Soderbergh Gets the Bronx Cheer

[posted by Sheigh Crabtree]

New Yorkers are a tough crowd -- at least when it comes to Steven Soderbergh's latest picture. The director got the Bronx cheer at a DGA New York screening of "The Good German" followed by a Q&A Saturday night. The people who showed up seemed either familiar with Paul Attanasio and his adaptation of the book and/or intrigued by the movie's theme that depicts the post World War II race to nab German scientists between Russia and the U.S. The negative reaction seemed to stem from the film's emulative stylization and the uneven acting.

I sat near a guy who guffawed, sucked his teeth and said "Oh, puhleeze!" loudly enough that everyone in the auditorium could hear him. And despite knowing that Soderbergh was present barely a polite applause could be heard during the end credits. (He walked onstage with moderator Tony Gilroy to a smattering of claps.)

The first question came from left field. An older woman was furious that Soderbergh moved hidden scientist Emil Brandt from the sewer to the cinema. She wanted to know why he jeopardized Brandt's safety. Expressing a more common sentiment, another old-timer stood up and said, "Were you planning to do a spoof or a parody of 'The Third Man?'" Soderbergh offed the question by saying he did not tilt the camera as Carol Reed had.

It seemed a knife fight might break out when Soderbergh said to members: "I imagine a couple of you out there have directed a movie..." (Of course, many DGA NY members work in TV, but if it was a way of reminding them, it went over like a Scud missile.) Gilroy, who looked a little surprised by the hostile questions, tried to keep Soderbergh pumped up, suggesting he really takes chances every time he goes out. But the audience wasn't buying it. The director got one big laugh when he said he pitched "The Good German" to Warner Bros. as "the first feel bad World War II movie." On that point the audience seemed to agree.

Having attended a few other screenings and Q&As here this past week I can attest that "Blood Diamond," "Venus" and "Dreamgirls" got far warmer responses.

Comments

[Mark Rutland]

In these days, everybody (well, almost everybody...) dislike a director who takes risks. Steven Soderbergh is one of the few that respects the intelligence of audiences. He is a true anti-Borat. Please, don't expect him to ask forgiveness for being what he is.

[fillum New York]

I was there too and I would say the crowd was dubious of his point of view. I think they didn't like the characterizations, didn't think the story was clear. Someone asked if there was a parallel political intent with the current U.S. administration's abuses abroad. Soderbergh said it would probably be cooler and more PC to say Yes but he got the script back in 2001 from Ben Cosgrove as a vehicle for Clooney. I think it's a director's responsibility to create a bubble of safety for the actors and Soderbergh did not do that with this movie. The actors seem to be directionless. He said the only direction he gave them was a one page manifesto and a list of movies to watch.

[Sergio]

Why am I not surprised about the audience reaction? I suspect most people will react the same way when they see it. The film promises one thing, but delivers another

[Caroline Bingley]

I was there, too. I can't help but wonder if a general hostility to Soderbergh is starting to fester.

First of all, let me say that the movie isn't great. Not only isn't it one of his best, it's just not a fantastic movie. There are tons of problems with it and they go far beyond just his way of making the movie.

I also wonder if it was a great choice putting Clooney in it. Is he starting to become overexposed? I feel, and I know I'm not the only one who belives this, that he's reached the point where his press suggests he's a far better actor than he actually is.

The last issue I have (and this isn't related to this particular movie, per se) is whether Soderbergh is creating a problem with his "one for them, one for me" mentality. Now, clearly, this isn't a high concept, Ocean's Whatever-type film...but I'm just wondering whether Soderbergh's foray into more commercial fare has made it more difficult to accept his more experimental stuff.

Maybe I'm just being slightly alarmist...but when I watched the response the other night, I sort of got the sense that there was a hostility toward Soderbergh himself that extended beyond the film.

...in any event, I really don't think this will be the the Oscar contender some people were expecting.

[cadavra]

I was at the Variety screening at the ArcLight in L.A.--with Soderbergh also in attendance--and the reaction (forgive me, Anne, for quoting your competitor) was what Variety would term "polite mitting." The questions afterward were respectful, but it was clear the film didn't go over very well. My take is that after it had been sold so strongly as being in the vein of CASABLANCA, the audience was simply not prepared for such a nasty film, one which is devoid of any trace of humor and heart, and in which every character, even Clooney's, is an asshole. Still, I hope it does well, because I want more movies made in black-and-white, and I don't want anyone to use that as a excuse should the film fail.

[anne thompson]

Many people will turn against The Good German, which didn't play well for my UCLA class either, because Soderbergh assaults the audience. He says, here's the anti-Casablanca: I'm going to show you the ways that Casablanca is a product of the old corrupt escapist Hollywood fantasy factory. Intellectually, I can appreciate what he is doing, but why do it to one of the most popular movies ever made? And create something arid and lifeless that dismisses the advances of modern cinema? It's like he's bored--Soderbergh is one of the smartest kids in the room, and like that Lars von Trier documentary, The Five Obstructions, he tied one of his hands behind his back and said, 'I'm going to make a movie inspired by Casablanca, in black and white, using the technology of the period, and my actors have to act like actors of that period.'

So he puts them in declamatory strait jackets and hangs them out to dry. Audiences will see how hostile this is. I love many of Soderbergh's indie pictures--especially The Limey and Full Frontal—but they didn't cost much. This is still, even if the stars took pay cuts, a studio-level picture—paid for, yes, by the Oceans series. It's like Soderbergh doesn't care if moviegoers like it or not. This was made in his little playpen with no concern for pleasing an audience at all.

[Sergio]

I think you hit the nail on the head. The big problem with The Good German is that it just shows the absolute comtempt that Soderbergh has for films of that period. Why even bother to make a film like this if you don't like them? It reminds me of Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man which was a comtemptous look at westerns made by someone who obviously looks down on them and thinks he's way too hip to appreciate them.

[Carin]

I saw the movie at the Jacob Burns Theatre in suburban New York last night, also with Soderbergh in attendance. The audience was slightly more polite, though there were loud guffaws at the end, at the plane-in-the-rain farewell scene. I'm sure that Soderbergh was entertained making this movie, but I was certainly not entertained watching it. I kept waiting for it to get better, and to make sense, but it never did. The thing feels like a self-indulgent exercise of a Hollywood guy who's allowed to do whatever he wants.

[anne thompson]

Here's a positive review from AICN.

[Jackson]

I was at the DGA screening myself. I do agree with most of what was said, but to say that he as contempt for the the films of that period is just plain wrong. If anything the film showed a hard and fast love of them. It is the anti-Casablanca, but only in the fact that Casablanca and the directors of the time had to deal HUAC and other forms of control. There were things that they couldn't show. This movie tried to present what it would have been like if the directors of the old guard could do what we can do today. It's stylized and jarring, and probably will go over most peoples heads, but i for one thought the movie was good (if a little muddled at points), but to claim that Soderbergh is disdainful of that eara of film is just plain wrong.

[Rob in NoVA]

So does "The Good German" make Soderbergh the Anti-Hal B. Wallis?

When Soderbergh has 400 films in the can, he can blast away all he wants.

[bob]

I smell Oscars!

[Josh Ramsey]

As someone who was on a movie set very much like this one (see my link), I can't imagine a director expending so much creative energy on a something he disdains.