Given that the occupation of a director resides for the most part not in front of the camera, but behind the scenes, working in the "soul" of the movie, so to speak, it can seem difficult to decipher little if anything about his personality.
There are a few directors (most notably Tim Burton comes to mind) who have a familiar, personalized style that pervades each of their films and in a way gives us a sort of motivation towards wanting to go see their next film. Soderbergh is a director I have learned of recently (through his debut film "sex, lies, and videotape") who has certainly crafted his own style of film noir.
I'm lost when it comes to the esoteric realm of film history and jargon, but what I have witnessed with Soderbergh's work is a devotion to precise camera work and movement, a solid screenplay filled with its share of real people with real, if somewhat out of the ordinary problems, and an overall sense of gloom and helplessness against it that is the heart of the film.
If Soderbergh has remained for the most part a "cult hit" I can only reason it would be due to that in his work there is no redemption, no epiphany or accomplishment achieved by a character that would amount to a sense of victory, of a happy ending. As a child, I enjoyed the happy endings of the cartoons, where everyone stands around laughing, but now as an adult, one realizes that situations in real life don't quite work out that way. If an ending to a movie seems troublesome, with issues left unresolved, I feel my imagination intrigued by the possibilities of what goes on after the story ends. Will so and so work off his problems? Will so and so get back together and love each other again? In such a case the filmmakers take the initiative to assume that the audience is an intelligent and interested in the characters. If executed properly, a film will succeed not because of what is shown, but what is not shown.
So the point that I'm trying to bring up is a sort of analysis between the films and the filmmaker. To assume Soderbergh uses the art form as a sort of release, as a confession (to quote him) is a fascinating idea. Then what can be deduced from watching his films? No doubt, an intelligent, deep man with a troubled past, caught in a web of disappointing relationships, dead end jobs, and a personal view of life that is so haunted by the past that it is unable to see the future in a bright perspective, if at all.
By the way, the most intelligent men aren't always the most popular. But I love intelligence and certainly Soderbergh shall make his way into my video collection.
There are a few directors (most notably Tim Burton comes to mind) who have a familiar, personalized style that pervades each of their films and in a way gives us a sort of motivation towards wanting to go see their next film. Soderbergh is a director I have learned of recently (through his debut film "sex, lies, and videotape") who has certainly crafted his own style of film noir.
I'm lost when it comes to the esoteric realm of film history and jargon, but what I have witnessed with Soderbergh's work is a devotion to precise camera work and movement, a solid screenplay filled with its share of real people with real, if somewhat out of the ordinary problems, and an overall sense of gloom and helplessness against it that is the heart of the film.
If Soderbergh has remained for the most part a "cult hit" I can only reason it would be due to that in his work there is no redemption, no epiphany or accomplishment achieved by a character that would amount to a sense of victory, of a happy ending. As a child, I enjoyed the happy endings of the cartoons, where everyone stands around laughing, but now as an adult, one realizes that situations in real life don't quite work out that way. If an ending to a movie seems troublesome, with issues left unresolved, I feel my imagination intrigued by the possibilities of what goes on after the story ends. Will so and so work off his problems? Will so and so get back together and love each other again? In such a case the filmmakers take the initiative to assume that the audience is an intelligent and interested in the characters. If executed properly, a film will succeed not because of what is shown, but what is not shown.
So the point that I'm trying to bring up is a sort of analysis between the films and the filmmaker. To assume Soderbergh uses the art form as a sort of release, as a confession (to quote him) is a fascinating idea. Then what can be deduced from watching his films? No doubt, an intelligent, deep man with a troubled past, caught in a web of disappointing relationships, dead end jobs, and a personal view of life that is so haunted by the past that it is unable to see the future in a bright perspective, if at all.
By the way, the most intelligent men aren't always the most popular. But I love intelligence and certainly Soderbergh shall make his way into my video collection.