Friday, July 13, 2012

A Few Words on Steven Soderbergh’s Ploy for Naturalism


I’ve been on a serious Steven Soderbergh kick following Magic Mike, a film I loved more than just about anyone I’ve come across (in person or online). I’ve seen all of Soderbergh’s films multiple times, so to fill the void, I’ve been relistening to his many exquisite director’s commentaries for his own movies.

In those commentaries, which Soderbergh elects to never do alone, the person he is talking with often asks Soderbergh about his choice to convey naturalism in his movies. It’s an interesting and fair question, as Steven Soderbergh is, arguably, the most naturalistic mainstream director currently making films. This is for a number of reasons, but for the purpose of this post, I’m going to focus on some of Soderbergh’s casting decisions in helping to achieve his naturalistic vibe. 


But let me get two things very clear right away. First, I’m a fan of Steven Soderbergh, so this post is going to be unanimously positive, while (hopefully) dishing out a few devil’s advocate retorts. Second, I know all well that Soderbergh does not consistently make naturalistic films (or cast “naturalistic,” i.e. unprofessional, actors). There’s nothing naturalistic about the cast of Erin Brokovich, the Ocean’s films, Out of Sight, and so on. Those are star vehicles and are presented as such.
Sasha Grey in The Girlfriend Experience
What I’m talking about is Soderbergh’s “one for them, one for me” mentality, specifically the films that fall into the “one for me” category. When you look at Magic Mike, Haywire (and, to some degree, Che, Traffic, Schizopolis, and Full Frontal) and especially Bubble and The Girlfriend Experience, you’re looking at a director who is bucking the Hollywood system. (Remember, let’s just stick with casting.) Sure, many of those movies have a handful of stars in them, but for the most part, all of those films contain what I consider to be stellar performances by non-actors, or actors doing their very best to strip away the artifice of acting.

This is why, for example, I consider the respective performances of Cody Horn (Magic Mike), Gina Carano (Haywire), Sasha Grey (The Girlfriend Experience) and Debbie Doebereiner (Bubble), to be some of the best acting from the past 10 years. (Interesting that those are all women, a connection I hadn’t made until just now.) From a standard movie acting perspective, all of those performances are horrible. They stutter and stammer and struggle to speak. When they argue, they pause to find the right phrasing. When they move, they stall to be sure of where they are going. In short, they talk and act how real people talk and act. Say what you will about David Mamet and Aaron Sorkin (two writers I absolutely love), but no one talks like that. No one argues with that swiftness of ease. Similarly, as a former courtroom reporter, I’ve sat in many a murder trial, (and one would-be terrorist bombing) and I can tell you that I’ve never once heard a lawyer talk how lawyers talk in movies. It simply doesn’t happen.
Cody Horn, in the best, most naturalistic scene in Magic Mike
But that’s why we love movies, isn’t it? The people in them can be perfect. They talk how we want to talk (or how we want our heroes to talk). Their moves are precise and determined. Bullets don’t penetrate and punches don’t bruise. That’s moviemaking. That’s what we’re used to. And I love it to death.

What Soderbergh is trying to achieve is something completely raw and new. He thinks that by hiring people who have never narratively acted, he is injecting a sense of realism into the film. From where I’m sitting, he’s right. Many would disagree, and that’s fair. It’s a dangerous game to play – most of the people I know who go to the movies don’t want to be reminded of real life. They want to see Avengers avenge and Dark Knights rise. Fair enough. To take escapism out of the movie game would to eliminate 95 percent of the movies that are released. Many of which I love, many of which I hate, some of which I consider necessary.
Michael Fassbender as Brandon in Shame
Last week, I let my dad borrow Shame (which he hadn’t seen). When he finished it, he called me and said that he didn’t enjoy the film, but he appreciated the hell out of it. When I asked him why he thought Michael Fassbender wasn’t nominated for an Oscar, my dad’s response was that, “There is a some of Brandon in all of us. Not sex addiction specifically, but there are secrets. Everyone has secrets, and when you remind people of that, it scares the shit out of them.”

I couldn’t agree more, and there’s some of my dad’s thinking toward Shame that correlates with my thinking toward Soderbergh’s casting choices. People don’t want to be reminded of the stammers and pauses that occur during a lover's quarrel, they want the clean, crisp confidence of a courtroom lawyer demanding to know the truth from a corrupt Marine Colonel.

Sure, I wish more people loved Steven Soderbergh’s films as much as I do, and sure, I wish more people “got” his tendency for naturalism the way (I think) I do. But, again, it’s impossible for me to hate on people that simple don’t dig it. Me? I’ll take Cody Horn’s naturalism over Tony Stark’s posturing any day of the week. Call me crazy, call me dignified, but there is something I find ungodly refreshing in watching actors take the acting out of the equation. It’s not something I want to see in every film, mind you, but something that is, indeed, quite good for films.

33 comments:

  1. Alex, I have been reading your posts for awhile now and throughly enjoy your insight into the art-form the we all love. I just wanted to say that I understand what you're getting at, in terms of natural feeling filmmaking. I recently had a discussion with a friend over films I admire more than I love, i.e Fargo, The Godfather Saga. They're all just 'too perfect' I tried to put it, with the character development, lighting pacing etc. It all seems so 'staged', like a Broadway play. Don't get get me wrong, Fargo and the Godfather Films, deserve their places of high esteem, but again I admire more than I love them. Keep up the goos work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...Keep up the good* work! With both your posts and film projects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow Jeff, what kind words you have left here. Seriously, thanks so much for not only reading, but for sharing your insights as well.

      I completely agree with something like The Godfather feeling staged. And, right, I hope people don't get us wrong, because The Godfather is, well, The Godfather. It's a classic piece of filmmaking, but I think what Soderbergh is attempting is bold, new, and very very daring. It's the antithesis of The Godfather, and because he does it so well, you certainly aren't going to hear complaints from me about his films.

      Anyhow, thanks again for your compliments, I'll definitely be checking out your site soon!

      Delete
    2. Thank you for reading and responding, please by all means I need serious traffic on my own site. Recently, another good example I found was in 'Wind that Shakes the Barley' with Cillian Murphy, where they have some of the characters have speech impediments, stutters, stamers etc. It's nothing over-the-top, just enough to give that feeling of 'real' people in a 'real' place. Please use the email on the site to contact for any further discussions. Thank you, again, I'll keep on reading!

      Delete
    3. Oh man, Wind that Shakes the Barley is a perfect example of cinematic naturalism. Good call there. You've got a new visitor to your site, my friend!

      Delete
  3. What a fantastic article. I have so much respect for Soderbergh because he really brings in something new - there is a feel of this realism even in his bigger movies like Traffic. Also his films are so elegant and sometimes it's that reallistic way about them that makes them so - it is real and somehow though actors out effort in in, as you said struggling at times, it miraculously feels effortless. One of the reasons I love Solaris so much is that sometimes camera is POV and shows the way a person would actually see the world - Clooney doesn't notice McElhone on the party right away and when he does - the camera lingers.

    I really think none of the people who write about courtroom scenes ever set a foot in courthouse btw - I spent so much time there during my legal training and not once have I felt as if I was in the movie. It's so boring, formal and stale they should pay people for being inside that room.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOVE that you pointed out Solaris, and that scene in particular. I think you and I are in the minority as people who love that movie, but love it I do, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Did you know he shot of lot of the dialouge-free scenes by having the actors move in reverse, and then he played them in reverse (so that the actors were now moving in the correct direction)? That's why some of the movements look so eerie.

      Courts are SO BORING, aren't they? I covered a trial in which a mother and her daughter plotted and executed stabbing their mother/grandmother to death, and it was boring as all hell. I mean, parts were intense, but for the most part it was a soozefest.

      But hell, who doesn't love a good courtroom drama?

      Delete
    2. Really? I never knew that! That's such a creative idea and movements are indeed eerie, it just astonishes me how briliant and how insanely underrated that film is.

      Delete
    3. Totally agree. I ended up rewatching it that night. It's just so damn good. I completely love it. Forgot John Cho has a cameo in it. Harold!!

      Delete
  4. Great post! I love both sides of Soderbergh, and I've never had a problem with naturalism. Like you say, some people don't get it, but I always like to see directors try new or different things. Must watch The Girlfriend Experience and Bubble now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice! Dude, if you dig naturalism, then you will really enjoy GFE and (probably) LOVE Bubble. That movie defines naturalism. Really glad to hear you appreciate both sides of Soderbergh's coin.

      Delete
  5. I haven't seen any of the "one for me" films you mentioned, but I was fascinated by your article. I suspect you hit the nail on the head. We don't want to see ourselves, through the lens of cinema, as we really are with our awkwardness and dull conversations. I loved your dad's insights about Shame. Like him, I didn't really enjoy the movie, but I appreciated the hell out of it. And yes, we all have parts of ourselves that we hide. And nothing makes us more uncomfortable than something that reflects our guilt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Stephanie! My pops is an insightful guy, for sure! And in terms of Soderbergh, I highly recommend all the flicks I mentioned. I don't know if you've seen Traffic, but I consider that the best film of the 2000s. Just a remarkable piece of cinema. Really got him started on his naturalism.

      Delete
  6. Obviously his primary strengths are mostly detailed in this article, plus his visual flair and such, but I'm always curious about a director like Soderbergh who obviously *can* write films but chooses not to. Same with Scorsese. Not that there's anything in the slightest to complain about with the scripts those dudes use, because it goes without saying that that's some amazing shit on a pretty regular basis. Still, I guess this helps enable his incredible work-rate.

    (Tangential in relation to the article, I know)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, I've always wondered that too. I think a lot of it is them getting an idea, then passing it off to a screenwriter so they can prep for other stuff. I definitely think both Soderbergh and Scorsese are heavily involved in the development of the scripts they shoot (I doubt they are picking scripts from The Black List, for example), but in terms of Soderbergh, while the writer is writing, Soderbergh can decide how he's going to shoot the movie and how he's going to edit it. I definitely think they help write their scripts, but I don't think they're worried about getting credit for them.

      Either way, very interesting point.

      Delete
  7. Fascinating article Alex !! I have seen enough Soderbergh to atleast understand what you are saying here (though I am not sure, I think we can include Sex, Lies and Videotapes in his 'one for me' list). Could not agree more on what you say about escapism, our dad really summed it up nicely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man! I think Sex Lies is in a completely different category, maybe the "Trying To Start My Career by Doing Something Totally Different" category. But yeah, that movie has such a natural vibe to it. Glad you enjoyed the piece!

      Delete
  8. Really loved this piece Alex. I'm not in love with him like you are, but I dig his versatility (he reminds me of a more mainstream Winterbottom), and his skill. The man does what he wants and I gotta respect that.

    Truthfully, I like his Hollywood films more (Ocean's 11, Contagion, Out of Sight) over his "me" films (Solaris, Full Frontal), but I havent seen enough to fully back that claim. Magic Mike and Haywire look interesting to me (for different reasons) but Bubble and Girlfriend Experience do not. (That's not to say I won't catch them some day.)

    But like I said, I respect him a lot and even more now after reading your piece.

    Long live filmmakers like him and Winterbottom, for never doing the same thing twice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, anyone who is able to appreciate a filmmaker that knows what they're doing, while not actually loving what they are doing is all right with me. I completely get how some of Soderbergh's "me" films could turn people away, they are so very different.

      Dude, when I heard about GFE and especially Bubble, my first thought was, "Nope, not for me." Then I actually watched them and wow. Bubble in particular is just remarkable. Really blew me away.

      Thanks for commenting!

      Delete
  9. Fascinating article. I agree with you, to a certain extent. The uneasy performances of Gina Carano et al. do bring a sort of naturalism, but I also feel there's an undeniable talent of good actors to become truly assimilated into the characters they portray. Yes, people stutter and stammer in real life, but I still prefer the more traditional ideal of "good acting", where the actor is confident and comfortable in the role they are playing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I do too, definitely. I much more prefer that sort of traditional good acting than this naturalistic style. Or, let me be clearer: I adore traditional acting like that, and I appreciate the naturalistic acting style. It something I value in moderation but would in no way want to see in every single film. I guess I just wish people didn't think Soderbergh's naturalistic films were so bad because they're so real, you know?

      Delete
  10. Sorry for being late in the game about this article but I agree with a lot of the things you said. I may have had mixed feelings towards Sasha Grey's performance in The Girlfriend Experience but it didn't deter from the film which I thought was pretty good.

    Soderbergh is a filmmaker I do love to watch as I hope to do an Auteurs piece on him soon. Not next year but hopefully 2014-2015. There's still a number of film of his I need to catch up on.

    What I like about him is the fact he's willing to take risks on unknowns or non-actors or even someone like Sasha Grey. There is a realism to it and sometimes, it would work but other times it wouldn't. Yet, I admire Soderbergh for having the balls to do that. That's why he's one of the best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's definitely what I'd like people to take away from this article the most: that no matter what your thoughts are on Soderbergh or his films, you gotta admit that the dude has balls. He does things differently, and he does it well. Can't wait to read your Auteurs piece on Soderbergh when it's finished.

      He surely is one of the best.

      Delete
  11. Great article. I love your passion for Soderbergh, it shines through your post! Too many writers are ashamed of their enthusiasm and passions, so they oppress it when you write. I like that you put it front and centre.

    One thing though; Soderbergh really isn't bucking the trend with the 'one for them, one for me' mentality, he's just the most famous and widely publicised version of it. But I'd say a huge amount of directors in Hollywood work in this way. You earn the studios enough money with a film or maybe two films, and then you are able to get them to finance a less risky movie -- and because of your track record, the stars will come and work for you for practically nothing. So everyone wins.

    In fact, the 'one for me' films often do the best financially; because they cost FAR LESS, yet they still have stars in them. The studios aren't silly in this respect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man! I completely agree that Soderbergh isn't the ONLY director that practices the "one fore me, one for them" method, I definitely didn't mean to imply that. Only that, yes, he's arguably the most well-known practitioner of that kind of moviemaking.

      And you're right, I should've mentioned that, cost to gross profit, his "one for me" movies net far more money than his Hollywood productions.

      All excellent points on your part. Thanks so much for the kind words!

      Delete
  12. Glad to find someone else who appreciates Cody Horn's acting in Magic Mike. I was very impressed by her naturalness, her natural range, from dour to radiant. She frowned for a lot of the movie, and we aren't used to seeing a love interest frown. But I liked it!

    And when she smiled, wow. A real smile. A real laugh. What a gift.

    I think audiences are more used to female characters who are compliant and who reflect rather than respond to their male character counterparts.

    Cody's character didn't do that. Heck, she was even reading a hardcover book in the scene you mention.

    I liked her character and I appreciated her portrayal. I hope other directors do not let the nay-sayers stop them from casting her again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, awesome insight here. Seems like you and I are on exactly the same page. I've heard so many people rag on Horn's frowning in the film, but like you, I thought it was real.

      We definitely stand on the minority side of this argument, but I completely love what she did in that film.

      Delete
  13. Yes, yes, yes! This is something I try to achieve in my films. Something natural, real, honest, raw. This always nagged my brain...why aren't acting performances written/executed how people in real life would act or speak? The accidental stammer, an odd twitch in voice or body language, a simple nervous tick, something! Though I don't believe Soderbergh achieved this (at least in what I saw in Haywire--Contagion was great), I am excited I found someone who agrees with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice man, I'm really glad to see that you understood what I meant here. If this is the style you go for, I'd to see some of your films. Have them online anywhere?

      Thanks for stopping by!

      Delete
  14. I just thought I'd say, you dad's insight into 'Shame' is quite brilliant, haha. Great piece too, although I can't contribute much to it as I've not seen much Soderbergh stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Sam! I highly recommend Soderbergh's films. Traffic is a masterpiece if there ever was one.

      Delete
  15. I think like with all film techniques, sometimes a non-actor fits the bill...and other times not so much. Also, while i found Gina decent in haywire(Which i personally found uneven) i wouldn't call it one of my favorite performances.

    And i would personally argue non-actors aren't essential to creating a naturalist films. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy imo had a very naturalistic tone, and i think everybody in that one was a actor. Same with Let the Right One in(I'm a huge Tomas Alfredson fan)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I agree with you, this all depends on the material. Certainly one way isn't right all of the time. I also don't think using non actors is vital for creating a naturalist film, but, in the case of Soderbergh, I definitely think it helps.

      Thanks for commenting!

      Delete