Writer and critic Alice Tynan joins the Hyphenates to debate the films of August 2012, question how much your mood influences your enjoyment of a film, and parse the filmography of the one and only Steven Soderbergh.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS
At time of recording, Soderbergh's most recent film was Magic Mike. To hear us discuss Side Effects, listen to the show from February 2013. To hear us discuss Behind the Candelabra, listen to the show from July 2013. To hear us discuss Logan Lucky, listen to the show from August 2017. To hear us discuss Unsane, listen to the show from April 2018.
If you want to watch Soderbergh’s first film, Winston, it can be viewed by clicking here. He also directed an experimental short film in 2006 (which we didn’t know about at time of recording!) called Building No. 7 which is available to view here.
DID YOU KNOW? Steven Soderbergh’s cinematography and editing pseudonyms, ‘Peter Andrews’ and ‘Mary Ann Bernard’, derive from his parents: His father is Peter Andrew Soderbergh and his mother Mary Ann, whose maiden name was Bernard.
you mention something about THE LAST TIME I SAW MICHAEL GREGG and make a reference implying it’s ‘not quite there’ or ‘a real movie’ or something along those lines…which frankly seems stupid to say. Steven Soderbergh NEVER has represented this was a FILM or a MOVIE it was something done for kicks with the cast during down time. It was never meant to be viewed by outsiders..the fact that you were ‘allowed’ to see it is just part of the continuing effort that people from the cast have tried to get it somehow released to benefit their careers (yes, RHYS…not hard to figure out it was you) just because a film director shoots something and cuts it together doesn’t make it a FILM..sometimes shit is just a home movie..which was the intent.
Not sure what you mean, there Sam — we don’t say anything like that. Could you quote the bits that are concerning you?
The thrust of the review is basically the opposite of what you’ve suggested; that even when Soderbergh shoots a home movie-esque improvised feature in his spare time, it still ends up being fantastic.
Just saw this SAM. And as I've been accused of such a number of heinous crimes, I thought I might set you straight on a few things. The confidence of your opinion is so strong and yet so wrong. The film was indeed made for fun (amongst other reasons), but it was not made for â€œinsidersâ€ only. Steven took it seriously, shooting some extra footage whilst in Ireland, as well as cutting it nightly whilst shooting another film (Haywire) during the day. He added the soundtrack etc etc. His original plan was for the film to just be uploaded online and see what happened to it. A kind of viral experiment. Talk of viral videos and the future of cinema were hot topics at the time. Then, hearing of the film, the STC (Sydney Theatre Company) wanted a copy of it, and then subsequently banned it, claiming the film was made â€œon their dimeâ€, therefore they owned it. Personally, I thought that was quite petty minded SAM. So I'm sorry to contradict you SAM, Steven Soderbergh doesn't tend to just shoot something and cut it together. It's not â€œjust a home movieâ€, and it was never intended to be one, despite the spin you've obviously read via the STC's PR department. As to whether or not I â€œallowedâ€ someone to see the film, you state my name like it's an accusation, and that actor's wanting their work to be seen is somehow grubby. Some actor's need to work SAM, something I'm sure you find horrifying. So you open your comment telling HIFH they've said something stupid. I'm afraid SAM that's what you yourself have done.
Unbelievably jealous you got to see Michael Gregg… Soderbergh is my favourite director, thanks for a great discussion of his work!