“Friendly
Fire” or How One of Independent Film’s Most Beloved Filmmakers Shot
Us in the Right Foot to Help Us Appreciate Our Left.
A Review/Ponderance of Full Frontal by Mike Meyer
Okay, you want assumptions. You got ‘em in spades in this review,
partner. I don’t know what Soderbergh’s ultimate intent was
with his film Full Frontal, but if it leads to the ends I describe here, I say
screw intent. The ends do justify the means. Please bear with me,
as this is more of an essay than a review. My first assumption is that
you all have read other reviews of Full Frontal so I don’t have to retread
old ground.
First of all, let me be the first to raise a mighty spiked bat to the reviewer’s
dead horse, Full Frontal. It is absolutely atrocious and reps both factions,
mainstream and independent, agree. It’s ill conceived and inconsistent
and its so-called breakthrough digital photography looks like third generation
video of the world through a urine filter. The offbeat script wasn’t
too bad, but Soderbergh’s concept dissolved any remnants of it.
This film ups your average run-of –the-mill bad picture because this film
was supposed to be such a breakthrough in digital filmmaking and in the end,
like the NAACP sponsoring a minstrel show, it not only shocked us, but also
betrayed a sacred trust.
But Mike, films can be terrible despite everyone’s good intentions.
With most, yes. With this one, absolutely not. There was too much
talent and competence involved with this film to have it figuratively stomp
on the nuts of every person who trusted Soderbergh and what we HOPED he was
trying to accomplish. And yes, with the degree of awful that this movie
displays, it couldn’t just be an accident. There HAD to have been
intent to betray people. But for what reason? That’s what
I hope to figure out.
So, in order to get to the bottom of things, let’s talk about the culprit,
shall we? Steven Soderbergh. He lives every filmmaker’s dream.
He makes stylized Hollywood films that are incredible to help fund smaller independent
films, which are also incredible. In the end, he enjoys the Hollywood
success and the reverence of a respected artist. So why would he foist
this on an unwitting public, the public that made him the ideal filmmaker?
Any purveyor of E! Network knows that success is a catalyst for personal unhinging
in Hollywood. Maybe, like Jimi Hendrix and his penchant for smashing up
new cars, he made this film as a way to showcase his reign. As in “Look,
I shat this out and a day and you went to see it because it has my name on it.
I own you puppets! MWAHAHAHAHA!” That’s theory #1.
Theory #2 is very similar in that fame had sutured Soderbergh into utter delusion,
making him feel comfortable crawling far, far up his ass to see if he could
trade in on some of his fame to become the next Goddard or other highly renown
art filmmaker. Of course, his Hollywood connections wouldn’t dare
say anything to this “artist”, this creative magnate who can nail
two Oscar nominations in the same category, about his motives. These people
may feel that because they don’t get it, it’s not because Soderbergh
has gone Brian Wilson on them, but because they themselves are small-minded
and don’t understand. And thus the ass-kissing and lip-biting snowballs
this film into one of the biggest self-delusions ever put on screen. Theory
#3, he’s in league with the terrorists, because if I say that I get a
kickback from the government. Personally, I’m more convinced of
#2 as it seems the most viable and it isn’t the first time it’s
happened. But what if it wasn’t. What if Soderbergh’s
the brain of the millennium and the real truth lies in Theory #4. Theory
#4 needs backstory.
Digital filmmaking has been one of the industry’s biggest buzz topics
since the Éclair NPR, sync sound, and film prints that don’t explode
after 30 years. It’s made filmmaking easier, cheaper, and some would
say worse. I’m not talking editing, because in the end, if you’re
talking film, you’re still going through this whole digital process so
that you end up with a list to give someone so they can cut your negative.
I’m talking digital videography. Some say it will revolutionize
filmmaking. Some say it will cheapen it and make it less special.
Whatever school you subscribe to, you have to admit that it creates a bit of
a Jurassic Park-esque dilemma. Yes it is easier and cheaper and can feasibly
generate images comparable to film. But should we go this route?
Personally, I think HD or DV is a viable substitute in some ways. If Michael
Moore shot DV and did it right, his films can be as powerful without the pixilated
blocky look of The Big One. I think Harmony Korrine’s films would
lose their edge if it didn’t have that nasty pixilated look. But
if Scorcese said, “You know, I think I’ll hire Robert Richardson
(God’s own personal on-call DP) to shoot a World War I epic on DV or HD,”
I’d stand up and throw china plates. Film naturally does what video
is still trying to accomplish visually. Whether it ever will or not, pixels
don’t capture light and shadow the way grain does, at least not yet.
I think HD is great…for Fox sitcoms. I think DV is great….for
dad’s birthday video and teaching new filmmakers how to frame and get
coverage. But for professional films that rely on nuanced visuals, unless
there’s some specific concept involved, neither format has come anywhere
near where it should. HD, despite its better qualities, doesn’t
have the range that different film stocks have and looks so goddamn amber it
looks like a Michael Bey home movie. And yes, I know Attack of the Clones
looked alright, but after all the alterations to the camera and digital compositing
and retouching, you really haven’t saved any money and you’re left
with something that still isn’t as good as film. DV is fine and
dandy for beginners, but most don’t know that even if you do it right
by getting your XL-1 souped-up with film camera lenses, shooting on PAL or the
now available 24p DV to prevent ghosting, and getting a decent transfer overseas,
you’re STILL going to lose at least 40% of your color, completely blow
out anything slightly overexposed, and end up with that blocky internet video
look that will make you squirm once transferred to film. And yes, you
could project the pure digital image, but you’ll have years to wait before
even the high-end digital material reaches theaters nationwide. Not to
mention, no one’s going to pay to see a damn video in a theater unless
it’s part of a decent concept.
So, back to Full Frontal. Maybe Soderbergh made this film as a Moses-type
prophecy, breaking down the stone tablets of traditional filmmaking and forcing
us to drink it dissolved in water. This is Theory #4. Maybe he’s
saying, “Look people. You are WAY too impressed with this second-rate
bullshit! It’s the Sam’s Choice of filmmaking. You need
to stop talking to those Canon reps and keep shooting on 35mm or Super 16 until
they really have something to show.” That’s ultimately
what I hope the man’s intent is. And if not, it doesn’t matter
for me at least. It re-energized my faith in film as a medium and hopefully,
it helped yours too, especially if you’re a newbe filmmaker, frustrated
with how ungodly complicated and expensive shooting on film is. I hope
this film illustrates that it’s worth it. In fact, the juxtaposition
of 35mm and DV has the audience praying for the clean 35mm image. So,
that been said, I don’t know really what Soderbergh was thinking.
I just hope whatever it was, he said what he needed to say or got it out of
his system and that Solaris and all of his remaining films have the artistic
and entertaining qualities of Ocean’s 11, Out of Sight, The Limey, Traffic,
and Kafka had. Thank you and Excelsior.
NOTE: Mike Meyer has never seen Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Schizopolis,
or Day for Night; the film Soderbergh was supposedly paying homage to in Full
Frontal. But he knows what he likes and knows a thing or two about shooting
a film, so his opinion is beyond valid and quite frankly beyond contention.
And yes, Mike wrote the preceding two sentences as well, which he also feels
are ingenius and worthy of lavish international praise from critics and audiences
alike.
respond to mike@filmbrats.com