|
Bubble
Jan 8, 2006 0:05:09 GMT -5
Post by mj on Jan 8, 2006 0:05:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Bubble
Jan 27, 2006 13:07:08 GMT -5
Post by amanda on Jan 27, 2006 13:07:08 GMT -5
Bubble opens in selected theaters today (oddly enough, it will be showing this weekend and two nights next week in Tulsa at the Circle Cinema on Lewis) and comes out on DVD Tuesday, January 31.
The cast consists entirely of non-actors that Soderbergh plucked from the town in which he shot the film. Murder mystery. Love triangles. Doll factories. Ohio. Sounds promising. You guys should check it out.
|
|
|
Bubble
Feb 22, 2006 17:45:27 GMT -5
Post by Thanin on Feb 22, 2006 17:45:27 GMT -5
I just got through watching this movie and I liked it a lot. I'm curious about what others thought, if anyone else saw it.
|
|
|
Bubble
Feb 22, 2006 18:25:19 GMT -5
Post by Guest Justin on Feb 22, 2006 18:25:19 GMT -5
I guess I liked it well enough, but I was still a little disappointed. I know I'm playing into Woody Allen's hand by saying this, but it was too short to be as mediocre as it was. For instance, I wish it hadn't focused on routine monotony at the expense of dialog. The humdrum atmosphere of the small town 'bubble' was as ubiquitous as the desert in Lawrence of Arabia. We weren't going to miss it, so not focusing on it so much wouldn't have been all that bad. This would have gotten rid of all the wordless car rides, factory moments, street scenes, etc., and opened the doors up to more character development. And, no, not all character development needs to be dialog-driven, such as the case of the male lead, but I'd still have appreciated just more chatter in general. Either way, it was too short. I felt no particular connection to the character who had the baby girl, and it was a bit hard to imagine that most of the other characters did, either. Which, in turn, made the plot twist feel a little bit forced. What I did like about this movie is that it shows that you don't need millions of dollars for your casting budget in order to get naturalistic performances. Just go natural!
|
|
|
Bubble
Feb 22, 2006 19:32:36 GMT -5
Post by Thanin on Feb 22, 2006 19:32:36 GMT -5
WARNING: SPOILERS IN THIS POST
Well I think I might have to disagree. I do agree that there was a lack of dialog, but this played out to me as realistic for that small town mindset. Basically I know people who interact exactly like this (as you do too I'm sure). In this case I think silence and the going-through-the-motions made for a stark, bleak feel that most people who live like that experience. It pervades their life, overwhelming them. I thought that we got to know everything about Rose (the girl with the daughter) through what little history she gave. When she talked about being a nurses aide in a nursing home I was like, 'I've know about 20 yous in my life'. She acted and talked like so many CNAs I've ever known. And I agree that the other characters didn't make much of a connection with Rose, but I don't think we were supposed to think otherwise. Everyone acted so blasé when she died and that felt about right for the way the movie played out.
The one area I agree with you on is that it did feel too short, but that didn't disappoint me. Basically I felt this was a very successful Minimalist (that term doesn't completely apply here, but I think it gets the point across) movie. If there had been any more talk I don't think I would have believed these characters.
|
|
|
Bubble
Feb 23, 2006 17:02:42 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Feb 23, 2006 17:02:42 GMT -5
What was the plot twist?
|
|
|
Bubble
May 1, 2006 11:56:04 GMT -5
Post by chris on May 1, 2006 11:56:04 GMT -5
I had mixed feelings about the film, but it did inspire a lot of thought among some of us filmmakers out east. Here's part of the text of an e-mail I sent my "Trapped by the Mormons" collaborator, Ian (who loved "Bubble"):
"First off, I finally got around to seeing “Bubble” a week or so ago. The primary emotion that I had at the end of the film was a desire to see that fat murderess fry for being so goddamned annoying. Beyond that, though, I thought it was a fascinating, well-done little flick. The thing that was going through my mind throughout was “there’s no reason I couldn’t have shot this,” and it’s true – part of the point of Soderbergh’s experiment was to go bare-bones and do it like a true indie. And there is nothing, short of securing a factory (which a small-town filmmaker could easily do) that he did that most other able filmmakers couldn’t do. Which just makes it all the more exciting and inspirational.
That said… the only reason we saw this movie is because it was made by Mr. Steven Soderbergh. Had this been made by any other filmmaker, however good you think it might have been, it probably wouldn’t have gotten far past the film festival circuit, in part because of its style, in part because of its small-town subject matter. Sad but true.
So what does this mean for us? Well, just a reminder that with a camera or two, time and a little bit of knowhow, there’s no reason we couldn’t make something like “Bubble.” I was thinking about the expenses for “Trapped” the other day, and I couldn’t for the life of me remember what the hell we spent it all on. Transportation? Lodging? Food? We spent some on equipment, but not much, and that could have been avoided had I planned a little better. What the hell did we buy anyway??? Anyway, the point is, there were a lot of factors in “Trapped” that required some money (makeup, clothes, special props) and those expenses could be minimized and spread out over time if, say, we were to shoot something like “Bubble.”
Let’s just imagine for a minute that we were going to shoot “Bubble.” That probably took Soderbergh three or four weeks of continuous shooting on location. Now, being the working stiffs we are, we don’t have three or four continuous weeks. But, there’s nothing saying we couldn’t spread that time out over a series of non-consecutive weekends… hell, I’ve imagined doing movies over the course of a year or more. It can be done, and not just by cramming everything into the span of a couple of months or something. In some ways, it makes it that much more easier to spread it out over time – there are no deadlines, no rushing, no desperately trying to cram things into a given day or whatever. You mentioned the headaches of producing a film, and I feel that pain – however, those woes would be diminished by such a shooting model."
|
|
|
Bubble
May 1, 2006 17:15:03 GMT -5
Post by Guest Justin on May 1, 2006 17:15:03 GMT -5
Stretching principal photography over a year or more is how the Lips crew has been able to make "Christmas on Mars." They may be done or close to being done now, but I think they started some time ago--like, years ago. They built all the sets, wrote the script, acted, directed, did the music (obviously), and fronted all the cash themselves. Plus, their locations consist of Wayne's backyard and buildings in and around the OKC metro. Actually, has anybody heard any news on their project? IS it done?!?!
|
|
|
Bubble
May 1, 2006 20:33:26 GMT -5
Post by Thanin on May 1, 2006 20:33:26 GMT -5
The Lips Crew.. isn't that a lesbian porn production company? I didn't know they made their own music for the videos though... and why is that obvious?
|
|
|
Bubble
May 2, 2006 9:54:18 GMT -5
Post by chris on May 2, 2006 9:54:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Bubble
May 2, 2006 17:22:13 GMT -5
Post by Guest Justin on May 2, 2006 17:22:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Bubble
May 4, 2006 23:16:24 GMT -5
Post by ryan on May 4, 2006 23:16:24 GMT -5
Y'know, the movie "Christmas on Mars" doesn't really look that good, but I'm excited about it just because of what it represents -- a huge left-field idea made into an independent feature for little cash by a psychedelic rock band that also scored the soundtrack. How many other films can you say that about? Maybe "The Wall," but then, that wasn't really an independent film, was it?
I'm also excited about the way the Lips have talked about showing the film. In some interview I read somewhere, Wayne said the band wants to tour around with the film, showing it in concert-hall type venues and encouraging the audience to drink and smoke and "have a good time" during the showing of the film. It sounds like they're trying to re-create the classic "midnight movie" experience.
|
|
|
Bubble
May 5, 2006 12:39:17 GMT -5
Post by chris on May 5, 2006 12:39:17 GMT -5
Quite cool -- sounds kinda "Rocky Horror"ish. I'd go see that noise.
However, that has to be the most uninformative trailer I've ever seen in my life.
|
|