MUST LISTEN: Steven Soderbergh's State of Cinema Address

[Gopher]

https://soundcloud.com/thompsononhollywood/steven-soderbergh-sfiff56?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer:+badassdigest+on+twitter&buffer_share=b0375

 

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/steven-soderbergh-on-whats-killing-cinema?page=2#blogPostHeaderPanel

 

A 38-minute speech with Soderbergh at SFIFF about the nature of Hollywood today and how elements like marketing have changed the whole game. 

 

Some choice quotes: 

 

"Is there anyone in the galaxy that doesn't know that 'Iron Man 3' is opening on Friday?" 

 

“The problem is that cinema, as I define it and as something that inspired me, is under assault by the studios and, from what I can tell, with the full support of the audience. The reasons for this, in my opinion, are more economic than philosophical, but when you add an ample amount of fear and lack of vision and a lack of leadership you’ve got a trajectory that is pretty difficult to reverse.”

 

"Is there a difference between cinema and movies? Yeah. If I were on ‘Team America’ I would say, 'Fuck Yeah!’ The simplest way I could describe it is, a movie is something you see and cinema is something that’s made. It has nothing to do with the capture medium, it doesn’t have anything to do with where the screen is, whether it’s in your bedroom or on your iPad, it doesn’t even really have to be a movie. It could be a commercial; it could be something on Youtube. Cinema is a specificity of vision. It’s an approach where everything matters. It’s the polar opposite of generic or arbitrary and the result is as unique as a signature or a fingerprint. It isn’t made by a committee and it isn’t made by a company and it isn’t made by the audience. It means if the filmmaker didn’t do it, it wouldn’t exist at all, or it wouldn’t exist anything like this form.”

[RichWS]

Can't wait to listen.

[Gopher]

The scariest statistic: ten years ago, studio films took up 69% of the yearly market share. Today, there are 10% less studio films and twice as many independent releases... and the yearly market share of studio films is 76%. Independent cinema is literally dying. 

[Ozymandias]

That was one of the best speeches I've listened to in a LONG time and I've felt the same way for awhile now. Steven Soderbergh articulated it perfectly.  I'm getting dragged to Iron Man 3 next weekend and I know I'll be relatively bored but this makes me wanna put my foot down and say "have fun, I'm gonna do something else".

[acsc1312]

Soderbergh is my hero

[Darth Homer]

While I agree with Soderbergh in principle, you have to separate a film's marketing from its actual content. Just because something is marketed as a mindless popcorn movie for the masses, doesn't mean that's what it is. There are still directors who make mainstream studio films that care about the art (Nolan, Whedon, Cameron, etc.) Not all blockbuster filmmakers are Michael Bay. And just because a movie is indie or highbrow doesn't automatically make it better. The problem isn't that too many popcorn movies are made. The problem is that too many bad popcorn movies are made. Obviously, studio meddling is to blame for a lot of that, but a great filmmaker should always put their heart into a movie, whether it's based on Shakespeare or Marvel Comics.

[Gopher]

I think he's talking more about how studios ignore smaller projects in favor of massive ones that are sure bets. He's arguing that studios should find the talented filmmakers and give them creative freedom. That only works if you're great at identifying talent, and today's studios are about factoring in marketing and distribution. The only way young filmmakers get any traction these days is on small budgets. Studios don't look at the singles or the doubles, just the home-runs/tentpoles. From a studio's perspective you can't separate content from marketing. The content is marketing, because the market is as crowded as ever and marketing costs more than ever. 

 

If the problem is that too many bad popcorn movies are made, then it's a bigger problem that the filmmakers are punished for the bombs and not the executives. 

[acsc1312]

Thank God for Megan Ellison

[RobinHood26]

Great listen, thanks for posting it!

[Gopher]

And this is why I try to not read Deadline comments...

 

"This bitchfest was delivered by someone who just profited enormously by selling an incredibly cliched, mediocre (6.1 on IMDB) film to the public on the basis of watching attractive men take off their clothes." 

 

http://m.deadline.com/2013/04/steven-soderbergh-state-of-cinema-address/

 

Magic Mike is AWESOME. Deal with it. 

Edited May 1, 2013 by Gopher

[Ozymandias]

And this is why I try to not read Deadline comments...

 

"This bitchfest was delivered by someone who just profited enormously by selling an incredibly cliched, mediocre (6.1 on IMDB) film to the public on the basis of watching attractive men take off their clothes." 

 

http://m.deadline.com/2013/04/steven-soderbergh-state-of-cinema-address/

 

Hah, wow.  Sounds like your typical imdb forum poster/youtube comments.

[Hatebox]

He's not saying anything new, but I agree with him wholeheartedly - the American film market seems to be made up of a handful of massive blockbusters and fewer and fewer mid-sized films.

 

This is unquestionably a bad thing. Especially because blockbusters usually suck.

 

Another point is that marketing budgets for big franchises that everyone already knows about is increasing, while for smaller films it's decreasing. That makes no sense.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Hatebox

[Lordmandeep]

2012 was a great example..

 

Pretty much everyone just saw THG, TA, TDKR, Skyfall and TH...