Intro
The Limey (1999)
I really appreciate that when you sit down and watch a Steven Soderbergh movie, you literally do not know what you're going to get. You also know that whatever you're going to get is well-made and different. I mentioned in my Side Effects post that it was a bad thriller made by people who knew what they were doing. The Limey is a cliché crime drama by people who know what they're doing.
The first immediately noticeable thing about The Limey is the strange editing choices. It will eventually become clear why exactly the movie is edited in that way, but I don't think it's completely successful. It borders on distracting at times. But I have to give him credit for trying something different here, because this is not edited in a way that I've ever seen before. Basically, characters will be having a conversation, and the film will jump to a different scene, jump to a different scene, and go back to the original conversation all in about 10 seconds. Meanwhile, we hear whatever conversation they're having the entire time, throughout all the cuts.
Terence Stamp plays a hard-assed criminal, who is recently released from prison. And Stamp can play hardass like few other old guys can. He's brought to Los Angeles thanks to the death of his daughter, who officially died in a car accident. He doesn't buy it and seeks revenge. He suspects it probably has something to do with Terry Valentine, who is played by Peter Fonda. Valentine is a music producer who is filthy rich and who hangs around all the time with way too young for him girls.
This movie is basically a showcase for Stamp and Fonda, two old pros at the time. And it works. They're both very good. As I said, Stamp is mean mugging the whole time, but he's also sort of funny. The dialogue helps in that respect. Hardly anyone in LA can seem to understand him, because he's from the UK, but also because he seems fond of weird phrases that he has to explain. And Fonda seems like he can play Hollywood sleazeball in his sleep. Other good performances include Luis Guzman and Lesley Ann Warren, who both played friends of the daughter, and try to help "the limey" find out what happened. Amelia Heinle plays Fonda's latest young girlfriend, and at least based on this movie, seems sort of a shame she's wasted on soap operas for the last 20 years.
All in all, it's basically your average crime drama done well, shot in a different way than these movies are usually shot. I'm giving credit to the movie for strange editing with a purpose, but it's distracting enough at times that I'm not giving it my full blown praise. It also has exceptional acting, which certainly seems to be a theme with Soderbergh movies.
3/4 Stars
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Monday, May 25, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 5
Intro
King of the Hill (1993)
What an unfortunate title. Four years after this movie was made, the popular sitcom King of the Hill forever made googling this title impossible, unless you also specified the year it was made or the fact that it was a movie. Making matters worse is that the title isn't really essential or descriptive. You can come up with a better title than this. In Steven Soderbergh's defense, King of the Hill was the title of the memoir this movie is based on, and I assume is a reference to a certain neighborhood of St. Louis.
I had never heard of King of the Hill before I began this project. Not many people have, judging by the fact that it made $1.1 million at the box office. And like I said, once the popular sitcom came around, King of the Hill belonged to them. Unless you're a huge Soderbergh fan or doing what I'm doing, I don't know how you'd even come across this movie. And that's a shame. Because this movie is great.
This movie is set in Depression era St. Louis and despite a limited budget, the movie really immerses you in the setting. It looks and feels like the Depression. And it really feels like St. Louis. I especially enjoyed the multiple references to getting or not getting Pepper Martin's autograph, who you probably don't know if you aren't familiar with Cardinals history. I doubt it was filmed here in my hometown, but since it's set in 1933, it's irrelevant that it's not. It's so far removed from modern day, it's not like you'll notice.
King of the Hill features an extremely young cast. The story puts an unusually high burden on the protagonist of the story, who is featured in 100 percent of scenes I believe. The protagonist in this case means 13-year-old Jesse Bradford, playing Aaron. Relying on such a young kid to essentially make or break your movie is risky, but Bradford is quite good in this role. A very young Adrien Brody is a fellow tenant who helps show Aaron the ropes of how to survive. A 16-year-old Amber Benson and 14-year-old Katherine Heigl also have minor parts in the movie. If casting can be determined by successful careers, holy hell did the casting director knock this one out of the park. Bradford was prominently featured in a movie before, but the rest were pretty much unknowns.
Those aren't the only actors though. There's a friendly teacher played by Karen Allen, most known for Raiders of the Lost Ark, but who has a pretty good film career outside of that. And Elizabeth McGovern plays a prickly prostitute from across the hall, who frequents a man known as Mr. Mungo, played by Spalding Gray. I note Gray because I will be seeing him in another Soderbergh movie and Soderbergh also made a documentary on him. He's fine here, but nothing to indicate Soderbergh's fascination with the man.
This movie is not particularly long, but it spends most of its running time kicking the main character down, and it chronicles how that kicking has forced him to use his smarts and his will to survive. It's so far my absolute favorite of the five movies I've watched and I cannot recommend it enough. It's so under the radar that you can watch the movie on Youtube for free. Watch that movie and enjoy.
4 stars
King of the Hill (1993)
What an unfortunate title. Four years after this movie was made, the popular sitcom King of the Hill forever made googling this title impossible, unless you also specified the year it was made or the fact that it was a movie. Making matters worse is that the title isn't really essential or descriptive. You can come up with a better title than this. In Steven Soderbergh's defense, King of the Hill was the title of the memoir this movie is based on, and I assume is a reference to a certain neighborhood of St. Louis.
I had never heard of King of the Hill before I began this project. Not many people have, judging by the fact that it made $1.1 million at the box office. And like I said, once the popular sitcom came around, King of the Hill belonged to them. Unless you're a huge Soderbergh fan or doing what I'm doing, I don't know how you'd even come across this movie. And that's a shame. Because this movie is great.
This movie is set in Depression era St. Louis and despite a limited budget, the movie really immerses you in the setting. It looks and feels like the Depression. And it really feels like St. Louis. I especially enjoyed the multiple references to getting or not getting Pepper Martin's autograph, who you probably don't know if you aren't familiar with Cardinals history. I doubt it was filmed here in my hometown, but since it's set in 1933, it's irrelevant that it's not. It's so far removed from modern day, it's not like you'll notice.
King of the Hill features an extremely young cast. The story puts an unusually high burden on the protagonist of the story, who is featured in 100 percent of scenes I believe. The protagonist in this case means 13-year-old Jesse Bradford, playing Aaron. Relying on such a young kid to essentially make or break your movie is risky, but Bradford is quite good in this role. A very young Adrien Brody is a fellow tenant who helps show Aaron the ropes of how to survive. A 16-year-old Amber Benson and 14-year-old Katherine Heigl also have minor parts in the movie. If casting can be determined by successful careers, holy hell did the casting director knock this one out of the park. Bradford was prominently featured in a movie before, but the rest were pretty much unknowns.
Those aren't the only actors though. There's a friendly teacher played by Karen Allen, most known for Raiders of the Lost Ark, but who has a pretty good film career outside of that. And Elizabeth McGovern plays a prickly prostitute from across the hall, who frequents a man known as Mr. Mungo, played by Spalding Gray. I note Gray because I will be seeing him in another Soderbergh movie and Soderbergh also made a documentary on him. He's fine here, but nothing to indicate Soderbergh's fascination with the man.
This movie is not particularly long, but it spends most of its running time kicking the main character down, and it chronicles how that kicking has forced him to use his smarts and his will to survive. It's so far my absolute favorite of the five movies I've watched and I cannot recommend it enough. It's so under the radar that you can watch the movie on Youtube for free. Watch that movie and enjoy.
4 stars
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 4
Intro
The Informant! (2009)
This is a movie I appreciated more than liked. It's a weird movie. It's a weird movie with a purpose though. It's not being weird for weird's sake, it's being weird to delve you into the main character's mental state. Like I completely understand what Steven Soderbergh is going for in this movie and conceptually it works. The buildup of Mark Whitacre going from seemingly innocuous to losing his mind is well done.
And yet. I found it difficult to like this movie. This is a character study on a character with a mental disease and as such, it's singularly focused on that one character. I think some better characterization on the wife would have went a long way, as she's just a doting wife who doesn't really seem to function as a character. It's based on a real person and in fact was based on a book, a book which I don't imagine focuses on the wife all that often. So the wife was real and maybe they tread lightly there since they didn't want to completely make up a new character there.
Matt Damon is excellent in The Informant! and is responsible for much of the movie's tone. Speaking of tone, I think the score also largely sets the tone. In some cases, I think the score was too wacky. From reviews, I've been able to gather it's a throwback score, but it's still really "knock you over the head this is wacky" which got old at times. Sometimes, it worked, sometimes you wish the movie would tone it down.
Anyway, I think I may like this more on second watch, since a large part of the movie, you're just in the dark about what the director is trying to do. For now, I have to grade it on having watched it once though.
2.5/4 stars
Side Effects (2013)
The best way I can describe Side Effects is that it reminds me of a bad thriller movie, except everyone involved in making it is very good at their jobs. The plot in this is just as convoluted and as ludicrous as those bad thriller movies, it's just so well made that it kind of fools you into maintaining the illusion necessary to buy into the plot.
I had seen Side Effects before shortly after it became available on Redbox back in 2013. In fact, it was the very first Soderbergh movie I watched the same year that came out. I watched one more of his movies in the same year (Logan Lucky), but otherwise I've never seen any of his movies even remotely close to when they were released, a fact that will remain true until I watch two of his 2019 movies in this marathon.
Back on target, part of the reason this movie is able to work as well as it is is an A+ cast. Rooney Mara plays a depressed wife to a man played by Channing Tatum, who is getting out of prison for the first time in four years. She seeks treatment from a psychiatrist played by Jude Law. Catherine Zeta-Jones also appears in this movie in an important part.
Ultimately, I enjoyed this more the first time I watched it, which makes sense. I think the convoluted plot is just a little harder to buy the second time around, plus you know what's going to happen, so the tension isn't as high. Although six years ago was a long enough time ago that I didn't remember the specifics, so I was still invested in the story. Kind of a tricky grade for me, so I'll just give you my current grade and what I'm guessing my 2013 grade would have been.
2013 grade: 3 stars
Current: 2.5 stars
The Informant! (2009)
This is a movie I appreciated more than liked. It's a weird movie. It's a weird movie with a purpose though. It's not being weird for weird's sake, it's being weird to delve you into the main character's mental state. Like I completely understand what Steven Soderbergh is going for in this movie and conceptually it works. The buildup of Mark Whitacre going from seemingly innocuous to losing his mind is well done.
And yet. I found it difficult to like this movie. This is a character study on a character with a mental disease and as such, it's singularly focused on that one character. I think some better characterization on the wife would have went a long way, as she's just a doting wife who doesn't really seem to function as a character. It's based on a real person and in fact was based on a book, a book which I don't imagine focuses on the wife all that often. So the wife was real and maybe they tread lightly there since they didn't want to completely make up a new character there.
Matt Damon is excellent in The Informant! and is responsible for much of the movie's tone. Speaking of tone, I think the score also largely sets the tone. In some cases, I think the score was too wacky. From reviews, I've been able to gather it's a throwback score, but it's still really "knock you over the head this is wacky" which got old at times. Sometimes, it worked, sometimes you wish the movie would tone it down.
Anyway, I think I may like this more on second watch, since a large part of the movie, you're just in the dark about what the director is trying to do. For now, I have to grade it on having watched it once though.
2.5/4 stars
Side Effects (2013)
The best way I can describe Side Effects is that it reminds me of a bad thriller movie, except everyone involved in making it is very good at their jobs. The plot in this is just as convoluted and as ludicrous as those bad thriller movies, it's just so well made that it kind of fools you into maintaining the illusion necessary to buy into the plot.
I had seen Side Effects before shortly after it became available on Redbox back in 2013. In fact, it was the very first Soderbergh movie I watched the same year that came out. I watched one more of his movies in the same year (Logan Lucky), but otherwise I've never seen any of his movies even remotely close to when they were released, a fact that will remain true until I watch two of his 2019 movies in this marathon.
Back on target, part of the reason this movie is able to work as well as it is is an A+ cast. Rooney Mara plays a depressed wife to a man played by Channing Tatum, who is getting out of prison for the first time in four years. She seeks treatment from a psychiatrist played by Jude Law. Catherine Zeta-Jones also appears in this movie in an important part.
Ultimately, I enjoyed this more the first time I watched it, which makes sense. I think the convoluted plot is just a little harder to buy the second time around, plus you know what's going to happen, so the tension isn't as high. Although six years ago was a long enough time ago that I didn't remember the specifics, so I was still invested in the story. Kind of a tricky grade for me, so I'll just give you my current grade and what I'm guessing my 2013 grade would have been.
2013 grade: 3 stars
Current: 2.5 stars
Thursday, May 14, 2020
The Soderbergh Experience: Part 3
Intro
Out of Sight (1998)
Once again, I am watching all of Steven Soderbergh movies out of order. This is a practical matter as not all of his movies are currently available to me, but I decided to make the most of it and get creative with how I watched his movies. I have a method for how I'm picking his movies, but it's mostly just random, so no need to explain my choices.
When I watched Out of Sight, two movies immediately came to mind. The first is Get Shorty, the 1995 movie that predates this. The comparison makes more sense when you see who is behind the movie. For starters, both movies are based off an Elmore Leonard novel so both have complicated plots, inept criminals, and one man above the fray with a love interest already in a relationship. Leonard pretty much believes criminals are criminals for a reason and that they will fuck up their plans by their own doing. You see that here.
The screenplay was also written by the same guy, Scott Franks. Franks appears to be a very good writer, with an unorthodox amount of well-reviewed movies in his resume. He does have the good fortune of working with good directors. He's worked with Kenneth Branaugh, Steven Spielberg, and James Mangold in addition to Soderbergh. It's possible his movies are good because of the directors but the directors also picked his screenplays. His lone writing-directing effort appears to be a solid movie so I'm inclined to call him a good writer. The movie was also produced by Danny Devito, who starred in Get Shorty, and Barry Sonnenfield, who directed it. (Both produced Get Shorty too) So it's not exactly a comparison I make that comes out of left field.
The other movie that came to mind was Ocean's Eleven. This movie almost seemed like a warmup to me. Now I'm just going by memory, but it seems to me that Ocean's Eleven is a much more polished bank story than Out of Sight. Here he seems slightly restrained by the tone of Get Shorty. That's not a bad thing. I loved Get Shorty and it mimicked the same tone really well. But it did sort of have the effect that I was watching a lesser Get Shorty and a less fun Ocean's Eleven. The latter is not fair at all since it came after this movie I admit.
Obviously the main culprit behind the Ocean Eleven comparison is Clooney. He plays virtually the same character in both movies. Once again, this seems like more of a warmup to Danny Ocean to me. Clooney had perfected this style by Ocean's Eleven. He's far from bad in Out of Sight though. He goes a long way towards justifying a marshal's decision to essentially forget her duties for him for at least a night. Don Cheadle is also in this movie, but he definitely plays a different character. Here he's kind of a stereotype - he's even got a Tupac style bandana on his head when in prison - and in Ocean's, I don't know he's French or something. I'm really not sure what with the accent he chose to go with for that movie.
The cast is pretty incredible including a surprisingly effective turn by Jennifer Lopez. I say surprising because I didn't think she was all that good of an actress - in fact when I've stumbled on this movie before I turned it off because I didn't imagine it was good mostly because she was in it. I am admittedly not basing this off a large sample of movies I've seen in her, but when you form an impression, it's not always fair. It's also surprising because if you'd describe Karen Sisco as a character to me, Lopez is pretty fucking far from how I'd imagine her. Carlo Gugino, who later played her in a quickly cancelled TV series called Karen Sisco, is more what I would have imagined. (It actually kind of seems like near perfect casting. Too bad it got cancelled so quickly)
Clooney and Cheadle are both as great as they usually are, even if they spur in me images of what I think is a better movie. (Kind of argue to argue Cheadle is better in Ocean's just for that accent, but Clooney is definitely at his best in Ocean's so it's not a comparison that favors this movie). This is just a movie with a bunch of solid performances from people who usually give them. Ving Rhames, Catherine Keener, Dennis Farina, and Steve Zahn all play their parts with their usual talent. I have to confess I didn't recognize Albert Brooks until halfway through the movie which is kind of incredible since it's Albert Brooks! So I'd say he disappeared in the role (that could just be me of course).
I hate to keep giving every movie of Soderbergh's the same grade, but my main complaint of "it's not as good as two other movies I absolutely love" is not really a complaint, so much as an acknowledgement that it's not going to get the perfect grade. Three movies, 3 stars for all of them.
3 stars out of 4
Out of Sight (1998)
Once again, I am watching all of Steven Soderbergh movies out of order. This is a practical matter as not all of his movies are currently available to me, but I decided to make the most of it and get creative with how I watched his movies. I have a method for how I'm picking his movies, but it's mostly just random, so no need to explain my choices.
When I watched Out of Sight, two movies immediately came to mind. The first is Get Shorty, the 1995 movie that predates this. The comparison makes more sense when you see who is behind the movie. For starters, both movies are based off an Elmore Leonard novel so both have complicated plots, inept criminals, and one man above the fray with a love interest already in a relationship. Leonard pretty much believes criminals are criminals for a reason and that they will fuck up their plans by their own doing. You see that here.
The screenplay was also written by the same guy, Scott Franks. Franks appears to be a very good writer, with an unorthodox amount of well-reviewed movies in his resume. He does have the good fortune of working with good directors. He's worked with Kenneth Branaugh, Steven Spielberg, and James Mangold in addition to Soderbergh. It's possible his movies are good because of the directors but the directors also picked his screenplays. His lone writing-directing effort appears to be a solid movie so I'm inclined to call him a good writer. The movie was also produced by Danny Devito, who starred in Get Shorty, and Barry Sonnenfield, who directed it. (Both produced Get Shorty too) So it's not exactly a comparison I make that comes out of left field.
The other movie that came to mind was Ocean's Eleven. This movie almost seemed like a warmup to me. Now I'm just going by memory, but it seems to me that Ocean's Eleven is a much more polished bank story than Out of Sight. Here he seems slightly restrained by the tone of Get Shorty. That's not a bad thing. I loved Get Shorty and it mimicked the same tone really well. But it did sort of have the effect that I was watching a lesser Get Shorty and a less fun Ocean's Eleven. The latter is not fair at all since it came after this movie I admit.
Obviously the main culprit behind the Ocean Eleven comparison is Clooney. He plays virtually the same character in both movies. Once again, this seems like more of a warmup to Danny Ocean to me. Clooney had perfected this style by Ocean's Eleven. He's far from bad in Out of Sight though. He goes a long way towards justifying a marshal's decision to essentially forget her duties for him for at least a night. Don Cheadle is also in this movie, but he definitely plays a different character. Here he's kind of a stereotype - he's even got a Tupac style bandana on his head when in prison - and in Ocean's, I don't know he's French or something. I'm really not sure what with the accent he chose to go with for that movie.
The cast is pretty incredible including a surprisingly effective turn by Jennifer Lopez. I say surprising because I didn't think she was all that good of an actress - in fact when I've stumbled on this movie before I turned it off because I didn't imagine it was good mostly because she was in it. I am admittedly not basing this off a large sample of movies I've seen in her, but when you form an impression, it's not always fair. It's also surprising because if you'd describe Karen Sisco as a character to me, Lopez is pretty fucking far from how I'd imagine her. Carlo Gugino, who later played her in a quickly cancelled TV series called Karen Sisco, is more what I would have imagined. (It actually kind of seems like near perfect casting. Too bad it got cancelled so quickly)
Clooney and Cheadle are both as great as they usually are, even if they spur in me images of what I think is a better movie. (Kind of argue to argue Cheadle is better in Ocean's just for that accent, but Clooney is definitely at his best in Ocean's so it's not a comparison that favors this movie). This is just a movie with a bunch of solid performances from people who usually give them. Ving Rhames, Catherine Keener, Dennis Farina, and Steve Zahn all play their parts with their usual talent. I have to confess I didn't recognize Albert Brooks until halfway through the movie which is kind of incredible since it's Albert Brooks! So I'd say he disappeared in the role (that could just be me of course).
I hate to keep giving every movie of Soderbergh's the same grade, but my main complaint of "it's not as good as two other movies I absolutely love" is not really a complaint, so much as an acknowledgement that it's not going to get the perfect grade. Three movies, 3 stars for all of them.
3 stars out of 4
Monday, May 11, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 2
Intro
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Behind the Candelabra (2013)
When I started this project, I assumed that I would watch his movies in order. Due to his second and third movies being unavailable to me (among a couple others), I was stuck until I realized I did not need to watch his movies in order. So I decided to watch his last movie after his first movie. Of course by the time I have actually posted this thing, this is no longer his last movie. But it was at the time of this writing to give you an idea how long ago I wrote this.
Behind the Candelabra is a biopic TV movie, but to define it as a TV movie is slightly inaccurate. For all intents and purposes, it's a movie that came out in theaters. I only mention that because a TV movie conspires images of shoddy production values, second-rate actors, and forgettable fare. The slogan "It's not TV, it's HBO" is mostly accurate. HBO Films has released a few interesting biopics in the past few years (Bessie, Get on Up) and Behind the Candelabra is one of them.
If I wasn't doing this project, I would never have watched this movie. In order to watch a biopic, you either need to find the main subject compelling or you do it for the performances. That's pretty much it. I am not altogether that interested in Liberace's life. I didn't see him play - he died before I was even born. I don't listen to his music or watch his TV appearances or whatever else he did to become famous.
Soderbergh set out to not make the typical biopic film when he made Behind the Candelabra. He was in talks with Douglas back when he was making Traffic in 2000, but couldn't find an appropriate angle. In 2008, he decided to adapt the book by Scott Thorson as an angle for the movie and tapped Richard LaGravenese to write the screenplay. LaGravenese was a seasoned veteran of writing movies, having written 13 movies by that point. He doesn't seem to be a particularly good writer. He doesn't seem bad either. But his filmography is full of mediocre movies or worse. So I'm intrigued by that choice. Admirably, both Douglas and Damon signed on quickly and stuck with the movie as Soderbergh struggled to get it made over the next five years (because it was "too gay"). HBO Films picked it up and they made it for $23 million over a 30-day period.
To Soderbergh's credit, this isn't really a biopic film. It is and it isn't. It's about the relationship between Liberace and his much, much younger companion of about five years. This film was clearly made with a love for Liberace. There are a few scenes of just Liberace playing in front of a crowd. It's what drew Scott into his feelings for Liberace in the first place.
The true stars of this movie are the people behind the makeup department. Making a 44-year-old Matt Damon look not ridiculous as a 17-year-old is truly impressive work. It's not explicitly stated that he's 17 which probably helps. He definitely looks noticeably younger than normal and with certain mannerisms, Damon is convincing as at least being naive and young, which is basically all that is needed. Scott also gets plastic surgery which had the effect of making him look much older and the age differential is much less distracting. Douglas also had considerable makeup put on him throughout the film to make him credible as the Liberace. More than most films, makeup was especially important for believability.
If you're not interested in Liberace - and he's a colorful, larger-than-life character so I imagine I might be in the minority in my disinterest - then the performances are enough to make it worth watching. I did not know Douglas was capable of the performance he gives here. It's not that I thought he was a bad actor. He kind of reminded me of Tom Cruise in that he gives good performances but you never forget he's Michael Douglas. But I have only seen a small portion of his films so that preconception was clearly inaccurate. Much like Damon needed the mannerisms to make himself believable as a young guy, Douglas had the arguably much more difficult task of needing to have the mannerisms of a legend. Put it this way: if you told me before this movie that Damon was playing a teenager for most of the movie and Douglas was playing Liberace, I would never have believed it would have worked. But it does because of the makeup and the acting.
Basing this off only two films (and the other four I've seen), I really appreciate just how competent of a filmmaker Soderbergh is. He has two essential traits that typically are underrated in a director: as a storyteller and the performances. I guess I just appreciated the storytelling aspect more because sometimes a director can get lost when covering a large period of time, but the story here is coherent and makes sense. He makes good decisions on what to keep, what to leave out, and how much time to spend on it. Also, directors don't quite get enough credit for getting good performances out of their actors. It's why good actors sometimes give bad performances in certain movies: bad direction. Everyone in Sex, Lies, and Videotape gave a great performance and the same holds true here.
The movie begins with a director's touch. The screen is blurry, and you can make out a bar scene. It gradually focuses and becomes clear as you see Bob Black across the bar. Scott's eyes - and our eyes - are opened to a whole new world of possibilities and he conveys that with that shot. Soderbergh also has a few extended scenes of Liberace playing the piano and the audience reaction. Soderbergh is clearly a fan. These scenes effectively mesmerize the audience as they presumably mesmerized his live audiences back in 1977. He goes to quick cuts while the music reaches a crescendo, planting in your mind an amazement each time his piano strikes a new chord. There's no need to understand why Scott was drawn to Liberace in those moments.
Soderbergh also effectively hides the low budget that he was given. At least, for a guy with as much opulence and wealth as Liberace, it might be kind of difficult to show that with a moderately low budget (Douglas and Damon had to have taken a fraction of what they usually cost for this movie). Two examples are when he shows a jet flying in the air and the montage of Scott getting a bunch of expensive things. The former was shot like it was in a cloud, which made it easier to blur the fact that he couldn't afford an aerial shot of a jet. There's nothing noticeable about the latter (except a cool diagonal-from-the-ground shot of the front of an expensive white car with Las Vegas buildings in the background) except that it probably wasn't easy to portray a lavish lifestyle with the budget he had. I will give particular due to the location scout who picked out the house where most of this movie is set.
Lastly, he shot the "Scott is high out of his mind" sequences on handheld, jarring the viewer into Scott's state of mind. Shaky cam isn't my favorite filming technique, but when done with a purpose, it's extremely effective. Speaking of drugs, Rob Lowe is in this and he is fucking HILARIOUS. His character is the plastic surgeon who operates on both Scott and Liberace, and he plays all of his scenes like he is high out of his mind. The makeup team once again does excellent work as his mere appearance creates laughs on its own.
Well that was more words than I planned to write. I really wasn't expecting to go into this much detail with these posts. I can't guarantee that will continue as I'm sort of beholden to where the words take me. I'm not going to stretch these posts out if I have nothing more to say. Behind the Candelabra is a good film with good performances. If you're interested in seeing Douglas play Liberace - and that's honestly a good hook - you'll probably enjoy this film.
2.5/4 stars
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
When I started this project, I assumed that I would watch his movies in order. Due to his second and third movies being unavailable to me (among a couple others), I was stuck until I realized I did not need to watch his movies in order. So I decided to watch his last movie after his first movie. Of course by the time I have actually posted this thing, this is no longer his last movie. But it was at the time of this writing to give you an idea how long ago I wrote this.
Behind the Candelabra is a biopic TV movie, but to define it as a TV movie is slightly inaccurate. For all intents and purposes, it's a movie that came out in theaters. I only mention that because a TV movie conspires images of shoddy production values, second-rate actors, and forgettable fare. The slogan "It's not TV, it's HBO" is mostly accurate. HBO Films has released a few interesting biopics in the past few years (Bessie, Get on Up) and Behind the Candelabra is one of them.
If I wasn't doing this project, I would never have watched this movie. In order to watch a biopic, you either need to find the main subject compelling or you do it for the performances. That's pretty much it. I am not altogether that interested in Liberace's life. I didn't see him play - he died before I was even born. I don't listen to his music or watch his TV appearances or whatever else he did to become famous.
Soderbergh set out to not make the typical biopic film when he made Behind the Candelabra. He was in talks with Douglas back when he was making Traffic in 2000, but couldn't find an appropriate angle. In 2008, he decided to adapt the book by Scott Thorson as an angle for the movie and tapped Richard LaGravenese to write the screenplay. LaGravenese was a seasoned veteran of writing movies, having written 13 movies by that point. He doesn't seem to be a particularly good writer. He doesn't seem bad either. But his filmography is full of mediocre movies or worse. So I'm intrigued by that choice. Admirably, both Douglas and Damon signed on quickly and stuck with the movie as Soderbergh struggled to get it made over the next five years (because it was "too gay"). HBO Films picked it up and they made it for $23 million over a 30-day period.
To Soderbergh's credit, this isn't really a biopic film. It is and it isn't. It's about the relationship between Liberace and his much, much younger companion of about five years. This film was clearly made with a love for Liberace. There are a few scenes of just Liberace playing in front of a crowd. It's what drew Scott into his feelings for Liberace in the first place.
The true stars of this movie are the people behind the makeup department. Making a 44-year-old Matt Damon look not ridiculous as a 17-year-old is truly impressive work. It's not explicitly stated that he's 17 which probably helps. He definitely looks noticeably younger than normal and with certain mannerisms, Damon is convincing as at least being naive and young, which is basically all that is needed. Scott also gets plastic surgery which had the effect of making him look much older and the age differential is much less distracting. Douglas also had considerable makeup put on him throughout the film to make him credible as the Liberace. More than most films, makeup was especially important for believability.
If you're not interested in Liberace - and he's a colorful, larger-than-life character so I imagine I might be in the minority in my disinterest - then the performances are enough to make it worth watching. I did not know Douglas was capable of the performance he gives here. It's not that I thought he was a bad actor. He kind of reminded me of Tom Cruise in that he gives good performances but you never forget he's Michael Douglas. But I have only seen a small portion of his films so that preconception was clearly inaccurate. Much like Damon needed the mannerisms to make himself believable as a young guy, Douglas had the arguably much more difficult task of needing to have the mannerisms of a legend. Put it this way: if you told me before this movie that Damon was playing a teenager for most of the movie and Douglas was playing Liberace, I would never have believed it would have worked. But it does because of the makeup and the acting.
Basing this off only two films (and the other four I've seen), I really appreciate just how competent of a filmmaker Soderbergh is. He has two essential traits that typically are underrated in a director: as a storyteller and the performances. I guess I just appreciated the storytelling aspect more because sometimes a director can get lost when covering a large period of time, but the story here is coherent and makes sense. He makes good decisions on what to keep, what to leave out, and how much time to spend on it. Also, directors don't quite get enough credit for getting good performances out of their actors. It's why good actors sometimes give bad performances in certain movies: bad direction. Everyone in Sex, Lies, and Videotape gave a great performance and the same holds true here.
The movie begins with a director's touch. The screen is blurry, and you can make out a bar scene. It gradually focuses and becomes clear as you see Bob Black across the bar. Scott's eyes - and our eyes - are opened to a whole new world of possibilities and he conveys that with that shot. Soderbergh also has a few extended scenes of Liberace playing the piano and the audience reaction. Soderbergh is clearly a fan. These scenes effectively mesmerize the audience as they presumably mesmerized his live audiences back in 1977. He goes to quick cuts while the music reaches a crescendo, planting in your mind an amazement each time his piano strikes a new chord. There's no need to understand why Scott was drawn to Liberace in those moments.
Soderbergh also effectively hides the low budget that he was given. At least, for a guy with as much opulence and wealth as Liberace, it might be kind of difficult to show that with a moderately low budget (Douglas and Damon had to have taken a fraction of what they usually cost for this movie). Two examples are when he shows a jet flying in the air and the montage of Scott getting a bunch of expensive things. The former was shot like it was in a cloud, which made it easier to blur the fact that he couldn't afford an aerial shot of a jet. There's nothing noticeable about the latter (except a cool diagonal-from-the-ground shot of the front of an expensive white car with Las Vegas buildings in the background) except that it probably wasn't easy to portray a lavish lifestyle with the budget he had. I will give particular due to the location scout who picked out the house where most of this movie is set.
Lastly, he shot the "Scott is high out of his mind" sequences on handheld, jarring the viewer into Scott's state of mind. Shaky cam isn't my favorite filming technique, but when done with a purpose, it's extremely effective. Speaking of drugs, Rob Lowe is in this and he is fucking HILARIOUS. His character is the plastic surgeon who operates on both Scott and Liberace, and he plays all of his scenes like he is high out of his mind. The makeup team once again does excellent work as his mere appearance creates laughs on its own.
Well that was more words than I planned to write. I really wasn't expecting to go into this much detail with these posts. I can't guarantee that will continue as I'm sort of beholden to where the words take me. I'm not going to stretch these posts out if I have nothing more to say. Behind the Candelabra is a good film with good performances. If you're interested in seeing Douglas play Liberace - and that's honestly a good hook - you'll probably enjoy this film.
2.5/4 stars
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 1
Intro
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape started Steven Soderbergh's long career in filmmaking and thus that's where I start in looking back at his career . Sex, Lies, and Videotape certainly lives up to its name. It has sex, it has lies, and it has videotape. It's an interesting film that's for sure. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it. It was worth watching. I know that. I also was not bored while watching.
I don't demand that every plot or character gets resolves, but I was curious at the decision to not really address that the sister relationship at the end. Clearly, their relationship was not central to the film's mind. Ann finds out that her sister cheated and we don't see them interact until the end, and given that she has a job and is comfortable with Graham, that's presumably some time later. Graham's impotence is solved, the husband gets his comeuppance, and obviously Ann seems happy. The sister? She's the plot driver, but that's about it. There's no conclusion to her arc, which I just find weird because I consider her one of the four main characters and the other three all get an ending.
All in all, I think this is an average movie elevated by the performances and by the direction. I won't get a true picture of how I think he is as writer, because he didn't write that many movies and what he did write was either co-written by him or he's adapted it from something (which isn't an easy thing, but does seem like an ideal format for a really good director). I guess I could watch the two movies he wrote that he didn't direct, but neither seem that good. Anyway, as a director, this movie leaves me excited. Because if he can elevate what I think would be an average movie in most director's hands, I wonder what he can do with a good movie.
3/4 stars
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape started Steven Soderbergh's long career in filmmaking and thus that's where I start in looking back at his career . Sex, Lies, and Videotape certainly lives up to its name. It has sex, it has lies, and it has videotape. It's an interesting film that's for sure. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it. It was worth watching. I know that. I also was not bored while watching.
I do know that Soderbergh makes films that don't provide easy answers. At least I think he does. Though I suppose the ending of this movie is fairly easy. Each plot point and each character arc gets addressed. Ann Bishop Mullany is a housewife who quit her job for her husband. She's unsatisfied with her life, though she convinces herself it is fine. She doesn't want to touch her husband and has never had an orgasm. Despite the fact that she's unhappy, she reasons that she has a good home, she's comfortable, and happiness is overrated.
Meanwhile, her husband is played by Peter Gallagher. I don't want to say he's typecast, but he's played by Peter Gallagher. If you've ever seen him in anything, you already know what type of person he is. He's very good at playing this guy. He plays this guy in fucking everything. This might even be the genesis of that guy. The reason he's so good at it is that he's somehow so transparently awful but at the same time you can see the charm behind him. You don't really question why women fall for him. That's a really important element in this type of character.
Anyway, his friend, Graham Dalton, comes to town and apparently the two of them have wildly diverged in personality since the last time they saw them. Apparently he went from a smarmy douchebag to a soft-spoken creep. What's weird is that he kind of acts and talks like a creep. James Spader is good in this, but I found myself wondering: How the fuck did this guy get so many women to agree to this? It's just for his own personal collection! It's not even like a study or something. The reasons the two women that we know do this are clear and I have no issues with that. But did he get a jealous sister and a vengeful wife in every town? I guess he had nine years to do this.
Speaking of, I'll also say that Cynthia Patrice Bishop (what's with the three names for both sisters?) gets shortchanged as a character. She really likes sex and is jealous of her sister to an extreme degree. She has an affair with her husband and makes a videotape with Graham to spite her. Just because she's not allowed. I'll give credit to Laura San Giacomo for making this character work. I really can't imagine her working on the page nearly as well as she does on the screen, mostly due to San Giacomo.
In fact, this whole cast is great. Andie McDowell got nominated for a Golden Globe for her part in this movie (and San Giacomo did too). I'm being a bit too critical of this movie, but I think the writing is only ok in this movie, and the performances elevate it. The dialogue is actually good, but I don't think the characters are that well-drawn and it relies on the performers to make up for it (which they do.) For instance, Spader's character on the page? No chance that works with a lesser actor.
I don't know what makes a film feel distinctly Soberbergh, but I did notice a few of his directing choices. First off, the way he sets up the film is rather well-done. We find out everything we need to know in a quick 10 minutes. Ann Bishop is talking to her therapist while her husband is cheating on her and Graham is cleaning himself in a gas station bathroom. Boom. I also liked the first shot - which is a shot of the road moving from the perspective of the underside of car. It was was one of the few times I think he indulged in making a cool shot for the sake of making a cool shot. It works as an opening shot though as that's one of the times you can get really creative without it being obtrusive to the movie in my opinion.
Secondly, the videotape reveal was done well. She finds out her husband is cheating on her, she goes directly to Graham's to make a videotape, she convinces Graham to actually make the tape, and then we cut to her asking for a divorce. The husband goes to fight Graham and then we see the tape from his perspective in the grainy video and then it transitions from a third party perspective to the conclusion of the tape. Lastly, he's just good at making a logical story. It's a small thing, but I noticed he kept giving iced tea to his visitors and then at the end, he says he's out of iced tea right when I was wondering how much fucking iced tea he had. Also, not that it was particularly hard to figure out, but a throwaway line about how the sister can't find her earrings is nonetheless appreciated for setting up the finale ahead of time.
I don't know what makes a film feel distinctly Soberbergh, but I did notice a few of his directing choices. First off, the way he sets up the film is rather well-done. We find out everything we need to know in a quick 10 minutes. Ann Bishop is talking to her therapist while her husband is cheating on her and Graham is cleaning himself in a gas station bathroom. Boom. I also liked the first shot - which is a shot of the road moving from the perspective of the underside of car. It was was one of the few times I think he indulged in making a cool shot for the sake of making a cool shot. It works as an opening shot though as that's one of the times you can get really creative without it being obtrusive to the movie in my opinion.
Secondly, the videotape reveal was done well. She finds out her husband is cheating on her, she goes directly to Graham's to make a videotape, she convinces Graham to actually make the tape, and then we cut to her asking for a divorce. The husband goes to fight Graham and then we see the tape from his perspective in the grainy video and then it transitions from a third party perspective to the conclusion of the tape. Lastly, he's just good at making a logical story. It's a small thing, but I noticed he kept giving iced tea to his visitors and then at the end, he says he's out of iced tea right when I was wondering how much fucking iced tea he had. Also, not that it was particularly hard to figure out, but a throwaway line about how the sister can't find her earrings is nonetheless appreciated for setting up the finale ahead of time.
I don't demand that every plot or character gets resolves, but I was curious at the decision to not really address that the sister relationship at the end. Clearly, their relationship was not central to the film's mind. Ann finds out that her sister cheated and we don't see them interact until the end, and given that she has a job and is comfortable with Graham, that's presumably some time later. Graham's impotence is solved, the husband gets his comeuppance, and obviously Ann seems happy. The sister? She's the plot driver, but that's about it. There's no conclusion to her arc, which I just find weird because I consider her one of the four main characters and the other three all get an ending.
All in all, I think this is an average movie elevated by the performances and by the direction. I won't get a true picture of how I think he is as writer, because he didn't write that many movies and what he did write was either co-written by him or he's adapted it from something (which isn't an easy thing, but does seem like an ideal format for a really good director). I guess I could watch the two movies he wrote that he didn't direct, but neither seem that good. Anyway, as a director, this movie leaves me excited. Because if he can elevate what I think would be an average movie in most director's hands, I wonder what he can do with a good movie.
3/4 stars
Monday, May 4, 2020
The Steven Soderbergh Marathon
Back in 2016, I had what I thought was a great idea. I was going to delve into the filmography of Steven Soderbergh, and talk about each movie of his as I watched it. When I was about to start it, I realized that I only access to maybe half of his movies. I started the project anyway. I made it through just three movies. I never posted a single one of them either. I was rightfully afraid that I would stop midway through and it would look like an incomplete project, so I wanted to watch all of the movies before I posted the first one.
That project got away from me and I hadn't thought about it since. Until I thought of the idea to write my rankings for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and noticed a few completed, unpublished drafts of my plan. So naturally, I'm using my current situation of needing to stay at home to actually complete what will end up being a nearly four and half year project. Which is of course misleading as hell, but it sounds better when I put it that way.
I obviously wanted to get a head start on the movies I had watched and written about before I started this project. I think finishing all 30 of his movies would be asking too much of myself. But I do have nine of them done as of this writing and will probably have 10 done before I publish my first of 30 movies. I am also started this to "put pressure on myself." Once I've started this, I'll feel compelled to finish it. That's the idea anyway.
So on Wednesday, hopefully, I'll post my thoughts on Steven Soderberg's first ever movie, Sex Lies and Videotape. Unfortunately, I wrote my thoughts on that movie four years ago, so I hope the younger version of me has the same taste as this current version of me. I imagine so, but I definitely didn't want to re-do movies I had already done, so you'll forgive me for not starting over on that one.
If you are reading this post after I have already posted some Soderbergh movies, then below you will find the now published thoughts on those movies to make this easier. And if you're not sure of the progress I've made and want to check, this will be a handy post to return to in the future. So hopefully, there's an interest in Steven Soderbergh movies, one of the most interesting and varied modern filmmakers in the business.
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Kafka (1991)
King of the Hill (1993)
The Underneath (1995)
Schizopolis (1996)
Gray's Anatomy (1996)
Out of Sight (1998)
The Limey (1999)
Erin Brokovich (2000)
Traffic (2000)
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Solaris (2002)
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
Bubble (2005)
The Good German (2006)
The Informant! (2007)
Ocean's Thirteen (2007)
Che (2008)
The Girlfriend Experience (2009)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Kafka (1991)
King of the Hill (1993)
The Underneath (1995)
Schizopolis (1996)
Gray's Anatomy (1996)
Out of Sight (1998)
The Limey (1999)
Erin Brokovich (2000)
Traffic (2000)
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Solaris (2002)
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
Bubble (2005)
The Good German (2006)
The Informant! (2007)
Ocean's Thirteen (2007)
Che (2008)
The Girlfriend Experience (2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)