Jump to content


Photo

steven soderbergh


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 June 2010 - 03:18 AM

What do you guys think about him being cinematographer and director? Do you think he delegates some of the DP's responsibilities onto the camera operator and gaffer in order to handle the work load? Or do you think he handles both roles at fair value?

What does it mean to you?


I'm curious on other peoples opinion.
  • 0

#2 BenjaminCarey

BenjaminCarey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Student

Posted 25 June 2010 - 03:59 AM

Well, when he shoots he generally just shoots with available light...
So he saves time by not going into all that other unnecessary "lighting" stuff DP's sometimes talk about.

Edited by BenjaminCarey, 25 June 2010 - 04:01 AM.

  • 0

#3 Chris Fernando

Chris Fernando
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 26 June 2010 - 05:56 PM

Well, when he shoots he generally just shoots with available light...
So he saves time by not going into all that other unnecessary "lighting" stuff DP's sometimes talk about.


He never seems to let composition, camera movement and, from what I've heard, proper exposure dictate story either.
  • 0

#4 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:40 AM

He never seems to let composition, camera movement and, from what I've heard, proper exposure dictate story either.


I've heard the same. In an interview, Michale Douglas stated that while shooting Traffic, Soderbergh used the telephoto lens a lot to give the actors more space to act (as if they were on stage.) That's great if he was ORIGINALLY planning to use a telephoto lens for certain scenes, but I completely disagree with sacrificing part of the image for the performance (if that was indeed his thought process...I really don't know.) I mean, come on. We're talking about professional actors, here. If you want to use a shorter lens, use a shorter lens. The actors will adapt.

Overall, I find Soderbergh to be extremely arrogant. Just listen to the commentary on his version of Solaris. He basically tried to create a Kubrickian, 2001 atmosphere in some of those scenes by using music similar to that of György Sándor Ligeti and similar camera angles. Whatever respect I had for him went right out the window when I saw and heard that. All I saw was someone trying to mimick a master filmmaker. Copying scenes (with only minor alterations in text) from one great film (2001: A Space Odyssey, in this case) to a mediocre one is a BIG no-no.
  • 0

#5 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:51 AM

I'm curious on other peoples opinion.


You might find this interview of some use:
http://www.stevensod...matographer.php
He keeps a slew of interviews on his sight.

Personally, I think if it works it works. The end product is what matters, regardless of how and to whom duties are delegated.
  • 0

#6 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:31 AM

"I think if it works it works"

I agree and it makes sense what he says in the interview. But when looking at his newer work (Girlfriend Experience, Informant) I wonder if he has lost it. Yeah, I know, they should look like crap, sure... Even my 80cm-SDTV was too much for that, my eyes would have started to bleed if I had seen it on the big screen... It looks like an anti-RED-commercial.
  • 0

#7 Chris Durham

Chris Durham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • New York, NY

Posted 30 June 2010 - 03:39 PM

It looks like an anti-RED-commercial.


"The Girlfriend Experience" was gorgeous I thought. And probably the best looking thing I can think of from the Red.
  • 0

#8 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:08 PM

Maybe "Girlfriend Experience" is a bad example at all - either discussing Steven Soderbergh as Cinematographer & Director or the camera system he used, because it's very low-budget.
It had some "normal" looking daylight-scenes (what was the "Informant"-look about? Was it meant to look 70s?), but I thought the indoor-scenes were mostly horrible - barely any lighting to speak of, pushing the camera way beyond it's limits:
http://www.thehdcrow...xperience_5.png

Anyway, I don't think that it has something to do with Soderbergh being director & cinematographer at once. I admire his ability to switch genres, styles, low-budget and blockbuster - but I cannot say I'm a big fan of his work, especially his last movies (this is not about RED, I thought Good German was odd despite being filmed on 35mm).
  • 0

#9 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 30 June 2010 - 05:48 PM

You might find this interview of some use:
http://www.stevensod...matographer.php
He keeps a slew of interviews on his sight.

Personally, I think if it works it works. The end product is what matters, regardless of how and to whom duties are delegated.


Many people would disagree with that line of thinking, especially those who have "worked" with (or for) someone like James Cameron.

In my opinion, unless you are concerned with nothing but profit, the creative process is just as important as the product that comes out of it. And very often, the more you allow the people who are good at what they do (actors, DPs, editors, etc.) to just do their respective jobs, the better the final piece will be. Look at Scorsese for example. He is indeed a perfectionist who knows what he wants. All of his films have a specific directorial style that cannot be mistaken for any other. But he is also known for letting his crews and casts try new things all the time. That's a creative process. And look at the results.

Let's face it...Hollywood's primary concern is making a profit. It's a business. Filmmakers should be more concerned with the artful details of a given project. And when you start taking on a number of different duties (e.g., Director and DP,) sometimes the director's vision becomes a bit more narrow and dull from project to project. I've found this to be the case with some of Soderbergh's stuff. He used similar lenses and color timing in both Traffic and Erin Brokovich (both good films.) Hey, sometimes it works...sometimes it doesn't. To date, the only filmmaker I know of who kept COMPLETE control of each project and was able to do it effectively was Stanley Kubrick.

Edited by Bill DiPietra, 30 June 2010 - 05:51 PM.

  • 0

#10 Devindra Sooknanan

Devindra Sooknanan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Bay area, california

Posted 07 July 2010 - 12:53 AM

while i like some of his movies, I personally feel that his newer stuff is sloppy. but it may be because he is who he is he can "get away" with it but i personally don't like it. i though there where some very good looking scenes in the girl friend experience other scenes i though looked bad. Also i wasn't impressed with the informant either. I think it might serve him well if he had a dp and they both worked as operators. i know that Ridley scott occasionally did op for some of his stuff and i've like all of his movies. Thats just me.
  • 0

#11 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 08 July 2010 - 03:07 PM

What do you guys think about him being cinematographer and director? Do you think he delegates some of the DP's responsibilities onto the camera operator and gaffer in order to handle the work load? Or do you think he handles both roles at fair value?

What does it mean to you?


I'm curious on other peoples opinion.


I find his stuff particularly difficult to watch. He seems quite keen on throwing in some cheap effect in his shooting style that proves quite distracting. There is his penchant for shooting blown out highlights. "The Good German" was particularly egregious, and I found it almost unwatchable. Then in "The Informant!" the use of that goddamn fog filter was aggravating enough in the trailer, that it killed any desire in me to see the feature. I found "Traffic"'s use of color coding to set apart scenes to be rather lazy...not to mention he helped originate the "blue look" that is now so common in police procedurals and thrillers, and is a big pet peeve of mine.

He strikes me a rather pretentious and all about what's on the surface, with no understanding of what lies beneath. "The Good German" revealed as much. He talked about using vintage lenses and all that to somehow evoke a 40s Warner Bros. picture, yet in the same sentence, says he used color converted to black and white because black and white stocks were "too grainy." Has he EVER SEEN a picture shot in black-and-white? There's GONNA BE GRAIN. It's how you shoot it, how you balance your contrast, your light and shadow, and he demonstrated a patent lack of understanding of this. It signaled to me that he was just after an effect. It was, to paraphrase Roger Ebert, cinematic masturbation...an evocation of a past experience with none of the original passion. And Soderbergh is one of cinema's preeminent cinematic masturbators.
  • 0

#12 Tim Partridge

Tim Partridge
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2010 - 03:50 PM

I really like the look of the Soderbergh films shot by Lloyd, Lachman and Davis. Ever seen Kafka? Wow. I think that aided by a cinematographer Soderbergh commands a very visually distinct style to his films. I am not so much a fan of his self DPing which in my opinion seems to attempt the same kind of striking visuals but without the technical polish (but maybe that's the point). I remember seeing Traffic at the cinema and being knocked out by how grainy and underexposed the tobacco filter desert shots looked to me, and not in a bold, adventurous way, but more in an unintentionally out of control way, in my opinion, but again, perhaps that was the point?

I've heard the same. In an interview, Michale Douglas stated that while shooting Traffic, Soderbergh used the telephoto lens a lot to give the actors more space to act (as if they were on stage.) That's great if he was ORIGINALLY planning to use a telephoto lens for certain scenes, but I completely disagree with sacrificing part of the image for the performance (if that was indeed his thought process...I really don't know.) I mean, come on. We're talking about professional actors, here. If you want to use a shorter lens, use a shorter lens. The actors will adapt


Don't forget he's a fan of Richard Lester so maybe that is a stylistic device he was influenced by?
  • 0

#13 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 08 July 2010 - 04:24 PM

...not to mention he helped originate the "blue look" that is now so common in police procedurals and thrillers, and is a big pet peeve of mine.


Michael Mann was using that look long before Soderbergh, but Mann's use of it has always been much more effective and judicious.
  • 0

#14 Chris D Walker

Chris D Walker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Other
  • Cornwall, United Kingdom

Posted 09 July 2010 - 06:31 AM

My thoughts about directors taking on other roles during a production? If you can afford a decent crew a director should remain as a director, acting as a master of ceremonies, an island of tranquility in a sea of chaos. Directors who act as the crew have an ego coupled with neuroses and I don't like that. Whenever I see Cameron or Soderbergh operating the camera it's as if they trust no-one else to achieve the best result. It's the 'you're doing it wrong, allow me' mentality. To an extent I don't like DP's who operate themselves, either.

As far as Soderbergh's films I think Ocean's 11 and 13 were fun and 12 (Soderbergh's favourite) was shameful. I could go into his other films but it would take a while. There is a certain style to his films, like many have already described, where you're unsure whether it is deliberate or simply working with what is in any given situation in terms of lighting, space etc.

The worst perpetrator for ego-director? Robert Rodriguez. Director, DP, camera operator, production designer, stunt co-ordinator, special effects supervisor, etc. Check out the credits for Once Upon a Time in Mexico, it's ridiculous. Where first this was a necessity for him it has become an indulgence, a lot like his films. I do like From Dusk Till Dawn, however.
  • 0

#15 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1573 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 20 July 2010 - 02:12 PM

What do you guys think about him being cinematographer and director? Do you think he delegates some of the DP's responsibilities onto the camera operator and gaffer in order to handle the work load? Or do you think he handles both roles at fair value?

What does it mean to you?


I'm curious on other peoples opinion.

It's how most of us started out.
  • 0

#16 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 20 July 2010 - 06:30 PM

What do you guys think about him being cinematographer and director?

Since he went completely Ape-Excrement over the Red One (you know, the first of the first 100 that were later recalled :P ), I actually went to my local video library and rented some of his films to see what this guy was about.

Talk about 16 hours or so my life I'll never get back.

For the life of me I just can't see what all the fuss is about. OK in a lt of cases his movies are generally acceptable pieces of cinematic work, but as with a lot of other alleged "luminaries" in this field, I can't help wondering if he fell under the proverbial bus just before production was due to start, would the films have been THAT different? To me it seems like it would be more a case of "Next cab off the rank," since almost the same 15 minutes or so of credits would be running regardless.

Except maybe for "Solaris". Watching that I felt a bit like a antique restorer forced to attend a community college class on refurbishing Ikea furniture. :P

As for his fixation with digital formats, he's rapidly lurching down the same sad path as David Lynch.
  • 0

#17 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 July 2010 - 10:59 AM

The worst perpetrator for ego-director? Robert Rodriguez. Director, DP, camera operator, production designer, stunt co-ordinator, special effects supervisor, etc. Check out the credits for Once Upon a Time in Mexico, it's ridiculous. Where first this was a necessity for him it has become an indulgence, a lot like his films. I do like From Dusk Till Dawn, however.

Has it occurred that maybe they really enjoy all those aspects in film production that they get involved? It doesn't mean they do everything themselves, you clearly see other people doing things. I don't understand how it can be simply considered an ego trip if they like doing a lot of different jobs on a film set.
  • 0

#18 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 22 July 2010 - 11:27 AM

I think it has to do with not allowing other more qualified people to do the same jobs.... I don't think it's a good idea unless out of necessity. I mean, hell, look, I can dop and cam op and gaff all at the same time.. but doing all that means I don't do nearly as good of a job as I would were I just doing one of the 3--because I can devote myself entirely to it (though I do like Oping... sometimes). Imagine how much a director has to deal with.. does s/he really need to add more onto that plate and if they do, do not the aspects of the production all then go down towards a lowest common denominator? Even someone like Kubrick, who had a lot of control on his films still brought in very qualified people to help out and despite his authorship still had DoPs whom he allowed to work (though you get some conflicting stories when looking at all of his interviews/writings 'bout him).
  • 0

#19 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 July 2010 - 10:48 PM

I think it has to do with not allowing other more qualified people to do the same jobs.... I don't think it's a good idea unless out of necessity. I mean, hell, look, I can dop and cam op and gaff all at the same time.. but doing all that means I don't do nearly as good of a job as I would were I just doing one of the 3--because I can devote myself entirely to it (though I do like Oping... sometimes). Imagine how much a director has to deal with.. does s/he really need to add more onto that plate and if they do, do not the aspects of the production all then go down towards a lowest common denominator? Even someone like Kubrick, who had a lot of control on his films still brought in very qualified people to help out and despite his authorship still had DoPs whom he allowed to work (though you get some conflicting stories when looking at all of his interviews/writings 'bout him).

Not sure how truthful this is.

Cinematographer Russell Metty walked off the set, complaining that Stanley Kubrick was not letting him do his job. When he returned to the set, Kubrick told him to shut up and butt out and, subsequently, Kubrick did the majority of the cinematography work. Metty complained about this up until the release of the film and even, at one point, asked to have his name removed from the credits. However, because his name was in the credits, when the film won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography, it was given to Metty, although he actually didn't shoot most of it.

Edited by Marcus Joseph, 25 July 2010 - 10:49 PM.

  • 0

#20 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 26 July 2010 - 02:42 AM

I cant belive that is true if Kubrick had lit the film it would have looked much better than it does , its shot typical old style " Hollywood" pretty bad .
  • 0


The Slider

Opal

Technodolly

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport