Soderbergh's State of Cinema speech

[Gillvane]

Right, and so does everyone else.

Truth is though, what most people pay money to see is very generic, because that's "good" to them.

5 million people payed money to see A HAUNTED HOUSE at the cinema.
Obviously it's not a fluke, after five Scary Movies, Epic Movie, Superhero Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans etc.
This kind of stuff is what many, many people considder to be "good".

Obviously there's no accounting for taste, but still. 5 million people are not wrong.
You and I may not like these films, but it's important to respect that other people - paying people - do.

By the way, anyone here read the novel "I AM LEGEND" by Richard Matheson?

I know everyone wants to make their art. I understand that.
But it's important to remember that feature films take so long time, so many people and so much money to make, that it has to be art for the masses and not self indulgent art for the artist's own sake.

That's the short film format.

Not really.

If Zach Braff and Vernoica Mars (Yes I know that's the series not the actor) can do it for 2 million, then they only need to make 6 million for it to turn a profit.

That's the general rule of thumb for movie productions, generate 3 x production costs and you're in the black.

If the Kickstarter generated the 2 million in production costs up front, that means you only need 4 million more to make a successful profitable film.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Not really.

If Zach Braff and Vernoica Mars (Yes I know that's the series not the actor) can do it for 2 million, then they only need to make 6 million for it to turn a profit.

That's the general rule of thumb for movie productions, generate 3 x production costs and you're in the black.

If the Kickstarter generated the 2 million in production costs up front, that means you only need 4 million more to make a successful profitable film.

I'm not sure I follow your point on this one. Braff and Rob Thomas are very well established with a mainstream appeal.
They're not unknown arthouse filmmakers making their debuts in 2013.

 

[Drew Ott]

Right, and so does everyone else.

Truth is though, what most people pay money to see is very generic, because that's "good" to them.

5 million people payed money to see A HAUNTED HOUSE at the cinema.
Obviously it's not a fluke, after five Scary Movies, Epic Movie, Superhero Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans etc.
This kind of stuff is what many, many people considder to be "good".

Obviously there's no accounting for taste, but still. 5 million people are not wrong.
You and I may not like these films, but it's important to respect that other people - paying people - do.

By the way, anyone here read the novel "I AM LEGEND" by Richard Matheson?

I know everyone wants to make their art. I understand that.
But it's important to remember that feature films take so long time, so many people and so much money to make, that it has to be art for the masses and not self indulgent art for the artist's own sake.

That's the short film format.

I disagree. I believe compromise of vision for financial reasons forsakes the potential of art. This is my own view--I don't think all films need to be produced with this vision. But I'm not interested in satisfying the cravings of consumers with stimulation-addiction, who hope to pass the time with easy entertainment. The cinema I enjoy most, and the films I want to make, require an investment of time and focus by the viewer for an ultimate payoff at the end. Some scenes need to be slow. There should be moments of pause and reflection. If we try to provide instant gratification for filmgoers around the globe, we are going to turn ourselves into the McDonald's of art. People will love consuming our products, but they won't receive any nourishment.

There are indeed financial consequences for this perspective. Bring them on! If you told me that 2,000,000 features would be produced in 2014, and only one would receive wide distribution, I wouldn't change my plan of attack. Frankly, there's no other option but to carry on.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I disagree. I believe compromise of vision for financial reasons forsakes the potential of art. This is my own view--I don't think all films need to be produced with this vision. But I'm not interested in satisfying the cravings of consumers with stimulation-addiction, who hope to pass the time with easy entertainment. The cinema I enjoy most, and the films I want to make, require an investment of time and focus by the viewer for an ultimate payoff at the end. Some scenes need to be slow. There should be moments of pause and reflection. If we try to provide instant gratification for filmgoers around the globe, we are going to turn ourselves into the McDonald's of art. People will love consuming our products, but they won't receive any nourishment.

There are indeed financial consequences for this perspective. Bring them on! If you told me that 2,000,000 features would be produced in 2014, and only one would receive wide distribution, I wouldn't change my plan of attack. Frankly, there's no other option but to carry on.

This is of course true.

But the one does not exclude the other.

There is art in even the most seemingly trivial piece of pop culture referential cinema, because every choice you make as a filmmaker is STILL a creative choice even if you're trying to connect with other people instead of just yourself.

Art does not have to be self indulgent.

Believe me this is true, "the cinema you enjoy most" was made by people who had your emotional connection in mind the most, and was not just thinking of their own artistic gratification.

This is achieved using the exact same methods and ideas as making films like A Haunted House, they're just reaching out to a different audience. Fans of A Haunted House would probably look at films like Bladerunner and Antichrist and call them pieces of s*%t and truly mean it.

Because they don't connect with them the way you do the same way and for the same reasons you don't connect with A Haunted House.

And that's okay. That's a matter of taste. Whatever floats your boat. It doesn't matter.

Yes, there are financial consequences. Blade Runner and Antichrist were both huge financial disasters and I would still say both were made with artistic integrity by guys like Ridley Scott and Lars von Trier (and of course everyone else who worked on them). Still they were made for other people to enjoy, and obviously I don't know Scott or von Trier, but I'd be willing to bet they both care if other people see their work or not.

As long as you're working with other people's money though, you have to make films that please whoever pays the bills. It's just the nature of working with this format. Like I've said earlier, it takes so long time, so many people and so much money to make a feature length film, that it has to be art for the masses and not self indulgent art for the artist's own sake.

 

[Drew Ott]

I have a different definition of 'art' than you do. Art is different from creativity. There is creativity used in the marketing of fast food, porn, alcohol, and all the rest. I don't believe that art is a matter of taste. Art is the unfiltered deepest feeling of the artist. To reach 'art,' as I define it, that piece of exposed soul cannot be filtered up through the vanity of film-for-profit. There are plenty of films that are mainly commerce, and occasionally dip into art, or the opposite. Art usually shows itself in little moments.

In my definition, art and commerce are indeed contradictions. Most movies have to be motivated by at least some of both to be good. I enjoy a good commercial film just as much as an art film, and often would rather watch the former.

What's cool about self-indulgence, is that if I indulge myself and tell the complete truth, chances are it will also resonate with you. Some folks call that 'genius' or 'humanity' or 'God,' etc.


'Antichrist' is a good example of art. I absolutely hated it. I despised it. But it affected me deeply because it was clearly made for art and Von Trier was clearly telling the truth as he saw it. That is one of the few films I'd say should probably not have been made, because it was indeed so effective.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

What's cool about self-indulgence, is that if I indulge myself and tell the complete truth, chances are it will also resonate with you. Some folks call that 'genius' or 'humanity' or 'God,' etc.


'Antichrist' is a good example of art. I absolutely hated it. I despised it. But it affected me deeply because it was clearly made for art and Von Trier was clearly telling the truth as he saw it. That is one of the few films I'd say should probably not have been made, because it was indeed so effective.

Are you sure though that the feature film format is the format for you?

Antichrist grossed $791,867 worldwide on an $11,000,000 budget, was made by a VERY well established arthouse filmmaker with a directing career going back to the early 80s for features and late 60s for short films. It was made completely inside the European system in exactly the same way Transformers was made completely inside the American system.

I think with this kind of inflation in the number of feature length films produced, the arthouse indie feature film will be the one to suffer most.
All it takes is one financial failure, and you might not get to make another film again.

Short fiilms, on the other hand, still have high potential for what you're describing.
Nobody expects a short film to make any money anyway. They're cheaper and faster to make, quicker to see, and after the festival tour there's always Vimeo and YouTube.

If you make one and it doesn't recoup the costs then, hey it's a short film, who actually expected it to?

 

[pulpfiction007]

We just need to realize there are different types of movies made for different purposes. Many comedies are not "art", but there is still value in that we get to laugh...many action movies aren't "art" but there is still value in that we get to feel a rush.
My personal favorite movies are the ones that I consider art , but sometimes I just want an escape without thought...more like an amusement ride than a hike through a beautiful countryside.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

We just need to realize there are different types of movies made for different purposes. Many comedies are not "art", but there is still value in that we get to laugh...many action movies aren't "art" but there is still value in that we get to feel a rush.
My personal favorite movies are the ones that I consider art , but sometimes I just want an escape without thought...more like an amusement ride than a hike through a beautiful countryside.

I half agree. But going back to my earlier argument about A Haunted House being art, in my book it totally is.

Pop culture referential humor might be pointing and laughing, but there's a description in pointing and laughing at something about how things are and how they're percieved.
So there's still truth in them.
Even if you or I don't laugh at these jokes, a lot of people do and if it makes them happy I think there's beauty in that as well.

I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss a movie as "Not Art - Bad". Even dividing up films as art/not art, good/bad just forces us into a very narrow mindset and as filmmakers we have to be able to examine things in a more open minded way than that.

Films too.

It's that same narrow mind set that back in the 60's and 70's told people "Horror - Bad" and created the Video Nasties craze where the police in the UK actually went to people's houses and confiscated video tapes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Where I live, in Sweden, that film was completely banned for 20 years, and the few horror films that were released were censored beyond recognition. A lot of countries still has this problem.
Today it's considdered a milepost in it's genre, and a classic. I recently watched a new 35mm print of it at the Swedish Cinemateque.
But it's still practically impossible over here to get a horror film financed within the system because of the genre it's in.

Anyway, I think I'm gonna cut down on the lecturing. That was one of my new years resolutions.
Sorry bout that, folks.

 

[jghenderson]

Short fiilms, on the other hand, still have high potential for what you're describing.

I would disagree with this. There is something about the long format of a feature that really allows you ease into the piece, opening you up to all sorts of emotional and spiritual possibilities.

Shorts on the other hand, are by definition and nature, quick. I have been truly touched by many feature films, some I would say even bordered on a spiritual experience, but I have never once seen a short film and had a similar experience. The only one that came close was 'The Red Balloon', and that short is 30+ minutes.


On a more practical note, every filmmaker dreams of being able to focus solely on their craft. Unfortunately it essentially impossible to survive on directing shorts. While it is of course extremely difficult to become a career director of features, at least it is possible and pays well if you manage to get into the right place.

 

[Drew Ott]

Are you sure though that the feature film format is the format for you?

Antichrist grossed $791,867 worldwide on an $11,000,000 budget, was made by a VERY well established arthouse filmmaker with a directing career going back to the early 80s for features and late 60s for short films. It was made completely inside the European system in exactly the same way Transformers was made completely inside the American system.

I think with this kind of inflation in the number of feature length films produced, the arthouse indie feature film will be the one to suffer most.
All it takes is one financial failure, and you might not get to make another film again.

Short fiilms, on the other hand, still have high potential for what you're describing.
Nobody expects a short film to make any money anyway. They're cheaper and faster to make, quicker to see, and after the festival tour there's always Vimeo and YouTube.

If you make one and it doesn't recoup the costs then, hey it's a short film, who actually expected it to?

I don't think you're understanding me still. I don't care if my films make me money. The profit is irrelevant to me. The numbers are just numbers.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I don't think you're understanding me still. I don't care if my films make me money. The profit is irrelevant to me. The numbers are just numbers.

No I understand perfectly, and I'm not judging.
But when you make a feature length film, you're not doing it alone. 30 people is a small number if you include the actors and post production crew, and it takes a lot of money too.

If you can find 30 people who care as little as you do if anyone sees the film, and if you pay for it yourself or with a scholarship or money that doesn't have to be recouped, then you have no obligations to anyone but yourself.
You might be paying it off for the rest of your life. It may shorten your film career to just one film. You might want to get kids in ten years, but you might still be paying off that loan you took to make the film and all your income go to that, but at least your creative vision was intact.

If you're working with people who do care though, or are working for deferred pay or you have an investor who expects to see a return on the investment, you'll have an obligation to these people to not be self indulgent. You'll need to make something that other people, as many as possible, want to pay money to see.

That's the nature of feature length filmmaking.

It's why the kind of freedom the short film format gives is better suited for the arthouse genre, especially in this day and age.

 

[Drew Ott]

No I understand perfectly, and I'm not judging.
But when you make a feature length film, you're not doing it alone. 30 people is a small number if you include the actors and post production crew, and it takes a lot of money too.

If you can find 30 people who care as little as you do if anyone sees the film, and if you pay for it yourself or with a scholarship or money that doesn't have to be recouped, then you have no obligations to anyone but yourself.
You might be paying it off for the rest of your life. It may shorten your film career to just one film. You might want to get kids in ten years, but you might still be paying off that loan you took to make the film and all your income go to that, but at least your creative vision was intact.

If you're working with people who do care though, or are working for deferred pay or you have an investor who expects to see a return on the investment, you'll have an obligation to these people to not be self indulgent. You'll need to make something that other people, as many as possible, want to pay money to see.

Your model is completely valid. It's most people's model. I've been more outspoken about my filmmaking philosophy around here recently, because film-as-art never seems to come into the discussion. I do think the 'art' model is valid.

For me, I hope my career will be like a lifestyle business. I don't care about the budgets of my films, or if they profit. I'll live in my car. You mention a poor financial performance on a feature might "shorten your film career to just one film." You would have to kill me to stop me from making films. Money has much less power than you think.

And to reiterate, I believe in wishy-washy voodoo ideas like "universal truths" and the "human experience." I want to see through the eyes of a storyteller telling personal stories. I want to see the world through another person's eyes to enrich my own life.

You said at last, "You'll need to make something that other people, as many as possible, want to pay money to see." I disagree. I'm not interested in that. I can't compete with the stimulation of porn, explosions, etc. It'll never happen. Storytelling is different. Storytelling is the passing of wisdom, the continued tradition of oratory and myth. Those who gather to listen will be rewarded, while the others jerking off in the forest will not.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Your model is completely valid. It's most people's model. I've been more outspoken about my filmmaking philosophy around here recently, because film-as-art never seems to come into the discussion. I do think the 'art' model is valid.

For me, I hope my career will be like a lifestyle business. I don't care about the budgets of my films, or if they profit. I'll live in my car. You mention a poor financial performance on a feature might "shorten your film career to just one film." You would have to kill me to stop me from making films. Money has much less power than you think.

And to reiterate, I believe in wishy-washy voodoo ideas like "universal truths" and the "human experience." I want to see through the eyes of a storyteller telling personal stories. I want to see the world through another person's eyes to enrich my own life.

You said at last, "You'll need to make something that other people, as many as possible, want to pay money to see." I disagree. I'm not interested in that. I can't compete with the stimulation of porn, explosions, etc. It'll never happen. Storytelling is different. Storytelling is the passing of wisdom, the continued tradition of oratory and myth. Those who gather to listen will be rewarded, while the others jerking off in the forest will not.

I think maybe we're talking about two different things here.

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about the creative process of making films and what that means to you, right?

I'm talking about what you do with a film after it's been made.

Everyone involved in making a film pays. One way or the other, whether it's in blood, sweat and tears or money. Right?

Well, unless you're making your films all by yourself and pay for everything, you'll have a responsibility to the others involved.

And what I said at last was as long as these people you're working with care - you will have that responsibility to them.

Do you really disagree with that?

 

[Drew Ott]

No, I don't disagree with the restatement.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

No, I don't disagree with the restatement.

Look, if you want to make self indulgent art, go ahead.
Personally, I think when the market and the economy is the way it is at the moment, that can be a really self destructive thing to do if we're talking feature length films and not shorts.
I hope you're at least upfront with people when you tell them you won't care if anyone or how many see the final film though. Not doing that is a good way to make enemies.
But I'm sure you know all this stuff.
At least you live in the right city for making indie films. I don't even live in the right country.

 

[Nektonic]

I think one of the things about trying to break into mainstream filmmaking these days is it seems like more of an insane lottery than ever.

The independent side of the spectrum is even more depressing. Even though now we have quality HD DSLRs and RED cams and Black Magic mojo and all that jazz. All the gear feels meaningless in terms of a career or even in terms of anyone outside of mom and dad and a few friends seeing our films. Like a sick joke, the quality cinema gear is being dangled in front of us, which we can afford now, but it doesn't matter because no one will watch the vast majority of films made now even when they're good.

This notion seems supported somewhat by the statistics and Soderbergh's rant.

Back in the 70's you'd get to work your way through commercials. Before that in the 50's and 60's there was the apprentice type system still intact in the studios, both for film and television.

In the 80's, the age of MTV, there was the music video as well as commercials. Big time directors like Ridley Scott, Michael Bay, and David Fincher got in this way. In a sense, making short films. What else are commercials and music videos than a type of short film?

Or how about Roger Corman's B-movie style school of filmmaking? Scorsese, Nicholson, Coppola, Cameron... all of them cut their teeth on low budget Corman productions. We don't have an institution like that anymore. Traditional film school via a university? Who has the money? Even so, that seems to be looked down upon by the industry. Why getting a formal education in one's chosen profession is looked down upon in the case of film and television, I have no idea, but this is Hollywood we're talking about here.

Nowadays it just seems like such a mess. It seems like it's all about who can be the loudest via social media, or for big studio movies who has the biggest mouth that can yell through mainstream media outlets (Tom Cruise's couch jumping antics on Oprah rings a bell). The films themselves seem like merely a peripheral entity in relation to the bubble of white noise that surrounds both the industry and art of cinema.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I think one of the things about trying to break into mainstream filmmaking these days is it seems like more of an insane lottery than ever.

I don't think it particularly different than in my youth of the late 60's early 70's. I've lived within 120 miles of Downtown Hollywood all my life, and friends would go to LA to become something or another in Hollywood... actor/actress, writer, director... to date none have an IMDB entry... in fact I have one for my short film I made 5 years ago now, that was shown in a fest... I do have to up my content generation time... but life seems to crash in...

What may be more visible is the fact that the crap shoot of Hollywood is more visible for skills other than acting... Everyone has been aware of how difficult it is to become a headline actor or actress... (including lurid details of casting couch action... do they still have casting couches???). However, what was less known was how much of a crap shoot it was in other skill sets.

I think at the moment if one is 'outside' the system, making content that gets its on Youtube, getting some mileage out of fests, etc. will be the way people will get into the business if that's what they want to do.

And needless to say, outside of a few film making centers, one has to move to one, if one wants a career in Hollywood...

I think there is potential for 'local content' to be distributed out of Hollywood... the problem is if that amount of work is capable of supporting someone as an income choice.

Live local TV has been making 'money' for years... and perhaps that's a path for some... There was the 'local access' provisions in various FCC rules... but that has never really worked for making a living... and some of the 'production values' were pretty low...

 

[Drew Ott]

Look, if you want to make self indulgent art, go ahead.
Personally, I think when the market and the economy is the way it is at the moment, that can be a really self destructive thing to do if we're talking feature length films and not shorts.
I hope you're at least upfront with people when you tell them you won't care if anyone or how many see the final film though. Not doing that is a good way to make enemies.
But I'm sure you know all this stuff.
At least you live in the right city for making indie films. I don't even live in the right country.

I said, "I don't disagree with the restatement." That means I agree with you.

Anyway, most good auteur filmmakers were indulging their own interests when they created their best works. Kubrick, Bergman, Cassavetes, Allen, Herzog, etc. The list is endless. In fact, I can think of only a handful of non-auteur films that are great cinema.

The "lifestyle business" model of filmmaking has only been successfully lived by a few filmmakers. The great ones who simultaneously strive for person riches usually fizzle out, either artistically or commercially.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Some numbers to conciser: "Titanic," one of the biggest film ever, was seen by less than 5% of world's population!
This movie was all over place - EVERYONE, it seems, was talking about it and yet still 95% of people decided to pass.
I suspect pop-culture is really good about drumming up its own importance while in reality even the biggest of the big only reach such a tiny amount of people.
That 95% of population had to find something else, including other films, for entertainment.

If by-the-numbers film-making was really that successful then that share of who seen that film would be much larger. Truth is plenty of people don't watch the pop culture films. The reason why you don't hear the next art film winning the hearts of movie going audience is because a.) those films don't have the budget to advertise thus very few of the people who would prefer not to watch pop-culture junk know about it; b.) the "art film loving" crowd is more selective in their tastes so there is no ONE art film to see; c.) art community doesn't have means or really desire to scream that they reflect the tastes of the masses (look at the percentage who has seen "Titanic"... then decided if they truly speak for the masses).