—but of course three weeks later you’d lose it again because of all the parties.

Do you still feel like a pessimist in a country of optimists?
When I hear people talk about 2025, I’m like, this could all turn into Mad Max a lot sooner than that! I was talking to Dr. Larry Brilliant, who consulted on Contagion, and I asked him, “Does the world seem to be spinning out of control as fast as I think it is?” And he said, “Oh, yeah.”

But, look, I don’t want to sound like a bummer. There are lots of things that America does really well.

Like what?
Comedy. We have the best comedy in the world, hands down. I’m very proud, for example, that we have Chris Rock.

Are you a Louis C.K. fan?
I love his show. He seems like someone who would be fun to know. Seems like. And we do sports entertainment better than anyone. It’s phenomenal—the production values, the computer graphics, the commentators …

What teams do you follow?
I followed the Jets, simply because they were such a train wreck this season. But I follow stories more than teams—stories like Robert Griffin III or Colin Kaepernick.

Do you watch basketball?
I was going to say that the only thing I don’t really watch is basketball. It has to do with my personality, how I’m wired. You can’t make a play in the first quarter of a basketball game that will determine the ultimate outcome the way you can in baseball or football—like if a touchdown is scored in the first quarter, that could conceivably be the only big play of the game. So I can never figure out why I’m supposed to watch the first half of a basketball game. Well, except for the pure athleticism—seeing something like the crazy Blake Griffin dunk from last year.

Any other American achievements you’d like to endorse?
We produce the best pet food! I’ve traveled the world, and I’ll go to the mat on that one. When I open the cans for my cats—our cats—my mouth waters. You could serve the stuff on a cracker.

What brand are we talking here?
Fancy Feast. It comes in individual little trays that peel open. I think they’re even called appetizers. This is the cat equivalent of eating at Nobu every night. So that’s three things we lead the world in. Pretty good, right? America, fuck yeah!     
   
This conversation has been condensed and edited from two interviews conducted on January 9 and 11.

*This article originally appeared in the February 4, 2013 issue of New York Magazine.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2013, 08:24:08 PM »
+1
I read the whole thing, and it  was "Dr  Larry" Brilliant!

for someone who has lost the will to keep making films,  he's really good at inspiring ppl to go out and make films.

I wish the interviewer had followed up on sodonebergh's claim that movies aren't culturally important anymore. he just glosses over that really quickly like it's a given.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2013, 08:49:06 PM »
0
yes, this is one of the best interviews I've read in a while. last week when I first encountered I reposted on facebook the bit were he talks about katrina, film crews and problem solving. which is very provocative, but a part of me believes this to be true.

72teeth

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
  • noble creature...
  • Respect: +109
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2013, 09:29:10 PM »
0
Soderbergh for Zizek 2014!
Doctor, Always Do the Right Thing.

Yowza Yowza Yowza

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2013, 09:34:55 PM »
0
Steven Soderbergh working on 12-hour adaptation of ‘The Sot-Weed Factor’
Source: EW

Let’s just say Steven Soderbergh’s idea of retirement doesn’t include a lot of shuffleboard. The Oscar winning director, who has said that the Liberace biopic Behind the Candelabra (airing May 26 on HBO) will be his last conventional feature film for the time being, tells EW that he is now at work developing a 12-hour miniseries based on John Barth’s 1960 novel The Sot-Weed Factor.

“I’ve had this on my shelf for a while,” says Soderbergh. “I was going to do it as a movie, but I couldn’t figure it out. So now I’ve had it adapted as 12 one-hour episodes.” Set in the late 1600s, the satirical story follows an English poet who moves to Maryland to take over his father’s tobacco farm. A 1960 New York Times review of the book called it “a bare-knuckled satire of humanity at large” that is “so monstrously long that reading it seemed nearly as laborious as writing it.” In other words, this isn’t exactly The Da Vinci Code.

According to Soderbergh, the real challenge on this project is figuring out a way to bring the epic period piece to the screen without an oversize budget. He says he’s found a daring, outside-the-box solution — don’t forget, this is the same guy who has shot movies with no script, no linear structure, and a porn star in the lead role — but he’s not quite ready to reveal it yet. “I think I’ve come up with a solve to do it cheaply. It’s bold. If it works, it’ll be super cool. And if it doesn’t, you won’t be able to watch ten minutes of it,” he says. “I don’t want to make a f—ing $85 million, 12-hour comedy set in the [1600s]. That’s why I started thinking this way.”

Whether that means the movie will air on TV or become a web-distributed series, the director doesn’t know — though he was a fan of his pal David Fincher’s House of Cards, which broke ground this year as Netflix’s first foray into flashy, high-profile scripted content. Either way, Soderbergh says he’s interested in pursuing a distribution contract that’s every bit as unusual as his top-secret concept for the project. “I’ll be interested to see what kind of deal I can make that’s good: Not getting paid up front, but participating and owning it in some meaningful way if it works. If I agree that I’m going to make this thing as lean and mean as possible, what do I get for that? Everything is changing so fast, there may be some new way of skinning the cat that I don’t even know about,” he says.

Sot-Weed isn’t the only title on the director’s docket: He’s also adapting last summer’s hit Magic Mike into a stage show (“It’s definitely happening. We’ve had meetings about it and it’s moving forward,” he confirms), developing his long-rumored Cleopatra rock musical (“I may at least start workshopping that next year”), and getting ready to direct a play written by Contagion and Side Effects screenwriter Scott Z. Burns. But don’t call him the Boy Who Cried Retirement. “I’ve been very specific that this applies to movies,” he says. “I didn’t say I would stop working. I’m too restless to sit around.”
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
  • Respect: +1588
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2013, 05:08:25 PM »
+1
...Info on His Latest Twitter Novella
via NoFilmSchool

Though Soderbergh is apparently done with filmmaking, he is turning to new media to continue his output, and is currently writing a novella via his ‘secret’ Twitter, entitled Glue. Published up to chapter seven, it’s a second-person account of a journey through Amsterdam and Paris, seeking a mysterious drug aptly named “#&%#.” He’s not quite done with the visual storytelling medium, however, as his latest novella includes obscured and impressionistic photos alongside some of the tweets.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2013, 11:52:39 AM »
0
Obscure T-Shirts, Movie Memorabilia and Bolivian Liquor: What You Can Find on Steven Soderbergh's Strange New Website
Source: indieWire

Steven Soderbergh. Steven Soderbergh recently retired from filmmaking, but not without directing three well-received films in the past two years ("Magic Mike," "Side Effects" and "Behind the Candelabra".  He also stirred up the film community with a rousing keynote at the San Francisco Film Society.

And now Soderbergh has launched his new website, Extension765.com, which is billed as a "one-of-a-kind marketplace from Steven Soderbergh."

One-of-a-kind, indeed.

In an interview with Reuters back in February, Soderbergh explained that the name of the site is a reference to the movie "The Conversation":  "Whenever Gene Hackman calls to find out what's going on, Harrison Ford answers the phone and says, 'extension 765.'"

There are a number of elements to the site.  First, an eBay-like auction site for bits and pieces from Soderbergh's filmmaking past, with proceeds going to the Children's Aid Society of New York. Goods include an "Erin Brockovich" clapper, "Oceans 13" Cannes tickets and an autographed "Solaris" press kit.

Next, we've got some photos Soderbergh took.  These photos, on sale on the site, come with a colorful disclosure:

Full disclosure: the subjects of these polaroids have not been contacted, mostly because I'm sure they would ask to see them all before I put them on sale, and there are hundreds of these things and it would be way too much hassle and, by the way, people are starving and need fresh water and schools so why would somebody want to hold me up? Plus I think technically these may be property of the companies that made the films, but really I'm hoping because the money is going to good causes they won't come after my ass, so you might want to move quickly and not make to much noise about your purchase if you don't want to get me into trouble.

Moving on, Soderbergh's also selling t-shirts, with some in-joke references to businesses in classic films.  In the Reuters interview, he gives away the reference to Black Pony Scotch, saying, "That's a very, very obscure reference from a famous film noir from the 1940s where there is a five-second pan across a table and you see this bottle of Black Pony Scotch."  The film, it turns out is Otto Preminger's "Laura."

The "Swag" page, where at the moment only t-shirts reside, also includes reference to soon-to-come Steven Soderbergh headphones created by RED (as in the cameras) and the novella he's been tweeting.

And then, Soderbergh exposes plans to sell (though not on the web) his own brand of Singani, a Bolivian spirit distilled from muscatel grapes that was introduced to Soderbergh by his "Che" location scout, the producer Rodrigo Bellot.  Included on this page is a video of a roller derby team that doesn't make sense until the last three seconds.

Finally, this Extension 765 thing is maybe possibly a transmedia project?  There's a really difficult-to-understand explanation of something called the Department of Human Engineering, and the site also launched with an incredibly strange memo written by "Office Lady No. 23," in which the owner of the site is implicated in a hit-and-run.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2013, 12:39:35 PM »
0

Moving on, Soderbergh's also selling t-shirts, with some in-joke references to businesses in classic films.  In the Reuters interview, he gives away the reference to Black Pony Scotch, saying, "That's a very, very obscure reference from a famous film noir from the 1940s where there is a five-second pan across a table and you see this bottle of Black Pony Scotch."  The film, it turns out is Otto Preminger's "Laura."


this site is the best thing he's done in ages. the shirt section says there's a reference that is REALLY obscure, which i guess he just gave away in that interview (black pony - laura). which ones we gon' get?

i like Sybil the Soothsayer. it's the first one i got straight away. (network, obv.)

here's the rest:

NY Daily Enquirer - Citizen Kane
18 LU 13 -  the French Connection
Pacific All Risk Insurance - Double Indemnity
Linnekar - i have no idea and neither does google
Susan Alexander Kane - obvious
Fabian Publishing Company - little help?
Parallax Corporation - Parallax View
El Rancho - Kane again
El Macondo Apartments - Chinatown
Fly TGA - google seems to think it's a real thing.. uh..?
Rutland and Co. - Marnie
Perennial Armored Car - The Underneath
Sam Loomis Hardware - Psycho
American Newsreel inc NYC - i'm gonna go with kane.

so there you have it folks. soderbergh is now Comic Book Guy.

i would buy 4 straight away simply for the gimmick factor, cos i'm a manchild, but then there's this:

Quote
Question: Do you ship to an international address?

Answer: We would like to, but we're too lazy. And poor. We have plans to expand shipping to Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia by the end of 2013, but then again we also have plans to buy the state of Rhode Island, and that's more of a priority. Stay tuned for updates.


but since it's only available in the US i imagine my size will still be available by the end of the year, as they will only have sold out of L and XL.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

Reelist

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
  • Respect: +965
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2013, 01:06:48 PM »
+1
Soderbergh exposes plans to sell (though not on the web) his own brand of Singani, a Bolivian spirit distilled from muscatel grapes that was introduced to Soderbergh by his "Che" location scout, the producer Rodrigo Bellot.  Included on this page is a video of a roller derby team that doesn't make sense until the last three seconds.

Rodrigo was my digital filmmaking teacher at 15! He's a pisser, introduced me to Haneke, Brakhage, and most importantly George Kuchar. I haven't kept up with him, but it's cool to see this happening. I hope he gets a piece of the pie. I should go harass him on twitter, maybe he can hook me up with Soderbergh so I can convince him to let me take his job.
You can go to places in the world with pudding. That. Is. Funny.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Next in line for Soderbergh
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2013, 03:47:54 PM »
0
Linnekar - i have no idea and neither does google

Touch of Evil

Fabian Publishing Company - little help?

The Best of Everything

Fly TGA - google seems to think it's a real thing.. uh..?

Airport

American Newsreel inc NYC - i'm gonna go with kane.

Saboteur
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy