August 8, 2006

The Believer. Soderbergh.

The Believer Scott Indrisek has a fun, free-wheeling interview with Steven Soderbergh in the Believer. After talking about porn and politics and before getting into dreams and why Soderbergh thought Schizopolis would be bigger than Sex, Lies and Videotape, Indrisek asks, "Are you offended by bad movies?"

"It's not that I'm offended," Soderbergh replies, "it just makes me sad. And there's a difference between failures and things that are bad. I'd like to think that I've made movies that were failures, creatively and otherwise."

Next question: "Which? Any you would take back?" Soderbergh:

No, just ones I'd do differently. They were sincere attempts. I think Kafka was a failure. King of the Hill. The Underneath is a failure. I should have done that very differently. I've made movies since then that don't work for people - there are a lot of people that don't like Full Frontal, don't like Bubble. But I feel like I got what I was after with those films, I understood what I was trying to do. They succeeded on their own terms. But the earlier films, I just hadn't hit the next level yet.

More full texts from the August issue: Jenny Davidson meets Toni Schlesinger, Pete L'Official reviews Gautam Malkani's debut novel, Londonstani, and Phyllis Fong reviews Jane Yeh's Marabou.



Bookmark and Share

Posted by dwhudson at August 8, 2006 6:27 AM

Comments

King of the Hill is not a failure.

Posted by: nathaniel at August 8, 2006 8:37 AM


Nathaniel's right. I think "King of the Hill" is one of his best movies, and evidence that artists aren't always the best judge of their own work.

Posted by: tombesh at August 8, 2006 8:52 AM

We should have more failures like "King of the Hill".

("The Underneath" aint bad, either.)

Posted by: Kza at August 8, 2006 10:11 AM

Well, let's keep in mind the distinction he's making between "failure" and "bad." He doesn't really elaborate what exactly he means by "failure," but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of, "they weren't, ultimately, the films I set out to make." Or would have made now, that is, now that he's "hit the next level." And after all, if he'd "like to think" that these films are failures, it suggests that he doesn't necessarily consider them "bad." Necessarily.

Posted by: David Hudson at August 8, 2006 11:08 AM

That illustration of SS makes him look like one of the guys in the Coudal office...

Posted by: at August 8, 2006 1:45 PM

I agree on "King of the Hill" -- just because it's much more sedate and conventionally structured than anything he'd do today hardly makes it a failure. Not a masterpiece, but a fine and honest little film, nonetheless.

"Bubble" -- now THAT was a failure.

Posted by: Chris Barsanti at August 9, 2006 11:16 AM

"'Bubble' -- now THAT was a failure."

Yes, but you see, with "Bubble" Soderbergh set OUT to make a failure, so that was a success, whereas King of the Hill was good, but the kind of good he set out to make, and thus it failed by not failing. Or something. Oh, I give up.

CP

Posted by: Craig P at August 9, 2006 5:54 PM