In Reply to: 'Solaris' posted by ldvictory on July 30, 2003 at 09:27:53:
The sad thing about Soderbergh is that he began with a pretty interesting independant film, then got taken in by Hollywood, which always goes out of its way to be accomodating with up and comers whilst slipping soporifics into their drinks, gelding and eviscerating them in their sleep so that everything that they do subsequently has that happy, glossy look we all know and love. Soderbergh is now safe in the same way Elvis got safe through Ricky Nelson, the Beatles got safe through the Monkeys (and Muzak!). You know, it's like seeing an ad on the back of a cereal box inviting you to "Join the Hip Hop life style!", "Become a Gangsa!", etc. Another example is Christopher Nolan. He was going in a pretty interesting direction with 'Following' and 'Memento'. Then we get his first comercial feature and what is it? Yes, a remake of a nice safe 'art film', 'Insomnia'. There are countless examples. Very few people can work inside this system and come up with anything genuine. It pretty much killed Sam Pekinpah. Kubrick had to move to England. And Welles ... Yes, Welles.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: 'Solaris' - ldvictory 14:27:42 07/30/03 (10)
- OK, now that we've gotten you broken in gently... - Victor Khomenko 16:45:15 07/30/03 (9)
- Re: OK, now that we've gotten you broken in gently... - ldvictory 17:00:48 07/30/03 (8)
- Re: OK, now that we've gotten you broken in gently... - Victor Khomenko 17:20:26 07/30/03 (7)
- Re: remakes - Mick Jones 15:13:59 07/31/03 (2)
- Very true! - Audiophilander 17:25:23 07/31/03 (1)
- Re: Very true! - ldvictory 17:50:10 07/31/03 (0)
- Re: OK, now that we've gotten you broken in gently... - ldvictory 17:48:58 07/30/03 (3)
- Both are significant works - Victor Khomenko 18:10:28 07/30/03 (2)
- Re: Both are significant works - ldvictory 19:50:22 07/30/03 (1)
- You are right - subs... - Victor Khomenko 05:32:03 07/31/03 (0)