When I tell my friends that I think The Underneath, The Limey, Bubble, and K Street are the best things Soderbergh has done thus far they look at me with utter middlebrow incredulity. "What about Sex Lies and Traffic ?", they say. While I certainly acknowledge the importance of his first film I find his modest genre efforts much more satisfying, and aesthetically daring. And K Street is the best piece of political enertainment since Preminger's Advise and Consent in my opinion. Am I alone in my opinion that The Underneath is one of Soderbergh's best?

I don't think it's his best, but I do love the Underneath quite a bit-- I saw it and Criss Cross in a double feature and both films made me appreciate the other much more. But I'm very much a Soderbergh apologist so I like all the films you mentioned (except K Street which I haven't seen). Of course his best film is still Ocean's Twelve.

I'm a Soderbergh apologist as well but I'd really love to read your apology for Full Frontal, which was, in my opinion, pretty unbearable and the only one of Soderbergh's films to turn me off cold. I see little redeeming value in it save maybe the inspired last image.

Anyway, if life was fair he'd still be receiving accolades for King of the Hill and in some quarters I guess he is. I like The Underneath very much and have always appreciated Soderbergh's attempts to refine genre mechanics but my favorite film of his is still and probably always will be sex, lies. It just happened to come at a very formative moment for me (take that as you will) and made a huge and lasting impression. Whenever I return to it I am always in awe of it--the sheer confidence it exhibits is just remarkable. For me there is not one false move, not one unassured or misjudged choice. As a synthesis of acting, writing, music and coiled, powerful filmmaking it has few equals. It's all the more remarkable, of course, given its restricted budget and SS's relative lack of experience.

Favorite shot: the medium close up of Spader sitting on the arm of the sofa at the end of the Big Confrontation Scene. Over his shoulder and through the window we see a few random cars pass by on the quiet residential street. That always rattles me just a little as I am invariably so fully absorbed in the genuine, though certainly strange, intimacy of the moment I am literally startled at the acknowledgment of a world outside, beyond this exchange. I've also always felt that it was a real shame that SS did not continue his relationship with Spader. I'm actually pretty amazed that they have never worked together again since. It's without a doubt Spader's most exposed, least affected performance.

I have to say I didn't get a lot out of The Underneath, but this may have more to do with my basic indifference to noir as a genre. It's also influenced no doubt by Soderbergh's own vocal disowning of the film as his very worst (he once remarked that he could prove the film's badness in a court of law). I'd be interested to hear what others see in the film.

Beyond that, however, I am fanatical about K Street and Bubble! Practically no one I've spoken with, even admirers of his work, has seen K Street, which is a real shame. I think both K Street and Bubble are instances where the mode of production, stripped down digital video (though admittedly more high end for Bubble), worked greatly in the film's favor, as opposed to Full Frontal, which I thought felt kind of gimmicky overall.

I love how K Street was able to insert itself into the political reality of its moment in a way that almost nothing else I've seen has (Tanner '88 being one key reference point). I think it follows very well something David Simon has said in reference to his creative approach overall as a writer, and in particular with respect to The Wire: "Fuck the average reader." K Street makes no apologies for its general incomprehensibility to those who don't know much about Washington politics. The willingness to not pander to a more general audience enabled it to examine the subject in a stunningly realistic and nuanced manner.

As for Bubble, it's one of very few recent films (Gummo being the other key one in my mind) that really tries to depict the lives of ordinary Americans - and for this they've both been relentlessly attacked as somehow condescending to their subjects, or exploitative, which couldn't be further from the truth. I only hope people will re-examine these films in coming years and stop projecting their own elitism onto what are actually tremendously humane representations of the 'underclass.'

I'll always stick up for The Limey.

I think Kafka is a severely underrated Soderbergh film. Great mood, and as willfully bizarre as anything Lynch might conjure. Even the black and-white-to-color sequence is handled beautifully where in other hands it would play as an obvious gimmick. It's definitely a film that deserves much better treatment on DVD, and certainly needs to be reassessed critically. Following on the heels of Sex Lies And Videotape I think it was such a left field turn, audiences and critics didn't quite know what to make of it.

such as Memento.

Me too; this is in no way second tier Soderbergh. It got mostly very strong reviews and I found it downright exhilarating. If anyone has yet to see it, the DVD is loaded with two commentary tracks and extras.

I see we have yet to mention "The Good German", and I think I know why. There was plenty of buzz before this movie opened which gave me time to read the excellent novel by Joseph Kanon. Soderbergh made big changes in plot and character and none of them worked. The Tobey Maguire character is extremely problematic in the movie because he was a combination of two different characters from the book.
And, although Soderbergh deserves credit for the IDEA of 40's film techniques and the use of black and white, I'm still trying to forgive him for causing Cate Blanchett to disappear into the black and white gloom.

And "K Street"? I did watch it when it aired on HBO some years ago. My best recollection is that it started out great with ideas coming fast and (so I understand), plenty of improvisation; but, lost steam toward the end with plot twists that negated what the series was really trying to show us.

I brought it up in the Neo-70's thread. I sort of thought I'd used up my quota for the week

It is problematic, but I liked that he made the attempt. Steven is one of those people I'll follow down most any alley, just because I trust that whatever they do will be, at worst, an interesting failure.

I remember watching K Street when it originally aired on HBO and really digging it but I can see how it might bore a lot of people. It was a fascinating experiment to be sure and it's shame that it did not continue. Your comparison to Tanner '88 is a good one and I remember thinking of it when I first watched K Street. I always wondered if the cameos by real-life politcos in Traffic was a warm-up for or inspired Soderbergh to do the same in K Street?

K Street is fucking brilliant, especially if you, like me, are a political and Soderbergh junkie. I was geeking out on that show's very knowing portrait of the beltway. It is pretty inside baseball so if you don't know Donna Brazille or Harold Ford, or any of the other myriad real-life cameos, or aren't familiar with the history behind Carville and Mary Matalin you won't get nearly as much out of it as I did. The single best "inside" scene is when Elliot Gould is crossing off the prospective names of the fictitious think tank he is setting up as a cover.
Speaking of Carville: the guy is awesome on screen. If you've ever seen Pennebacker's The War Room you know how charismatic he is in front of the camera. It was great to see him show up in in The Assassination of Jesse James

This is the wrong thread for this, but since you brought it up, there is absolutely nothing gimmicky about this or any part of Memento.

YES SIR! Whatever you say sir....

I'm more partial to King of the Hill myself. And in defense of it, Out of Sight.

Just re-watched Kafka for the first time in years due to the prompting of this thread. What was surprising about the experience of it was the fact that it pretty much matched my memory of the last time I saw it, some 15 years ago. As that space of time suggests, it's not my favorite Soderbergh and is, in fact, probably one of my least favorite. That my generally indifferent reaction to it remained unchanged really did take me by surprise, though, as I suspected that my attitude or perception of it would alter some in all that time.

Certainly my perception of it is richer now than it was then and I see it as sporadically more successful but my indifference remains. I'm not sure what to attribute this to. Irons is perfectly fine doing what it is I think Soderbergh probably wanted but maybe that's the problem; Soderbergh's own sense of style and his ability to make that match or complement his content had not matured--it's very much a transitional, experimental work. As such, it is inherently of interest and successful on occasion but I'm not sure what he's after here. Actually, Irons is kind of annoying doing his fidgety, ill at ease shtick. He exists purely as a kind of representation drawn from a superficial understanding of an artist. In this sense, it would be profitable perhaps to screen Kafka with Naked Lunch, a film I feel is infinitely superior at attempting a similar amalgamation of biographical detail and synthesis of pertinent thematic points. Viscerally, I kept thinking of the black & white segment of Poison as well.

What's troubling here is the vaguely indifferent or at least comfortably glib contents of the picture. I wonder how the script read and how much of the style was embellishment attributable primarily to Soderbergh. He did adapt Lem Dobbs' script for The Limey as well so, assumedly, Dobbs was happy enough with their collaboration on Kafka (I take it he was less satisfied on The Limey--the commentary track on that disc is one of the best ever as his apparently genuine antagonism slowly unsettles and finally seems to disorient the normally unflappable Soderbergh). Whatever the case, it's obvious Soderbergh wanted to leave behind the carefully rendered naturalism of sex, lies and demonstrate that he could and would be willing to branch out and explore other terrain. Kafka's expressionist tendencies are lived that's for sure and don't just feel like a stylistic affectation for their own sake. However, a lot of little touches do--i.e. the match cut between the body on the cart in the morgue and the cart with beaureaucratic documents being whisked through Kafka's workplace; the obvious suggestion is that both carts contain material which has mysterious origins and destinations and whose ultimate meaning is impenetrable if not altogether unassured. Still, that feels slight and more or less designed to just prop up the idea that Kafka's work emanated from a very real environment. Where the movie is most successful is where it's most elusive; in the idea that Kafka has to be convinced to act, that he's right to be paranoid after all, that the acceptance of this realization is not just some quirk or tick that afflicts him but has to be hard won and surrendered to after much misgiving. That it functions as a meta-textual justification is an added bonus. I like that stuff a lot but Soderbergh's own tricked up inventions keep distracting him and getting in our way. They subvert the accomplishments of the richer parts of the film.

The Gilliam-esque finale has an appropriate harsh dissonance after the Fritz Lang first hour and maybe that's what it needs to be as it is a "fantasy" after all; yet there gets to be a glut of self-referentiality that piles up and causes us to wonder how seriously the larger themes can be taken and how deep they are allowed to go. I mean, I don't know if the anarchist subplot is meant to be a tip of the hat to Conrad but I was irritated with it because it seems content to exist as an end unto itself or simply an in-joke, fairly conventional plot device; the depths of Kafka's angst are seldom plumbed. The ending is strong with its implications of Kafka's developing social conscience, but it's ultimately too strong, too focused, for the welter of self-satisfied references and standard issue plot mechanics that came before.

Finally got around to watching King of the Hill, which is a bit of a peculiar movie. It's understandable why the film didn't make any money, as how do you even market it? I could never quite decide if it was a kid's movie for adults or an adult movie for kids, though one particular scene of graphic violence seems to discount a child audience entirely. Despite an overbearing and too-frequent score and the at-times tryingly episodic nature of the film, King of the Hill succeeds on the strength of Jesse Bradford's terrific lead performance (surely one of the best child actors I've ever seen) and Soderbergh's flair for framing. Take this visual joke, more or less lifted from Godard:



And there's enough canted angles to suggest that maybe Soderbergh picked up a few pointers from the film he beat at Cannes.

The film is often too precocious, but there are so many great moments that it easily compensates, such as an awkward visit to a neighbor that ends with an epileptic seizure or the lead character's shame in getting asked out for dinner by the popular girl in school (played by Katherine Heigl, cultivating her bitchiness at an early age), only to discover it wasn't for a date but because she thought he might be hungry. Ultimately the film is masterful in refusing to let the main character be pitied, and this allows Soderbergh to generally avoid turning the material into a treacly period piece, though again, it often straddles the line.

I only recently got round to watching his "B-sides" (thanks to this forum), and by now I've become somewhat of a Soderbergh-apologist as well.

A highly variable bunch (but even Full Frontal I found quite enjoyable), but Bubble is one my favorites so far. Low-budget (or no budget) that really touched a nerve. Or perhaps I just love the fact that Soderbergh just goes out and makes these kind of films. And I sure love his positively infectious attitude about film in general. Quite stimulating.


I definitely had a good time with that commentary track. Soderbergh's bickering with Lem Dobbs is hilarious, especially when Soderbergh tries to explain to Dobbs that directing is a completely different thing than writing. When Dobbs accuses him of butchering large parts of his original script, or largely abandoning the script while shooting (naturally, quite a normal procedure with most films), Soderbergh almost desperately exclaims: "When are you gonna make your first feature?"

At least Soderbergh is always willing to take a critical note to his own work and assess his films in an open fashion, as a kind of continuous learning process. Much more insightful than the usual self-congratulatory patting on the back with most other Hollywood-directors.

Could Che end up being the biggest Soderbergh b-side of all time?

To clarify, what are the Soderbergh A-Sides? Traffic, sex, lies and videotape, Erin Brockovich, Ocean's 11/12/13 are the obvious one that seem to have a wider audience than, say, Kafka or Schizopolis. What about: Out of Sight or Solaris? Is it a differentiation between "big" films and "small" films?

It just seems like an interesting distinction to make.

The films already discussed are all B-sides. I would say Out of Sight is a definite A because it's popular among a broader audience (broader than us SS apologists), well-known to the movie-conscious public at large, did reasonable well at the box-office, and put SS back on the map for good. Solaris is a little tougher to place. Maybe B+.

So apparently, at one point Soderbergh was approached to a direct a Bond film, but when he wanted full creative control the studio balked. I would've loved to see what Soderbergh would've come up with.

I agree Out of Sight is a definite A-side—it's basically the film that revived his career after many films that didn't connect with mainstream audiences. B+ sounds about right for Solaris—it was a big production, but didn't really feel mainstream or find mainstream success.

"The Girlfriend Experience," which Soderbergh just sneak-premiered at Sundance, is definitely a B-side. It contains some of the same timeline distortion as "The Limey," although I'd maintain that "The Limey is a much more interesting film. He conducts some interesting studies in form and photography, though—he used the RED in natural lighting, and cast mostly non-actors, who improvised their dialogue.

The Limey may be a small film, but it ain't no b-side. It's a tightly written lean and mean crime thriller with A-list talent acting from the script.

Then again, I may be a little biased, as this is one of my favorite Soderbergh movies ever!

I was just looking around at prices for K Street and there's quite a few people selling new copies for less than $6 on Half (It lists for $25 and isn't available cheaper than just under twenty at any online retailer). I blind bought a copy and thought others might want a heads-up

You won't be disappointed, K Street is some of the best stuff SS has done in my opinion.
I guess we will be seeing some of the same sort of incorporation of very current events into the hooker movie too.